Welcome to MilkyWay@home

Posts by Floyd

1) Message boards : News : x86_64 linux nbody application added (Message 41867)
Posted 1 Sep 2010 by Profile Floyd
"No one could be bothered to put the 'tests' under the option so users could opt out if they want."

I must say, I am amazed..

Even Microsoft (who is not known for their personal service) allows users to "opt out" of their "software improvement" and "quality feedback" programs. And if one really thinks about it, the default should be "opt out".

I can't help but be amazed by the cooperative computing end users (the universities) who will swear that it's a great resource (saving hundreds of thousands in super computing time) but won't take reasonable precautions in preserving and utilizing the resource that users generously provide.

Thus far, I've seen a simple hard drive array failure turn into a 2 or 3 week issue, where users couldn't donate time if they wanted to. As a former LAN Man, I did reasonable hardware health checks and maintained known working spares, to include a RIAD 5 controller because one doesn't have a "hard drive" (array) without one.

In any case;
I believe there are probably several thousand peers, like myself, who have extra PC's with decent performance laying around. Like me, even in this rough economy, they're willing to connect them to the Net and pay the utility company to run them flat out (which results in light bulb like power consumption).
The net result?
The scientific community gets a break on super computing costs and the peer provider gets to "feel good" for donating something.

On the other hand;
Finding one of my machines powered on, but doing nothing because it's constantly crashing is unsat. Why? Time is wasted, power is wasted, and it's completely avoidable.

I don't like to complain without offering a solution so;

Drawing from the LAN Man days, where I set up small but complete networks for testing purposes, I think another project should be considered to segregate development efforts from the mainstream. Call it "Milkway-Dev@home", or something like that, and develop software in that domain. Again, there would probably be thousands who would support it, and they'll expect to be dealing with issues. On the other hand, the rest of us won't be irritated by being forced to reboot our machines all the time.

Just a thought.

"By definition, it is impossible to plan for the unexpected."
2) Message boards : News : x86_64 linux nbody application added (Message 41812)
Posted 29 Aug 2010 by Profile Floyd
From my prospective, the type of processor is not the point. I'm donating time on a computer that I don't use. Is that free? No. Even if I never used that particular computer again, the cost is about the equivalent of running a 75 to 100 watt light bulb 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. So, with 3 machines crunching, over the course of a year (about 250 watts non-stop at an estimate), there's a real tangible cost to me.

The point I'm getting at is, pushing Alpha and pre-Alpha software out to donors of CPU time without giving them a choice in the matter is, well, "uncool" at best. I think the word "arrogant" is a better fit, since there are several (potentially thousands) of donors who are willing to download and test pre-Alpha code and provide feed back for refinement.

In any case, these continuous errors and crashes, over the course of a week or so, are a waste of the machines CPU time. And while I'm sure that no one will care either way, if this irritation doesn't stop soon, I guess I'll direct my excess Computing resources 100% to Einstein@home and call it done. (Einstein@home seems to value their donors, taking a conservative approach.)

For the sake of a year relationship (thus far), I'll give it another week.
3) Message boards : News : x86_64 linux nbody application added (Message 41731)
Posted 24 Aug 2010 by Profile Floyd
Is it possible to "Opt Out" on the nbody simulation / application? I have a 32 bit Intel machine is that is producing constant computation errors, along with Windows application errors. (As an FYI: I have two AMD machines that seem to be working with nbody without problems.)

I thought this would be fixed by now but, apparently, that's not the case.
4) Message boards : MilkyWay@home Science : New "MilkyWay executeables" looking for network access? (Message 34652)
Posted 18 Dec 2009 by Profile Floyd
While it may be legitimate, I still don't understand the necessity of what the milkway 0.19 executable is trying to do. I can understand why it would contact the IP address of the remote server and I understand the need for a DNS lookup, of the remote servers name, to get the IP address.

(All of the above should go to the default gateway address, my router, which is set correctly on the machine in question.)

What I don't understand is, why would milkway 0.19 ~.exe try to contact hosts on my local LAN? There's no reason for local communication.

What that in mind (that local comm's is not needed), I've prohibited the milkway 0.19 executable from communicating on the local LAN. Interestingly, there's no difference in the work that's being done for milkyway@home.

I guess what I'm trying to find out is;

- Is this the normal behavior of the milkway 0.19?
If it is (while I would still like to know why), enough has been said.
- If this is NOT normal behavior, I need to see if the executable has been compromised. (With a worm or a virus.)

5) Message boards : MilkyWay@home Science : New "MilkyWay executeables" looking for network access? (Message 34561)
Posted 15 Dec 2009 by Profile Floyd
My firewall is reporting that the executable, milkway_0.19_windows_intelx86.exe, is trying to access <various IP addresses of> hosts on my LAN.

Is this normal? (Unless I missed something...) Until recently, the client (boinc.exe) and manager (boincmrg.exe) where the only BOINC related executables that needed network access.

Did something change?

Here's the complete path to the file in question:

6) Message boards : MilkyWay@home Science : What's the story? (Message 33295)
Posted 15 Nov 2009 by Profile Floyd
There was a problem with the server(s) five days ago (10 Nov) and the message was, "We're ordering new hard drives". (Along these lines, it should be noted that most PC supply providers get it "out the door" quickly.)

In any case, here we are on the 15th, it appears that nothing is fixed, and there's nothing in the way of a progress / status report on the Milkyway@home web page.

If BOINC is the fantastic super computing resource alternative, as has been claimed by all projects using it, why is it that the Milkyway@home project seems so "disinterested"?

I would suggest regular status reports, every two or three days, before PC time donors begin to leave in-mass.


©2024 Astroinformatics Group