Lunatics Windows Installer v0.43 Release Notes

Message boards : Number crunching : Lunatics Windows Installer v0.43 Release Notes
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 . . . 11 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Raistmer
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 01
Posts: 6325
Credit: 106,370,077
RAC: 121
Russia
Message 1587105 - Posted: 15 Oct 2014, 12:06:07 UTC - in response to Message 1587093.  

I think we need a plan B...

Plan B is simple. Just start to crunch ;D
ID: 1587105 · Report as offensive
Richard Haselgrove Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 99
Posts: 14649
Credit: 200,643,578
RAC: 874
United Kingdom
Message 1587108 - Posted: 15 Oct 2014, 12:16:18 UTC - in response to Message 1587105.  

I think we need a plan B...

Plan B is simple. Just start to crunch ;D

Yes, the stock applications are digitally signed already.
ID: 1587108 · Report as offensive
Profile Raistmer
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 01
Posts: 6325
Credit: 106,370,077
RAC: 121
Russia
Message 1587116 - Posted: 15 Oct 2014, 12:49:15 UTC - in response to Message 1587108.  

I think we need a plan B...

Plan B is simple. Just start to crunch ;D

Yes, the stock applications are digitally signed already.

And BOINC installer itself?
BTW, in testing I did replacement of stock (digitally signed) apps with own binaries. And they were at least launched by BOINC (and even completed some tasks before any BOINC complains) So, all those illusions of security need to be perceived ironically enough. That's what I wanted to say - no waste your time on this pseudo-issue. There are big enough holes in BOINC security to make all this unneeded.
ID: 1587116 · Report as offensive
Profile Mike Special Project $75 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Feb 01
Posts: 34253
Credit: 79,922,639
RAC: 80
Germany
Message 1587121 - Posted: 15 Oct 2014, 13:02:04 UTC - in response to Message 1587116.  
Last modified: 15 Oct 2014, 13:03:00 UTC

I think we need a plan B...

Plan B is simple. Just start to crunch ;D

Yes, the stock applications are digitally signed already.

And BOINC installer itself?
BTW, in testing I did replacement of stock (digitally signed) apps with own binaries. And they were at least launched by BOINC (and even completed some tasks before any BOINC complains) So, all those illusions of security need to be perceived ironically enough. That's what I wanted to say - no waste your time on this pseudo-issue. There are big enough holes in BOINC security to make all this unneeded.


I totally agree.
I wouldn`t worry to much about it Richard.
Everybody here should trust you enough to believe the files are clean.
Its just a matter of time until the definitions of those virus scanners will no longer complain about it.


With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.
ID: 1587121 · Report as offensive
Richard Haselgrove Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 99
Posts: 14649
Credit: 200,643,578
RAC: 874
United Kingdom
Message 1587122 - Posted: 15 Oct 2014, 13:08:30 UTC - in response to Message 1587116.  

I think we need a plan B...

Plan B is simple. Just start to crunch ;D

Yes, the stock applications are digitally signed already.

And BOINC installer itself?
BTW, in testing I did replacement of stock (digitally signed) apps with own binaries. And they were at least launched by BOINC (and even completed some tasks before any BOINC complains) So, all those illusions of security need to be perceived ironically enough. That's what I wanted to say - no waste your time on this pseudo-issue. There are big enough holes in BOINC security to make all this unneeded.

The question wasn't about BOINC security - the problem is user-initiated downloads from Lunatics/Arkayn/Mike being blocked by web browsers. Those of us with dvelopment backgrounds know the pitfalls and the workrounds, and can make an intelligent (but not always correct) decision between what is, and what isn't, safe to download and install. But sadly, not every computer user - including members of sophisticated and knowledgeable communities like this one - has that depth of experience to make a good choice.

I would never give any general advice to ignore malware warnings on downloads, even though I think they can often be discounted in specific cases - after you've read, investigated, and considered carefully. I've come across too many of the "better class of idiot" (the evolutionary by-product of idiot-proofing software) during my working life to risk taking any other stance.

