Posts by [BAT] tutta55
|
1)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
WU Credits
(Message 4883)
Posted 21 Aug 2008 by  [BAT] tutta55
Post: Hey I'm late to this talk-fest but where's the optimized application so everyone can use it? Otherwise ban it. The optimized application is not available at the link given in that thread. It is only used by 1 person, who keeps it to himself for the moment to compensate for credits he personally lost in other projects because of interventions by the so-called Credit Cops. |
|
2)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
supported/unsupported platforms
(Message 4652)
Posted 7 Aug 2008 by [BAT] tutta55
Post: though it has pretty bad benchmark scores for that kind of clock rate :( Yes, 6391.61 million fp ops/sec is really low for a machine that racks 260 credits for 430 seconds of work. ;) Any perspective on release of this application to the general public? |
|
3)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
supported/unsupported platforms
(Message 4650)
Posted 7 Aug 2008 by [BAT] tutta55
Post:
The fastest, except for that very special one that makes a machine look like it runs at 100GHz... |
|
4)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Clearing results from database quickly?
(Message 4636)
Posted 6 Aug 2008 by [BAT] tutta55
Post: *burp* ... erm, I mean *bump* |
|
5)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Milestones
(Message 4621)
Posted 2 Aug 2008 by [BAT] tutta55
Post: 3 Gazillion errrrr Million ... :) Congratz, PoorBoy. Full throttle on to 5M! |
|
6)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
8 Workunit limit
(Message 4601)
Posted 1 Aug 2008 by [BAT] tutta55
Post: Sure It causes problems, Frequently My Quads operate on just one or two of their cores, 20 was better, 8's a waste of time, Mine. I don't quite understand how this is possible, unless your clients are not connected all the time. Why don't they ask for new work when it's running dry? Is it because communication is deferred? |
|
7)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Credit Calculations.
(Message 4600)
Posted 1 Aug 2008 by [BAT] tutta55
Post: @Thunder: Thanks for the explanation. If that's the way it works, then I see following elements that can mess up, or at least distort, the correction factor for a project. I assume the project in the example does *not* use benchmark based credits: - If it has (own or 3rd party) applications optimized for specific platforms, then these clients will have a low claimed credit/granted credit ratio. If these clients are in the majority, then the majority of clients will be considered to underclaim. Or in other words, the project will be considered to be overly generous. The project credit will be corrected downward. That means that older machines, or machines for which no optimization exists, will get less credit than in projects without optimized applications . - If a project on the other hand has lots of optimized Boinc clients (style 5.5.0, 6.1.0), then these will have a high claimed credit/granted credit ratio. These overclaimers will cause project credit to be corrected upward. So... in theory the new calculation would make it interesting for a project to have lots of optimized Boinc clients... Mmmmm, the irony. My reasoning might be completely wrong. Any of the Boinc guru's can correct me? Starting to hold my breath in 1... 2... 3... |
|
8)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Milestones
(Message 4541)
Posted 30 Jul 2008 by [BAT] tutta55
Post:
That's a lot of MilkyWays you crunched. ;) |
|
9)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Credit Calculations.
(Message 4514)
Posted 29 Jul 2008 by [BAT] tutta55
Post: From Eric J. Korpela: With this new multiplier, exactly what will they level out among the projects? Credit given to the slowest application version (typically 32-bit Windows/Linux)? Credit for the fastest version (typically 64-bit Windows/Linux)? Some sort of average credit per amount of time for the overall project? And what about exceptional applications like GPU clients, custom optimized applications etc. As I understand it, there will be 1 correction factor for the entire project, and not per host? Correct? If so... won't projects with lots of "optimized Boinc clients" (style 5.5.0, 6.1.0 etc) get a correction factor that pushes "regular" clients even further down the credit line? Just looking for some explanation on the new Boinc correction factors. Maybe best start a new thread about it? A fireproof thread :p |
|
10)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Milestones
(Message 4511)
Posted 29 Jul 2008 by [BAT] tutta55
Post: My first 1M project is a fact! With thanks to our competitors for keeping me focused on the same project long enough :p |
|
11)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Compute errors
(Message 4500)
Posted 27 Jul 2008 by [BAT] tutta55
Post: Whatever it was, it didn't occur again today. I guess yesterday both machines has a bad hair day :p |
|
12)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Compute errors
(Message 4491)
Posted 27 Jul 2008 by [BAT] tutta55
Post: Yesterday I got some compute errors on 2 of my machines. See http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/results.php?userid=9, if they haven't been purged already <grmbl>. In all cases I got "process got signal 11". This could indicate a hardware problem, if it weren't that it occurs on 2 different (physical) machines. Both clients are Ubuntu 8.04 64-bit running in VMWare Workstation 6.0.4-built 93057, hosted by 64-bit Vista. |
|
13)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Redundant, yet sent again?
(Message 4471)
Posted 25 Jul 2008 by [BAT] tutta55
Post: I have (well, my computer has :p) ) just succesfully finished this WU, of which another instance was previously canceled by the server for being redundant. Some incidental leftovers, or work that needs to be redone? Chances are that by the time you read this, the WU will be purged already. They're still disappearing as fast as you can read. Makes it hard to check out what's going on with your results. But that's another thread. |
|
14)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Credit Calculations.
(Message 4336)
Posted 22 Jul 2008 by [BAT] tutta55
Post: It might be a good idea to drop cross-project stats, using the sum of Boinc credits, all together. Some alternative could be worked out, like DC-Vault, where a ranking is made across projects, using the position of a team (or individual) in each project. Could be fine-tuned by adding weights for projects with few or many participants. If a scheme like that were used by the stats sites, each project would be completely free to use whatever credit calculation best suits them. Just a suggestion. Don't flame me (too much :p ) pretty pleazzz. |
|
15)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Website unreachable
(Message 3991)
Posted 4 Jul 2008 by [BAT] tutta55
Post: This is the first time I can access the MilkyWay website since many days. Usually I just can't get in. Also uploads/downloads are slow and are often timed out. What's going on? Bandwidth problem? Server getting short on capacity? |
|
16)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Time/WU
(Message 3755)
Posted 12 Jun 2008 by [BAT] tutta55
Post: The gs_600 series has been canceled. See http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/forum_thread.php?id=331 Best to abort these. |
|
17)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Compute Errors
(Message 3750)
Posted 12 Jun 2008 by [BAT] tutta55
Post: I think i've found the problem with the gs_600s (and the older bad search). I've removed all the gs_600s from the database so you shouldn't get any more. Let me know if you see any problems with gs_601 Some 601 are trickling in. All seems ok so far. |
|
18)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
new search
(Message 3732)
Posted 12 Jun 2008 by [BAT] tutta55
Post: Most of the WU I get are bad. No progress after 30 minutes. Both in Windows 64-bit and Linux 64-bit. Some computation errors too (output file absent). Looks like 600 is a bad batch :( |
|
19)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Host with 12693 tasks
(Message 3700)
Posted 9 Jun 2008 by [BAT] tutta55
Post: One of my hosts has 12693 tasks currently stored in the database. That's a record for me. I'm sure there are hosts with much more. Is there a reason why tasks that are ended long time ago cannot be purged? Purging surely would make the database lighter and faster to access. Maybe this has been answered elsewhere. I can't find the answer, though. |
|
20)
Message boards :
Cafe MilkyWay :
Word Link
(Message 3697)
Posted 9 Jun 2008 by [BAT] tutta55
Post: Titanic?! :P |
Next 20
©2024 Astroinformatics Group