Posts by Keith Jones

1) Message boards : Technical News : Comedy (Jun 17 2009) (Message 908582)
Posted 18 Jun 2009 by Profile Keith Jones
Post:
Hi Matt,

Sorry to hear about all the difficulties. Thanks for all the work.
Hang in there!

I wasn't sure what version of MySQL you're currently using (or even planning to use in the future) so at the risk of teaching you to suck eggs I thought I'd better mention that MySQL began shipping version 7 in April. It supports clustering, in-memory tables, load balancing, fault tolerance etc.

If you haven't upgraded to it , it might be worth a thought so you can spread the load around as per ML1's suggestion.

Best wishes,

Keith
2) Message boards : Number crunching : Mac OSX Upgrade can turn Firewall OFF (Message 673242)
Posted 7 Nov 2007 by Profile Keith Jones
Post:


There's a world of difference between malware and viruses. A perfect firewall (were there such a thing) could not protect you if you deliberately download an app. By definition a virus spreads without you having to do anything to help it - other than forgetting to protect yourself either by having a firewall or running a nix-based system.

F.

Malware includes viruses, Trojan horses, worms, etc. The wikipedia and others agree on this, I'll even throw in the Google search I made too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malware
http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid14_gci762187,00.html
http://www.google.com/search?q=malware+definition&ie=utf-8


OK! Point taken...

However, you were the one who introduced malware to the discussion. My point stands that the examples you were quoting had no relevance in a debate about firewalls and Martin's post referred only to viruses.

Please understand, this is not a personal attack - just trying to clarify the issue.

F.

I didn't think It was a personal attack, I was just trying to correct ML1 as He said that there are no viruses on the MAC and so I pointed out what has been pointed out by others and so It does have relevance, I could go Google that too If You'd like(relevance). And I am quite well acquainted with different OSes across different brands of computers both open and closed OSes(dabbled with a friends TI-99-4A once, talk about a computer that could have used some better cooling), But then I've been using different computers since the late 70's when computers were just starting to be used in the home and It's been a long 28 years so far, I even contemplated buying and building a homebrew Heathkit S100 bus computer back then too, But went towards something that was easier to do back then as My soldering skill is not so good.


Hiya,

I'm not trying to stir but even *nix has viruses too :-)

We're all in the same boat, just some are 'leakier' than others.

If you're a Windows user like me, you should read that as "Get me a bucket to bail this baby out!" :-)

Have a nice one,

Keith
3) Message boards : Number crunching : Folding@Home set new world record. (Message 673232)
Posted 7 Nov 2007 by Profile Keith Jones
Post:
Hi Folks,

My apologies if I've missed the boat but I couldn't see a mention of this.

As reported by the BBC, Folding@Home are now in the Guiness Book of Records with an estimated Petaflop processing power distributed computing project. It looks like a majority of the estimated processing power comes from their PS3 client. Article Here

Anyone know how to recode the Seti client for a PS3??

I reckon we should consider it a challenge now :-)

Happy Crunching!

Keith



4) Message boards : SETI@home Staff Blog : Eric's quadrennial post #9: Arecibo funding crisis. (Message 673226)
Posted 7 Nov 2007 by Profile Keith Jones
Post:
As some people noted in other parts of the forums, there was an article in the Washington Post this weekend about the crisis in NSF funding for the Arecibo Observatory (and, perhaps, radio astronomy in general.) I just want to let everyone know that we are aware of the situation and are planning to fight for Arecibo's future.

Dan and some others that I work with were in Washington this week attending a meeting to discuss the scientific future of Arecibo. The observatory does have unique capabilities, primarily because of its size. The Allen Telescope Array (ATA) currently has 42 dishes (not all have yet been operational), but the combined collecting area of those dishes is about 1.5% of the area of the Arecibo telescope. If ATA is able to get funding for an additional 40 dishes that will be 3% of the Arecibo collecting area. Even at the initially proposed 300 dishes (which won't happen any time soon) it is a small fraction of the collecting area of Arecibo. ATA's power comes from being able to focus in on smaller areas of the sky, which makes it an excellent instrument for looking for signals from specific stars, but inappropriate for surveys of large sky areas like SETI@home. Only when the Square Kilometer Array is fully operational (scheduled for 2020, but who knows) will Arecibo's capability be surpassed.