But in the case of the Lunatics Installer, I think any sort of technical fix would be overkill. Let's see how the level of false positives changes as the new installer comes into common use.
ID: 1587122 · Report as offensive
JarrettH

Send message
Joined: 14 Nov 02
Posts: 97
Credit: 25,385,250
RAC: 95
Canada
Message 1587182 - Posted: 15 Oct 2014, 15:57:09 UTC

Run only the selected applications

SETI@home Enhanced
SETI@home v7
AstroPulse v6
AstroPulse v7

Should I only leave SETI v7 and Astropulse v7 ticked now?

Thanks
ID: 1587182 · Report as offensive
Richard Haselgrove Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 99
Posts: 14649
Credit: 200,643,578
RAC: 874
United Kingdom
Message 1587191 - Posted: 15 Oct 2014, 16:33:56 UTC - in response to Message 1587182.  

Run only the selected applications

SETI@home Enhanced
SETI@home v7
AstroPulse v6
AstroPulse v7

Should I only leave SETI v7 and Astropulse v7 ticked now?

Thanks

You'll want those two checked/ticked, yes.

SETI@home Enhanced is long dead, you won't see any of those whatever you do.

AstroPulse v6 - there'll be a few around for a while yet. It would be generally helpful if you could leave it checked/ticked so that you help the project with the cleanup. But that's up to you - won't make a lot of difference either way.
ID: 1587191 · Report as offensive
Profile Keith Myers Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Apr 01
Posts: 13161
Credit: 1,160,866,277
RAC: 1,873
United States
Message 1587290 - Posted: 15 Oct 2014, 18:56:08 UTC - in response to Message 1587042.  

Thanks, Keith. I think that pretty much confirms what we thought.

E:\Downloads\Lunatics_Win64_v0.43_setup.exe;Malware found: winpe/Suspicious_Gen5.AWBHN. Type: Malware [noname.nsis?file67];;5
E:\Downloads\Lunatics_Win64_v0.43_setup.exe;Detected as potentially unwanted program: E:\Downloads\Lunatics_Win64_v0.43_setup.exe (file);;0
E:\Downloads\Lunatics_Win64_v0.43_setup.exe;Potentially unwanted program file [] (Sandbox);;5

'NSIS' is the Nullsoft Scriptable Install System that we use. It has the (big) advantage of being free...

But of course that means it's also free and available for the bad guys to use. Antivirus programs can't easily distinguish between 'potentially unwanted applications' and 'potentially wanted' ones.

Scan result;;Malware found.;2
118;Objects scanned (files and items inside archives).;;0
1;Files scanned.;;0
0;Files skipped (access problems).;;0
0;Files on Exclude list excluded.;;0
16;Archive files (or archives inside archives).;;0
0;Archive files that could not be properly scanned.;;0

That's the key section, and confirms that all the contents are clean - it's only the delivery system doing its job which rings alarm bells.

I've had a look through the NSIS discussion forum, and it appears to be a known, but rare, problem. The best solution appears to be buying and applying an approved digital signature - I don't know how much that would cost, but probably prohibitive for us, I'm afraid. I'll look into it.

Apart from that, it's a long and very tedious process of writing individually to each competing AV company individually (they won't collaborate, of course) and asking for the files to be checked and whitelisted. To some extent, that will happen automatically as more copies are downloaded and the files gain a 'clean' reputation.



Richard, turns out to be a lot simpler in contacting the multiple AV/Malware reporting companies. Stumbled upon this link which provided the instructions to report suspicious files to all companies in one shot. I did so and have already received back numerous responses that say the installer file is clean and poses no danger. This is the link:

http://www.techsupportalert.com/content/how-report-malware-or-false-positives-multiple-antivirus-vendors.htm

Cheers, Keith
Seti@Home classic workunits:20,676 CPU time:74,226 hours

A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association)
ID: 1587290 · Report as offensive
Josef W. Segur
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 30 Oct 99
Posts: 4504
Credit: 1,414,761
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1587336 - Posted: 15 Oct 2014, 19:57:06 UTC - in response to Message 1587191.  

Run only the selected applications

SETI@home Enhanced
SETI@home v7
AstroPulse v6
AstroPulse v7

Should I only leave SETI v7 and Astropulse v7 ticked now?

