Posts by Kalessin
|
1)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Work Availability v2 (June 9)
(Message 24785)
Posted 10 Jun 2009 by  Kalessin
Post: Great Travis 100% load on all three GPUs! |
|
2)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Compute Errors
(Message 24165)
Posted 4 Jun 2009 by Kalessin
Post: Ok just had a closer look. The stillstand here is caused by the "3s" but if everything stood still, the "1s" and "2s" do need a complete restart of boinc to get going again. |
|
3)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Compute Errors
(Message 24161)
Posted 4 Jun 2009 by Kalessin
Post: At the moment i have only 2s running. 1s and 3s are producing complete stillstand on both of my GPUs. ok 1s start working again, took them only a while to recover after i terminated the 3s. Grrrr. |
|
4)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Crunchoff MW vs SETI
(Message 14116)
Posted 6 Mar 2009 by Kalessin
Post: In the moment: MW 12,703 Seti 9,566 (added all pending) Ratio 1.328 for MW update: today we have MW 24,564 Seti 18,149 (added all pending) Ratio 1.353 for MW ratio quite stable. |
|
5)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
The Great Crunchoff Grandstand
(Message 13916)
Posted 4 Mar 2009 by Kalessin
Post: Ok, thanks. Now I understand what had been my error. Yeah, the 1.3 and the 0.8 are corresponding. |
|
6)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
The Great Crunchoff Grandstand
(Message 13907)
Posted 4 Mar 2009 by Kalessin
Post:
Looking at this chart I read MW giving about 1.625 times what seti is giving. 1.3 divided through 0.8. |
|
7)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Crunchoff MW vs SETI
(Message 13410)
Posted 28 Feb 2009 by Kalessin
Post: Due to what I mentioned about BOINC 3.x and 4.x clients in the mix, this is a flawed approach for SETI as the system is not guaranteed to be granted the full amount claimed. But every cruncher for Seti will experience this, so in the long or medium range this does not involve in the comparism between the two projects. In the moment: MW 12,703 Seti 9,566 (added all pending) Ratio 1.328 for MW Not much change since the last value 1.344 Seems the slowing ratio drop is due to the slower reporting of the seti cruncher leveling out over time. |
|
8)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Crunchoff MW vs SETI
(Message 12875)
Posted 25 Feb 2009 by Kalessin
Post: Momentary standing: 6118 MW against 4551,54 Seti (added all pending) Ratio decreased from 1.45 to 1.34 but still MW in front. |
|
9)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Crunchoff MW vs SETI
(Message 12672)
Posted 24 Feb 2009 by Kalessin
Post: giving all setis the full grant its at 1716 against 2489 at MW, but certainly I don't know how many seti wus are ready but not reported. So the first 11,5 hours seem to be going to MW. Very fine test Kevin, its really great that you are doing it. So we will get clear numbers. I know you don't like to compare opt. appl. but couldn't you do them too, afterwards? To get clear data for that, too. |
|
10)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
The Great Crunchoff Grandstand
(Message 12594)
Posted 23 Feb 2009 by Kalessin
Post: That's why we're using reported CPCS... I'm not sure, but would assume its something like credits per core second!? |
|
11)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Heart of Gold
(Message 11778)
Posted 20 Feb 2009 by Kalessin
Post: Lol Yeah, I love the heart of gold, but you forgot to mention that anyone on board has to talk to Marvin. And this is really describing the Situation at MW. |
|
12)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
And what if...?
(Message 11559)
Posted 19 Feb 2009 by Kalessin
Post: The users keep going up and the wu's 150k+ now, but when many users realize there is no benifit to run this for more credits it'll go down. Oh Logan, don't be afraid of your bad English; there are things that are worse... Bad temper, bad logic, being sulky... Have you ever read clusters posts regarding crediting policy? And he is one of the most active optimizers and one of those sharing their appl. |
|
13)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Project down
(Message 9681)
Posted 4 Feb 2009 by Kalessin
Post: Is this still happening? It looks like it has been running the export on the stats info. The stats at boincstats.com were updated this evening, so there should have been an export. |
|
14)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
credit comparison to other projects
(Message 9628)
Posted 3 Feb 2009 by Kalessin
Post: Maybe I should have added that the current credit multiplier at SETI is 2.77 credits/TFlop. So even when doubling it for double precision, we are looking at ~7 credits for the single stream WUs and ~10.5 credits for the dual stream WUs. What does this make the wu's worth. More/less than they are? I'm thinking more right? Since they are at a little above 10 and around 16 on my fast Quad, it would be definetly less! And that would be what would make MW be comparable to other projects. And furthermore the creditlimit would really need to be removed. It has truly become obsolete very soon after it was introduced, since there were boinc versions out there that simulated being so many PCs that their output was never reduced. |
|
15)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Jan 24 credit change complaints/comments here
(Message 9075)
Posted 25 Jan 2009 by Kalessin
Post: And, to the comparation, in SETI, with AKV8 SSSE3 opti app I can get more than 35 - 40 credits/hour/core with an Q6600. (for to have an easy point of reference) And with the same sse3 at milkyway you'll receive about 100! So I would say the credits need to be halved another time! And they would still be above the seti-level. |
|
16)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Jan 24 credit change complaints/comments here
(Message 9043)
Posted 25 Jan 2009 by Kalessin
Post: My question is why this insane push to lower credit awards. Perhaps it is not that MilkyWay is too high, but the other projects are too low ... As SaH increased the speed of the applications they kept reducing the award per hour ... Seems to be a question of relativity. Is one project too high, or are 54 projects too low? You probably assume the 54 to adjust their credits? |
|
17)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Jan 24 credit change complaints/comments here
(Message 9036)
Posted 25 Jan 2009 by Kalessin
Post: You guys here complaining about MWs Credit reduction seem to be a little crazy (mildly put). Soon there'll be an opt. appl., which will calculate the WU for windows in less than 6 Minutes again. Then the credits are again at 35s/cr on my q6600 which will be the highest credit ratio in whole Boinc. No opt. appl. at seti can compete with this. |
|
18)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Vote for the MilkyWay favicon!
(Message 8686)
Posted 19 Jan 2009 by Kalessin
Post: I'd like the #9 |
|
19)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
No further Support for Milkyway at this time!
(Message 6250)
Posted 17 Nov 2008 by Kalessin
Post: Well I'm glad you meant some different babble and appreciate you voiced it. But regarding the credit limit's sense I think your wrong. Milksop somewhere posted two workarounds. And they are being used. So this even furthers the unbalance, as the way to manipulate the client is only usable by very few. the other way is easier but way less effective. So this limit didn't at all hit its target. Besides that I think it was wrong to introduce this limit because crunch3r actually produced that lot more of science. If the project didn't want it they should have prohibited the use of his appl. That would have been very understandable, as he was not prepared to share it with all other crunchers. But as long as they wanted to keep him in they should have paid the full price. |
|
20)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
@MW staff: credit limit and credit level
(Message 6215)
Posted 16 Nov 2008 by Kalessin
Post: Hi Cruncher, did you ever come to think about that your insults wouldn't get any jota better because someone else did do a similar mistake anywhen? And besides that: I was nearly the first who heavily criticized the picture with the faces of the most famous dictators. So don't try to blandish your infamous comparisms. Of another caricature I don't know of. And I don't exactly know which team you mean. I think it was someone fron banned for life but no former member of SG. And I couldn't leave Banned for Life anymore because my account was deleted. So try your cheap excuses elsewhere. And before I discuss such aspects with you, you should massively step up your level of moral integrity . |
Next 20
©2024 Astroinformatics Group