What led us to this funding problem? Primarily a combination of flat budgets for astronomy research and expensive new instruments. The National Science Foundation budget for Astronomy is about $200 million dollars per year, and prior to this year, the budget for Arecibo was about $10 million. Neither of those numbers are chump change, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise. If the NSF doesn't get a budget increase for Astronomy and doesn't close some facilities, there will be a $30 million dollar shortfall, so Arecibo isn't the only facility in trouble.

What does make Arecibo different is that most of those other facilities are in states, whereas Arecibo is in a U.S. protectorate. Puerto Rico doesn't have Senators to help protect budget appropriations. It does have Representatives, but the last time I checked, their representatives are not voting members of the Congress.

On the other hand, there is the National Radio Astronomy Observatories (NRAO) which has facilities in West Virginia (home of Senator Byrd) and New Mexico (home of Senator Domenici). Arecibo is NOT part of NRAO. A couple years ago the director of NRAO called his senators and said NRAO needed $2 million more than NSF was going to give it. So Byrd and Domenici earmarked $4 million (yes $4 million) in additional funds for NRAO. Of course that money had to come from somewhere else in the NSF astronomy budget. That was when Arecibo's budget was reduced by $2 million. I don't know where the other $2 million came from.

The directory of the Planetary Society said, in the Post article, that an earmark might be a good option for keeping Arecibo open. I'm not so sure, given that any money earmarked for Arecibo will come from some other Astronomy program. A better option is a 15% (constant dollars) increase in the NSF Astronomy budget over the next 5 years.

I'll talk to the people who attended the meeting next week. I've written my Senators and Congressmen already and used some back channels to make the chair of the House Appropriations Committee aware of the situation. It would probably help if you wrote yours as well. We may organize a full letter writing campaign in the near future to help get our point across to Congress, but there's no need to wait for that. Letters work better than emails, and personal visits work best of all, if you happen to be traveling to Washington DC.

For those of you outside of the U.S., should all of our efforts fail, there may be a place for international cooperation in funding Arecibo. If the U.S. government doesn't want it, maybe the E.U. does. We'll let you know how it goes.


Hi Eric,

I know this is tenuous but I thought it might be useful for 'Spin Doctoring'. The BBC website just announced that Folding@Home has entered the Guiness book of Records for their PS3 code giving them Petabyte processing power. Article Here.

What caught my eye was the phrase,

"One of the most high profile projects is seti@home, which uses computer cycles to search through thousands of hours of radio telescope signals for signs of extra-terrestrial intelligence."

Perhaps the notoriety can be emphasized?

or with a little user support on the coding side Seti could challenge the record with it's own potential PS3 code and huge user base? That's gotta be worth a few bob of sponsership?

Just a thought... no strings attached etc :-)

Good luck and thank you for all your efforts.

Regards,

Keith

PS: Posting the link on the "Number Crunching" forums in the hope a PS3 coder is around :-)
5) Message boards : Number crunching : Really not good! (Message 357341)
Posted 4 Jul 2006 by Profile Keith Jones
Post:
Replying to only a portion of post by Keith (SwissNic):
I guess that's a definition thing. I was led to believe the FLOP measurement was the same as defined by the CPU manufacturers. If that's so there's a wide difference in how many FLOPS your CPU does by machine cycle between model, make and series. It's also complicated by those extended instructions (MMX,SSE2)that can process bunches of them quickly. So maybe someone can clarify for both us? It would save me getting the wrong picture. Does anyone know if the Seti/Boinc FLOP is a synthetic thing or related to machine code concepts?

The term FLOPS is only really defined in terms of the particular benchmark which attempted to measure floating point performance.

