1) Message boards : Number crunching : BOINC Hardware ? (Message 34806) Posted 10 Oct 2004 by roederm Post: Does anyone have a comprehensive list of the hardware used for this project ? - I'd like to know - as the MTBF for their kit seems very high. - And I run a lot of kit (the 47+ devices are my LAB - not my production network), and I've not seen the failure frequency that we're seeing here.

2) Message boards : Number crunching : Here's how to get your credits much faster... (Message 28606) Posted 21 Sep 2004 by roederm Post: I understand it now - Billy you're holding onto those units Soooo tight ( not really of course, you only propose the theory - of course you would NEVER practice what you preach) that you never-actually-let-them-go... which would go to some length to explain your RAC... lots of missed opertunites Billy !. If only you'd released the units a little earlier you'd have been part of the quorum !. But alas. It wasn't so... Actually - Thanks to Paul D. I think I actually understand your point - and grant you that. Still wouldn't do it myself - and neither would you... So I gotta ask - why even suggest it in the first place ?

3) Message boards : Number crunching : Here's how to get your credits much faster... (Message 27827) Posted 18 Sep 2004 by roederm Post: > > Please choose the former. There's been too much vitriol on these forums. > Lighten up! > Nope. Listen to sense. Your half baken plan to speed up credit deleivery by placing a two week slow down on your initial delivery has the very real chance of failing to return credits at all. Which means that at least two others aren't going to get credits either. It's about now where people say " but realy credits don't matter - it's the PROJECT that is important" . Rubbish. Credits ARE important - it's the only way I know that the actual work is being *counted* by the project !! if you screw up the delivery time - by suggesting in all seriousness to hold onto the units for two weeks you might as well not participate.

4) Message boards : Number crunching : Time till return of credit. (Message 27577) Posted 18 Sep 2004 by roederm Post: testgg3 0.00 0.00 SUNW,Ultra-60 sparcv9+vis SunOS 5.8 vpnrad1 0.00 0.00 SUNW,UltraAX-i2 sparcv9+vis SunOS 5.8 v210-02 0.00 0.00 SUNW,Sun-Fire-V210 sparcv9+vis2 SunOS 5.8 oxp12254.central.det.win 0.00 0.00 GenuineIntel 996MHz Pentium v210-12 0.00 0.00 SUNW,Sun-Fire-V210 sparcv9+vis2 SunOS 5.8 labxacct01 0.00 0.00 SUNW,Sun-Fire-V240 sparcv9+vis2 SunOS 5.8 labxacct02 0.00 0.00 SUNW,Sun-Fire-V240 sparcv9+vis2 SunOS 5.8 v210-11 0.00 0.00 SUNW,Sun-Fire-V210 sparcv9+vis2 SunOS 5.8 v120-10 0.00 0.00 SUNW,UltraAX-i2 sparcv9+vis SunOS 5.8 v120-09 0.00 0.00 SUNW,UltraAX-i2 sparcv9+vis SunOS 5.8 v120-08 0.00 0.00 SUNW,UltraAX-i2 sparcv9+vis SunOS 5.8 v120-07 0.00 0.00 SUNW,UltraAX-i2 sparcv9+vis SunOS 5.8 v120-06 0.00 0.00 SUNW,UltraAX-i2 sparcv9+vis SunOS 5.8 vpnrad2 0.00 0.00 SUNW,UltraAX-i2 sparcv9+vis SunOS 5.8 v210-10 0.00 0.00 SUNW,Sun-Fire-V210 sparcv9+vis2 SunOS 5.8 v210-09 0.00 0.00 SUNW,Sun-Fire-V210 sparcv9+vis2 SunOS 5.8 testgg1 0.00 0.00 SUNW,UltraSPARC-IIi-cEngine sparcv9+vis SunOS 5.8 v210-07 0.00 0.00 SUNW,Sun-Fire-V210 sparcv9+vis2 SunOS 5.8 v210-05 0.00 0.00 SUNW,Sun-Fire-V210 sparcv9+vis2 SunOS 5.8 v210-04 0.00 0.00 SUNW,Sun-Fire-V210 sparcv9+vis2 SunOS 5.8 v210-03 0.00 0.00 SUNW,Sun-Fire-V210 sparcv9+vis2 SunOS 5.8 c3db01 0.00 0.00 SUNW,Sun-Fire-V440 sparcv9+vis2 SunOS 5.8

5) Message boards : Number crunching : Time till return of credit. (Message 27550) Posted 18 Sep 2004 by roederm Post: On a whim, I added another 20+ hosts late this week. All of them fast SUN boxes most multi CPU's V240 ... V440 (SparcIII 1.0G. etc) it's been 4 days now - with absolutely heaps of completed units - and not 1 credit. (now I'll have to recompile 4.09 and redeploy ... sigh) I understand the 3 confirmed completes requirement - but come on - surely 1 of these boxes would have formed a triumverant of returns with somebody else by now !. what gives ?

6) Questions and Answers : Unix/Linux : unix command line "update" (Message 26042) Posted 13 Sep 2004 by roederm Post: Is there an equivalent function on the unix command line to the Windows platform GUI's "update" feature ? (Projects - select project - right.mouse.button -"update" ? all the command line calls seem to allow work unit collection - but not to force an workunit allocation check - thanks. MR.

7) Message boards : Number crunching : SIG TEST POLLUTIONS (Message 20793) Posted 1 Sep 2004 by roederm Post: Hmmm test sig

8) Message boards : Number crunching : BOINCing at phenomenal rate....! (Message 20775) Posted 1 Sep 2004 by roederm Post: you're right LOL - AS/400 ... what a piece of work...

9) Message boards : Number crunching : BOINCing at phenomenal rate....! (Message 20771) Posted 1 Sep 2004 by roederm Post: You know, I read this twice - and I don't get your point. You run XP - but didn't want to install SP1... you're suggesting Win98 and ME users to upgrade... but they may Format their drives ( which is a choice BTW - not default, XP can run on non NTFS filesystem). So don't (upgrade).. there's something about 16 bit Vs 32 Binaries... but you don't know what... you've done a couple of WU's and you're happy... and thing XP (HOME?) is the most stable Windows yet ? - you're never run WIN2003SE have you ? Have you actaully run comparisons between Win3.1 Vs Win 3.11 Vs Win95 Vs Win98 Vs Win98SE Vs WinME Vs WinNT4.0 Vs WinNT3.51 Vs Win2000 Vs WinCE Vs WinXP(H) Vs WinXP(P) Vs Win2003S Vs Win2003SE have you... BTW HP-UX is still the O/S of choice... (11iR1)

 
©2025 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.