Would this work for SETI@Home ..

Message boards : Number crunching : Would this work for SETI@Home ..
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
Spud1200
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Aug 14
Posts: 111
Credit: 1,323,370
RAC: 8,552
United Kingdom
Message 1899061 - Posted: 4 Nov 2017, 8:49:07 UTC
Last modified: 4 Nov 2017, 8:52:29 UTC

I have a problem hear at home.

I'm curious to know if Bridging my Network of PCs for routed access threw one main terminal would work for SETI.

If I can have one central terminal connected to the internet and thus use my Machines for crunching and simply control all other systems including internet access for these PCs threw my one main terminal.

My question also in part is I'm curious if this would be possible because of registered system with SETI servers in regards to I.P Address and Upload \ Download.

I know team viewer will control said PCs but I need the Internet access routed threw my main terminal.

How would this play out.

This would save a lot of messing around on my end, updating manually each individual system. Back and forwards.

Even if anyone reading this is not 100 % sure; can I can some sort of feed back as I'm tending to a network of x2 Servers & x7 Desktops.

Just any help would be appreciated thats all.

:)

Thanks.

Edited: 08.52 AM ..
ID: 1899061 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Grant (SSSF)
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 8892
Credit: 115,175,849
RAC: 70,586
Australia
Message 1899068 - Posted: 4 Nov 2017, 9:49:01 UTC - in response to Message 1899061.  
Last modified: 4 Nov 2017, 9:52:54 UTC

I know team viewer will control said PCs but I need the Internet access routed threw my main terminal.
How would this play out.

That's what happens with a Router.
You could setup 1 PC to provide Internet access for all other PCs if you really want to.

This would save a lot of messing around on my end, updating manually each individual system. Back and forwards.

That's a whole different issue, assuming you're talking about controlling multiple systems from one system, something like Remote PC would be the way to go (M$ remote access can't be used on system that do GPU processing) you could then log on & update various systems from the one system.
Grant
Darwin NT
ID: 1899068 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Brent Norman
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 1 Dec 99
Posts: 1824
Credit: 107,071,873
RAC: 456,920
Canada
Message 1899069 - Posted: 4 Nov 2017, 9:51:16 UTC - in response to Message 1899061.  

Sure, anything is possible. It depends though if maintaining a central network server is more work than the individual computers (which still need to be maintained).

My first questions are:
- Do you want simple internet sharing, or a full server with DHCP etc ?
- Where do you want the applications and seti data folders to live, on the client or server drive?
- Are the computers similar enough to make things easier, or harder to maintain?
- Is the main computer reliable enough to be a server? Since losing that computer affects everything . . .

Each computer still needs individual seti IDs as you have now, they can't be combined as single client with a single cache, etc.
ID: 1899069 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Brent Norman
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 1 Dec 99
Posts: 1824
Credit: 107,071,873
RAC: 456,920
Canada
Message 1899099 - Posted: 4 Nov 2017, 15:14:27 UTC

I'm still trying to figure out what problem you are trying to solve for maintaining the computers. TeamViewer/VNC work great for accessing remote systems, just as if you were sitting at the computer itself. Or SSH for plain terminal access. BoincTasks is also a wonderful tool for monitoring remote BOINC clients - yes it works on Linux too. So that covers any monitoring and file editing you may need to do to the computers.

Maybe you need some batch scripts to do the same task on all computers at once? That can be done with SSH access to them.

I'm not sure why a 'community' network is not working for you if they all have access to the net. Unless you are trying to firewall or bandwidth shape their access to the net, there shouldn't be a need to route everything through one computer.

Maybe all you need is a network share to make file coping to the clients easier? If I were to put the BOINC data folders for clients on a network share, I would likely use a NAS to increase the reliability of it, since loosing the share while BOINC is running would cause all kinds on problems for the clients attached. NAS would be on it's on UPS with 16 port switch hard wired to each computer - you don't want any disconnects. If the share was a computer, each time it was rebooted (or crashed), you would have to reconnect each share - a real pain! So maybe a network share for file coping is all that is needed?
ID: 1899099 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Spud1200
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Aug 14
Posts: 111
Credit: 1,323,370
RAC: 8,552
United Kingdom
Message 1899126 - Posted: 4 Nov 2017, 17:28:18 UTC

Apologises for my very late response and not getting back sooner.