Thanks

You'll want those two checked/ticked, yes.

SETI@home Enhanced is long dead, you won't see any of those whatever you do.

AstroPulse v6 - there'll be a few around for a while yet. It would be generally helpful if you could leave it checked/ticked so that you help the project with the cleanup. But that's up to you - won't make a lot of difference either way.


If you're willing to do work for all the applications chosen during the Lunatics install, it may be best to uncheck all the specific app preferences (including the "If no work for selected applications is available, accept work from other applications?"). After doing so, the display at the end of the edited venue will show:
                Run only the selected applications  (all applications)

If no work for selected applications is available,  no
              accept work from other applications?

That is perhaps slightly counterintuitive, but in effect you're saying you don't prefer any app and the host will take whatever work it can do.

There are two minor advantages to those settings, first it is slightly less work for the Scheduler to assign tasks to the host with those settings, second when the project rolls out a new app there's no need to change those settings. Neither of those makes a lot of difference.
                                                                  Joe
ID: 1587336 · Report as offensive
Profile TimeLord04
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Mar 06
Posts: 21140
Credit: 33,933,039
RAC: 23
United States
Message 1587775 - Posted: 16 Oct 2014, 12:35:34 UTC
Last modified: 16 Oct 2014, 13:13:11 UTC

I first modified my app_config.xml file to include AP v7. Next, I downloaded Lunatics 0.43 from Mike's website, and installed 0.43. I went through the settings for my NVIDIA card; selecting AP v7, and CUDA50 for MB. All installed without error.

NOTE: COMODO Internet Security throws up a warning on running 0.43 installer. I just clicked "Run Unlimited", and on the final warning I clicked "Allow". No problems to report after that.

No problems downloading file, though. :-)

[EDIT]

I forgot to mention that my NVIDIA is a GTX760 and is on Driver 337.88.
TimeLord04
Have TARDIS, will travel...
Come along K-9!
Join Calm Chaos
ID: 1587775 · Report as offensive
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 11360
Credit: 29,581,041
RAC: 66
United States
Message 1588077 - Posted: 17 Oct 2014, 1:31:27 UTC

Am I correct that this app does not use Cuda on my Fermi cards? The reason I ask is the tasks are identified as opencl nvidea 100. If that is so why did the installer ask me to identify my card, Fermi vs Kepler?
ID: 1588077 · Report as offensive
Profile HAL9000
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 99
Posts: 6534
Credit: 196,805,888
RAC: 57
United States
Message 1588080 - Posted: 17 Oct 2014, 1:37:37 UTC - in response to Message 1588077.  

Am I correct that this app does not use Cuda on my Fermi cards? The reason I ask is the tasks are identified as opencl nvidea 100. If that is so why did the installer ask me to identify my card, Fermi vs Kepler?

The MB app is CUDA the AP app is OpenCL. The ID question was probably to select the correct CUDA version for MB.
SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours
Join the [url=http://tinyurl.com/8y46zvu]BP6/VP6 User Group[
ID: 1588080 · Report as offensive
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 11360
Credit: 29,581,041
RAC: 66
United States
Message 1588090 - Posted: 17 Oct 2014, 2:32:22 UTC - in response to Message 1588080.  

Well since I only crunch AP when I can that explains that.
ID: 1588090 · Report as offensive
Profile Blurf
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 06
Posts: 8962
Credit: 12,678,685
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1589233 - Posted: 20 Oct 2014, 12:00:27 UTC
Last modified: 20 Oct 2014, 12:03:52 UTC

Can no longer do 2 GPU units at once as I was since installing .43

Running 6.10.58. I'm sure it's the app info but not sure how to resolve...help please?

Thx ahead of time


ID: 1589233 · Report as offensive
JohnDK Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 May 00
Posts: 1222
Credit: 451,243,443
RAC: 1,127
Denmark
Message 1589245 - Posted: 20 Oct 2014, 13:05:51 UTC

I a problem with the GPU app "stealing" memory, first noticed it yesterday on my 2xGTX770 PC and just now on my GTX970 PC.