What setiathome_enhanced is doing is counting floating point operations. If the standard application has a routine which loops i times and contains x floating point additions, y floating point multiplies, and z floating point exponentiations, the FLOP_counter value could be incremented by i * (x + y + z) at the exit from the routine. When someone builds an optimized application, that increment should not be changed even if the mix of operations is actually different. The count is to be treated as an estimation of useful work done so that all applications successfully doing the same WU can be granted the same credit.

Here's an actual formula used for the main count in Triplet finding:

analysis_state.FLOP_counter+=(10.0*numBinsAboveThreshold*numBinsAboveThreshold);
                                                            Joe



Excellent, so at least I know I'm speaking hot air and suffering from foot and mouth disease :-)

{Breathes a sigh of relief}

That's good. So it checkpoints and makes an artificial FLOP or should I say bunch of 'known' artificial FLOPS?

Do you reckon there's a way that extended instruction sets can confuse this ?
Just to clarify....

SwissNic, Saengar, Josef et al, my deepest apologies for mis-understanding! I'll reasses things. It was lovely to have your attention and perserverance !!

I'm going to take a night of it and have a good think; if I can resist going "Woah, even Jim-R responded" ;-) (Sorry! It's got to be a Seti BB celeb. issue thing{grin})

Thanks for all the help everyone! I'll think and come back with the right twists and 'balance' I hope!

That was truly a learning experience!!!! Cooooooooooooool!!!!!!!!...sorry, it's probably an 80's thing :-)

15 years in tech support and there's still more to learn.......

Have a good night everyone... or a good afternoon/morning etc.

Regards and much respect,

Keith
6) Message boards : Number crunching : Really not good! (Message 357232)
Posted 4 Jul 2006 by Profile Keith Jones
Post:

But it IS all fair.
And for crying outloud, no matter what method is used to calculate credits, a fast computer will always make more credits than a slow one.
I don't thing it's so hard to understand, but oh well, I remember now, I must be a complete moron. ;)


Peace.


Not to put to fine a point on it, I'm getting the feeling you don't actually give a jot about credits. If so, why comment at all ? Surely it'd be something you'd just ignore?

It seems intuitively obvious that we have at least two or three different meanings for the word "fair"

When I read "fair" I think "equitable" -- that everyone has an equal chance of getting "easy" and "hard" work units, and that everyone who does a work unit gets the same credit.

Clearly, some read "fair" and see "equal" -- that an hour of crunching will return the same number of credits no matter how many "easy FLOPs" and "hard FLOPs" are involved.

Some read "fair" as "no less than I used to get when I ran an optimized app."

... and as a result, we're often talking past each other when we start saying "fair."

I think "equitable" is the best meaning....


Hi Ned!

I never thought I'd get a reply fron such a demonstrably balanced individual!
Cool! oops showing my age there ;-)

Equitable is a great term. Yeh I can try and work using that as the word but being realistic, my interpretation of fair, equal or equitable will suffer the same problem. It will be different for everyone else's. Maybe it's not a dictionary issue?

Somewhere, somehow there's got to be a base agreement that most,if not all, can live with without constantly hassling each other. I guess it's silver lining (possibly a needle in a haystack or holy grail!) but it's worth trying to find a bit of common ground to alleviate the simple stress points...

Gonna have to sign off soon, my new 'evaluation' toy is running out of juice ;-)

Nice to have had a comment from you though !

Have fun,

Keith
7) Message boards : Number crunching : Really not good! (Message 357066)
Posted 4 Jul 2006 by Profile Keith Jones
Post:
FLOPs are dependant on architecture of the CPU, efficiency of brand, and use of optimisations of extended instructions etc ie P3 vs P4, AMD vs Intel, MMX vs SSE2. It would be extremely hard to map every kind of processor fairly to get an average FLOP.


Not sure I agree. A Floating Point Operation is a mathmatical calculation, and has nothing to do with the hardware perfoming the calculation... If I "2+2" in my head, on an abacus or on a calculator, the answer is still 4.