The problem I had what has thus been solved was I could not get access to the internet from all PCs on my Network except the one main PC I use on a daily basis. I wanted to route all internet traffic from all other PCs on my network what is sitting on my LAN on my side of the network threw my one main terminal.

Bridging connections was something I was looking in too but have found a work around as I have taken out a Proxy Sub and simply set BOINC to use said Proxy on all systems for direct internet access.

My servers are connected to my LAN but I have them set up as such they crunch for BOINC; specifically SETI because of the processing power of the Xeons and available memory with in the systems. The systems in question are running Ubuntu 16.04. but I do not have them connected in the way of any sort of Client Server or Server Client model. They simply Crunch.

The second system of the two Racks I have is now up and running because I have just bought a monitor literally less then 45 minutes ago what is now connected to the system. I'm still investing in my hardware and because of this I invested in two Xeon Racks because I have never had a Rack before and the power of the Xeons on CPU crunching for the VLARS and AP Tasks is practically a fraction as opposed to other preforming Systems on my network. I posted about buying a new GPU such as the 1030 and was recommended the 1050Ti and the reason I bought these two racks was because when I seen the price I couldn't resist as I had never had one before.

I have now got all systems up and running and crunching for BOINC - SETI - with internet access so I'm pleased with that.

Again; sorry for the late reply and I really appreciate coming back and posting another response after you initial post trying to figure out the problem.

I now just need to think how I'm going to monitor said systems. I'll get around too it. :) ..
ID: 1899126 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Brent Norman
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 1 Dec 99
Posts: 1824
Credit: 107,071,873
RAC: 456,920
Canada
Message 1899135 - Posted: 4 Nov 2017, 18:07:55 UTC - in response to Message 1899126.  
Last modified: 4 Nov 2017, 18:09:39 UTC

They are all on the same network it seems, so it should be easy to remote them. decide on TeamViewer or VNC. I use VNC personally only because I never tried TV on Linux. For VNC just search for 'Desktop Sharing' in Ubuntu and activate it. Then install a VNC client (EDIT: I use TightVNC) on your main monitoring computer to connect to it.

For TV it is much the same I believe - just download and install. they are both similar. TV for Windows was much easier to access hosts from the outside internet world (no router config needed). ... From there just save/bookmark that connection for easy access next time, then they are just a click away to connect to them again.
ID: 1899135 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
OzzFan
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15579
Credit: 55,172,730
RAC: 29,601
United States
Message 1899164 - Posted: 4 Nov 2017, 20:20:07 UTC - in response to Message 1899126.  

The problem I had what has thus been solved was I could not get access to the internet from all PCs on my Network except the one main PC I use on a daily basis. I wanted to route all internet traffic from all other PCs on my network what is sitting on my LAN on my side of the network threw my one main terminal.


Why wouldn't you just use a router? That's what it is designed for.
ID: 1899164 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Grant (SSSF)
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 8892
Credit: 115,175,849
RAC: 70,586
Australia
Message 1899174 - Posted: 4 Nov 2017, 21:23:24 UTC - in response to Message 1899164.  
Last modified: 4 Nov 2017, 21:24:54 UTC

The problem I had what has thus been solved was I could not get access to the internet from all PCs on my Network except the one main PC I use on a daily basis. I wanted to route all internet traffic from all other PCs on my network what is sitting on my LAN on my side of the network threw my one main terminal.


Why wouldn't you just use a router? That's what it is designed for.

And pretty much every modem I've come across for years now is also a router. Some might only have a single Ethernet port (and wireless support), but then all you need is a switch for the extra Ethernet ports & the router (in the modem) takes care of everything else.

EDIT- the last 5 modems I've had over the last 10 years have all had 4 Ethernet ports, the last 2 are GbE (Gigabit Ethernet).
Grant
Darwin NT
ID: 1899174 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote

Message boards : Number crunching : Would this work for SETI@Home ..


 
©2017 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.