In BOINC the elapsed time keeps running but progress stands on 0%, the one just now had been running for 20 minutes, pausing and unpausing doesn't help, the same happens. It's this WU ap_28jn14aa_B5_P1_00055_20141018_06043.wu

This is a capture I did yesterday on the PC with only 4GB, normally there's no problem, but with the app taking 1.4GB I have a problem ;)

ID: 1589245 · Report as offensive
Profile Mike Special Project $75 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Feb 01
Posts: 34253
Credit: 79,922,639
RAC: 80
Germany
Message 1589246 - Posted: 20 Oct 2014, 13:07:02 UTC
Last modified: 20 Oct 2014, 13:08:22 UTC

Can no longer do 2 GPU units at once as I was since installing .43

Running 6.10.58. I'm sure it's the app info but not sure how to resolve...help please?

Thx ahead of time


Yes, its the appinfo.
Just change everything from

<count>1</count> to <count>0.5</count>[/quote]


With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.
ID: 1589246 · Report as offensive
Profile Mike Special Project $75 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Feb 01
Posts: 34253
Credit: 79,922,639
RAC: 80
Germany
Message 1589248 - Posted: 20 Oct 2014, 13:22:21 UTC - in response to Message 1589245.  
Last modified: 20 Oct 2014, 13:37:08 UTC

I a problem with the GPU app "stealing" memory, first noticed it yesterday on my 2xGTX770 PC and just now on my GTX970 PC.

In BOINC the elapsed time keeps running but progress stands on 0%, the one just now had been running for 20 minutes, pausing and unpausing doesn't help, the same happens. It's this WU ap_28jn14aa_B5_P1_00055_20141018_06043.wu

This is a capture I did yesterday on the PC with only 4GB, normally there's no problem, but with the app taking 1.4GB I have a problem ;)



You are running 5 instances on the GPU plus 4 instances on CPU.
Thats to much.

Try CPU_lock switch or reserve at least 1 CPU core.

You can see one GPU instance consumes a full CPU core and 1 instance on CPU got 0.
That means your system is in stall.

Edit:

I judst noticed you are running 3 instances on GPU.
That wont work with a quad core when all cores are in use.


With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.
ID: 1589248 · Report as offensive
JohnDK Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 May 00
Posts: 1222
Credit: 451,243,443
RAC: 1,127
Denmark
Message 1589250 - Posted: 20 Oct 2014, 13:35:58 UTC - in response to Message 1589248.  

You are running 5 instances on the GPU plus 4 instances on CPU.
Thats to much.

Try CPU_lock switch or reserve at least 1 CPU core.

You can see one GPU instance consumes a full CPU core and 1 instance on CPU got 0.
That means your system is in stall.

But the same just happened on my 8 core machine where I have 4 free cores.
ID: 1589250 · Report as offensive
Profile Mike Special Project $75 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Feb 01
Posts: 34253
Credit: 79,922,639
RAC: 80
Germany
Message 1589251 - Posted: 20 Oct 2014, 13:40:49 UTC - in response to Message 1589250.  

You are running 5 instances on the GPU plus 4 instances on CPU.
Thats to much.

Try CPU_lock switch or reserve at least 1 CPU core.

You can see one GPU instance consumes a full CPU core and 1 instance on CPU got 0.
That means your system is in stall.

But the same just happened on my 8 core machine where I have 4 free cores.


Which one ?
Is it HT or pysical 8 cores ?
Something else must consume ressources.


With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.
ID: 1589251 · Report as offensive
JohnDK Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 May 00
Posts: 1222
Credit: 451,243,443
RAC: 1,127
Denmark
Message 1589257 - Posted: 20 Oct 2014, 13:55:05 UTC - in response to Message 1589251.  

[Which one ?
Is it HT or pysical 8 cores ?
Something else must consume ressources.

It's this http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/show_host_detail.php?hostid=5284345

It's running HT, have 12GB ram, 3 GPU WUs using -use_sleep and 4 CPU WUs running leaving 4 cores free, CPU usage is around 50-60%.
ID: 1589257 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 . . . 11 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : Lunatics Windows Installer v0.43 Release Notes


 
©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.