I have the feeling my quoting is gonna get messy :-)

I guess that's a definition thing. I was led to believe the FLOP measurement was the same as defined by the CPU manufacturers. If that's so there's a wide difference in how many FLOPS your CPU does by machine cycle between model, make and series. It's also complicated by those extended instructions (MMX,SSE2)that can process bunches of them quickly. So maybe someone can clarify for both us? It would save me getting the wrong picture. Does anyone know if the Seti/Boinc FLOP is a synthetic thing or related to machine code concepts?

So if a million calculations needs to be performed, and say that is worth 10 credits - then if a slow outdated antique excuse for a computer takes 3 years to perform those calcs, and a heavily optimised, overclocked, water cooled monster takes 3 secs to do the same work, both machines should still only receive 10 credits.


Yep I totally agree if the above definition is my problem :-) If it's not then what if an optimised app sees 10 FLOPS in a row doing the same thing. It will optimise the process and throw them to an extended instruction. What you don't want is the framework to miss this and credit too high or low for the FLOPs involved. It becomes a programming nightmare and could easily cause credit claim issues. As you said you've done the work you should get the right credit for it.

CPU time, however, is also influenced by CPU efficiency, extended instructions etc. It's not simple to just consider it is a measure of how many cycles your cpu has donated to the task. Some of those cycles can do a lot more with extended instructions etc. So again taking CPU time as a lump figure doesn't work fairly. More importantly it doesn't allow people to see optimisation at work. Hence it makes it hard for the devs to see real life feedback on the core client's effectiveness and therefore the bulk of work being done on their application.


Yeah - but not sure I really see the relevance of this argument...


Did it make more sense above ? I hope it makes it seem a bit more relevant. :-)

The last(?) option is for the Seti guys to analyze the data, pick an arbitrary value for the average WU and give the same credit for each WU across the board. Sounds like going back to Seti Classic concepts and it has its own problems but they seem less of a 'fairness' issue.


This does not adress cross-project work, and is therefore unworkable... sorry.


To put it blunt, why? I'm not trying to be brash or anything. I'm happy to learn and change my views. I do need something to work with though ;-)

A good calculated average credit per WU, and the work involved in finding it simplifies the comparison doesn't it? We're calculating stuff to a model, so let's build one about how we do it ;-)


The main issue is to prevent the obvious 'cherry picking'. I know people will cherry pick good WUs for a while but it's bound to show in the 'aborts' showing up for an account. There's already a crude penalty system in place to reduce WUs sent to an individual showing failures and aborts. It just needs to be watched....


I like my credit and seeing my name shoot up the tables on BoincStats, but this "cherry-picking" issue really doesn't bother me at all... If some nerd has the time to watch every WU coming into his/her farm and cherry-pick the fastest - fine! I actually have a life, and am not _THAT_ bothered about it...


True, I hope I have a life too ;-). Maybe some nerd could automate the process and what if he then has a farm or supports a team? There's not likely to be awards at the end of this but you never know ;-) You wouldn't want to feed the press bad stories and I'm sure everyone would appreciate not having another potential accusation thrown their way.

The secondary issue is that it blocks the idea of throwing computations to appropriately powerful processors. Then again, that's only really useful for amazingly long single calculations or time critical applications.

This seems to be possible with the approach the team are adopting (ie by asking for un-optimised client results to be reported). This could allow them to produce the required averages....

It's basically a rock and a hard place decision.

I guess I don't really care either way but it would be nice if it could all be 'fair', still allow for the optimisers and not penalise those that don't have the facilities to contribute much. That to me says the last option.. to others it doesn't.... again... such is life ;-)

My tuppence,

Keith


Because of the type of maths involved, there is no way to predict precisely the amount of FLOPs required to produce a result, and as such, a single WU cannot be pre-assigned an amount of credit. Equally, as different architectures handle FLOP's in different ways, the amount of operations to complete a mathematical calculation might vary, and therefore a real-time count will be inaccurate, but probably the closest to the mark.


Precisely what I was saying, sort of :-). I was looking that it might be easier producing the average of a lot of WU from the databases rather than relying on worrying about the end machine as such. You can always break it down on CPU ID etc. and I'm sure optimised clients can be filtered on their replies. It might even give valued information on the teams own optimisation efforts. Dunno, what do you think ?


