Message boards :
Number crunching :
Faster credit: 4 copies of each WU initially being sent out now
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5
Author | Message |
---|---|
The Jedi Alliance - Ranger Send message Joined: 27 Dec 00 Posts: 72 Credit: 60,982,863 RAC: 0 |
> > How are you getting 4885 MIPS out of that computer? My 2.0 4M is only doing > 3161 :( > I've got a 2.0 GHz P4 M that's showing 5051 MIPS. It depends on the bus speed, memory speed and the L2 cache size. |
Divide Overflow Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 365 Credit: 131,684 RAC: 0 |
> How are you getting 4885 MIPS out of that computer? My 2.0 4M is only doing > 3161 :( I've got a 1.8 4M that does 4550, so his benchmark sounds pretty reasonable to me. Ranger's correct, memory and bus speed are big factors. Are you sure you're not throttling down for heat or power reasons? I hope the scheduler gets kicked into high gear to send out the additional WU copies required for validation. While new WU's are being sent out with 4 copies, there are still a lot of "older" WU's with 3 results that are held up waiting for that fourth to come down the pipe... |
Benher Send message Joined: 25 Jul 99 Posts: 517 Credit: 465,152 RAC: 0 |
> > It's even worse than that, John. You're not getting work units - you're > getting the results of somebody else's calculation on a work unit. All the > crunching you're doing is on something they already know. Otherwise it > wouldn't be a "result", it would be a "work unit". The "result" is the end of > the computation, not the beginning. See Merriam-Webster OnLine which defines > "result" as: "2 : something obtained by calculation or investigation". A > "result" is the _output_, not the input. Bill, The philosophical distinction the programmer (David Anderson) made when he wrote the code was that BOINC would be passing out "Empty" result templates, and receiving back filled results from hosts. |
Bill & Patsy Send message Joined: 6 Apr 01 Posts: 141 Credit: 508,875 RAC: 0 |
> > > > > It's even worse than that, John. You're not getting work units - you're > > getting the results of somebody else's calculation on a work unit. All > the > > crunching you're doing is on something they already know. Otherwise it > > wouldn't be a "result", it would be a "work unit". The "result" is the > end of > > the computation, not the beginning. See Merriam-Webster OnLine which > defines > > "result" as: "2 : something obtained by calculation or investigation". > A > > "result" is the _output_, not the input. > > Bill, > > The philosophical distinction the programmer (David Anderson) made when he > wrote the code was that BOINC would be passing out "Empty" result templates, > and receiving back filled results from hosts. > Thanks, Ben. I think I may finally be getting it. There seems to be somewhat of a consensus that this terminology is not clear (polite term for "confusing"). Paul directed me to his website, which addresses this unfortunate choice of terms, and David might want to consider Paul's treatment of this issue since we're going to be seeing a LOT of newbies when Classic shuts down. David shouldn't be making things harder for them than necessary... Thanks for the feedback. --Bill |
Paul D. Buck Send message Joined: 19 Jul 00 Posts: 3898 Credit: 1,158,042 RAC: 0 |
Bill, > Thanks, Ben. I think I may finally be getting it. There seems to be somewhat > of a consensus that this terminology is not clear (polite term for > "confusing"). Paul directed me to his website, which addresses this > unfortunate choice of terms, and David might want to consider Paul's treatment > of this issue since we're going to be seeing a LOT of newbies when Classic > shuts down. David shouldn't be making things harder for them than > necessary... My personal favorite is "core client" which is still being used even though it was depreciated for almost 6 months now. It was always entertaining when people were trying to figure out what was causing problems and the distinction between the "core client" (currently called BOINC Work Manager, new name BOINC Manager for the cross-platform version)and the "client" (the science application) when talking about version numbers ... It was very much in the mode of "Who's on first, What is on second ..." > Thanks for the feedback. We live to tell ... :) |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.