At the end of the day, life isn't fair (Abramovich proves this point I think), and I think the BOINC team are getting it fairly spot-on. If there is any favouritism toward people running slow machines with standard clients (but who happen to be big loud-mouths at complaining - not mentioning any names mmciastro!!!) over people who donate the time to optimise apps and run fast machine, then I would feel the project is shooting itself in the foot. A fast optimised machine is the BEST platform to turn-around WU's - and that, at the end of the day, is what the project is all about...


Yeh, life is unfair. It doesn't mean we shouldn't try to change that though ;-)
The team ARE good, I would never say otherwise! I was hoping maybe just going back to basics might trigger some more fundamental thinking rather than chewing through stop-gaps and making things more complex.


Here's where I find out if my manual quoting worked ;-)

[EDIT} Only 7 goes at balancing those quotes..sheesh![/EDIT]

Regards,

Keith
8) Message boards : Number crunching : Really not good! (Message 356419)
Posted 4 Jul 2006 by Profile Keith Jones
Post:
Hiya,

I guess this has all been said by people far greater in intelligence than I but here are the ideas I haven't seen trashed as imbalanced......yet!

I thought I was intelligent, but I must be a complete moron because I still can't understand why people bitch about credits. ;)


I'm so glad I said "yet" ;-)

I forgot to quote The Gas Giant's stuff so I guess my message could have looked like a general bitch but did I actually bitch? I thought I was summarising and saying that all the credit ideas had issues for someone. I guess *I* must be the moron... ;-)

I guess I must also be imagining things; like all the others discussing 'unfairness' of credit and wanting a response ;-)

I guess I must also be a credit bunny and NOT trying to do as much work, as fast, as possible to get science results for the future. Why would I ever want to have a credit system to measure myself against others to make sure I am doin the best I can? ;-)

Come on... a little faith please ?

I guess I don't really care either way but it would be nice if it could all be 'fair', still allow for the optimisers and not penalise those that don't have the facilities to contribute much.

But it IS all fair.
And for crying outloud, no matter what method is used to calculate credits, a fast computer will always make more credits than a slow one.
I don't thing it's so hard to understand, but oh well, I remember now, I must be a complete moron. ;)


Peace.


Not to put to fine a point on it, I'm getting the feeling you don't actually give a jot about credits. If so, why comment at all ? Surely it'd be something you'd just ignore?

As for the fast computer bit... well ermm.. I can hardly argue with that concept... but I don't see the relevance to what I was saying. Feel free to elucidate...

I'll re-read what I wrote and see whether I've been misleading

...and tranquility,

Keith

9) Message boards : Number crunching : Really not good! (Message 356392)
Posted 4 Jul 2006 by Profile Keith Jones
Post:

If we have difficulty understanding negative numbers, that will manifest when we’re doing subtraction, rather than division, making it seem harder than addition. If a computer language makes use of an ‘unsigned integer’ data type (thereby saving a bit per word), subtraction of a larger number from a smaller will produce an error—or require a type-conversion step to make the result an ordinary signed integer.

But here we’re talking about floating-point operations, and AFAIK you’re quite right that division and multiplication are symmetrical in this realm. I suspect Pooh was thinking of integer multiplication, which is always safe (barring an overflow) in comparison to division, never producing a floating-point result. Likewise, when people find division more difficult than multiplication, it’s likely because their grasp of fractions is weaker than of integers.


Cool... I was trying to adapt it to a better example, I obviously failed miserably ;-} Note to self : must try harder! PoohBear doesn't explicitly mention subtraction so maybe we're both getting the wrong intentions from PoohBear's words. Ah well eh ?

I think fractions are an *issue*, but why they're an issue might be interesting to think about ;-) This isn't an attempted hijack so I'd better leave my comment as this and only reply out of politeness if you respond.

I see what you mean, but step back in time a bit to learning maths. A leap not hard for me ;-)

CPU's typically mimic fundamental processes. We consider multiplication at that young age as adding numbers together a multiple of times (Times table). Essentially a CPU does the same, with a few more *smarts* involved because everyday numbers have no limits and CPU's do. Hence overflow flags as you mention.

Division is also taught along similar lines, we break it down into subtracting and carrying numbers. CPU's, as you say, have sign bits.

I guess what I was trying to say is how we derive fractions is fundamentally derived from our experiences adding and subtracting. It's the overflows and underflows that we calculate the fractionals from.

As we see big integers but not negative numbers easily in the real world. it may well be be why we have problems with fractionals as well.

How's that for saying we're BOTH right ? ;-)

Regards,
Keith
10) Message boards : Number crunching : Really not good! (Message 355163)
Posted 3 Jul 2006 by Profile Keith Jones
Post:
Hiya,

I guess this has all been said by people far greater in intelligence than I but here are the ideas I haven't seen trashed as imbalanced......yet!

IMHO...

You're quite right in the idea that FLOPS aren't the best way of indicating effort put in and I agree totally with the idea of cpu time being the simplest solution but in a slightly different way.

Whenever you set a standard measure; some will not be able to achieve it; some will over achieve it. Fairness is trying to ensure that the standard measure lies equally between those groups of people.

...that was a bit philosophical but if you can bear with me !!!...

FLOPs are dependant on architecture of the CPU, efficiency of brand, and use of optimisations of extended instructions etc ie P3 vs P4, AMD vs Intel, MMX vs SSE2. It would be extremely hard to map every kind of processor fairly to get an average FLOP.

CPU time, however, is also influenced by CPU efficiency, extended instructions etc. It's not simple to just consider it is a measure of how many cycles your cpu has donated to the task. Some of those cycles can do a lot more with extended instructions etc. So again taking CPU time as a lump figure doesn't work fairly. More importantly it doesn't allow people to see optimisation at work. Hence it makes it hard for the devs to see real life feedback on the core client's effectiveness and therefore the bulk of work being done on their application.

The last(?) option is for the Seti guys to analyze the data, pick an arbitrary value for the average WU and give the same credit for each WU across the board. Sounds like going back to Seti Classic concepts and it has its own problems but they seem less of a 'fairness' issue.

The main issue is to prevent the obvious 'cherry picking'. I know people will cherry pick good WUs for a while but it's bound to show in the 'aborts' showing up for an account. There's already a crude penalty system in place to reduce WUs sent to an individual showing failures and aborts. It just needs to be watched....

The secondary issue is that it blocks the idea of throwing computations to appropriately powerful processors. Then again, that's only really useful for amazingly long single calculations or time critical applications.

This seems to be possible with the approach the team are adopting (ie by asking for un-optimised client results to be reported). This could allow them to produce the required averages....

It's basically a rock and a hard place decision.

I guess I don't really care either way but it would be nice if it could all be 'fair', still allow for the optimisers and not penalise those that don't have the facilities to contribute much. That to me says the last option.. to others it doesn't.... again... such is life ;-)

My tuppence,

Keith

@PoohBear - I hope you don't mind but I'd suggest a small amendment to what you said about division though... division is usally grouped with multiplication as addition is with subtraction. The actions of multiplying versus division should take around the same time as they're basically the same process, just done in reverse. Try doing a few of them on paper and you'll see how similar the process is. It's just that as humans we don't deal with negative numbers easily hence division tends to give us a mental block.... Computers deal with negative numbers with a little less bias ;-)

To amend your analogy, long multiplication should take the average computer the same time as long division. Subtraction and addition should take the same time as each other too, but it's much easier add/subtract than it is to multiply/divide. So yes, Ned was right, good analogy, just swayed a little by being human!
11) Message boards : Number crunching : Are there any site providing optimized clients? (Message 339512)
Posted 16 Jun 2006 by Profile Keith Jones
Post:
I heartily second WorWizard. Thankyou !!!

I can't afford to upgrade, especially not with the electricity bill, so
optmized clients are the only way I can give the project any more crunching...

I know this is a long shot but has anyone actually approached Intel for
sponsorship. They might be interested in having the kudos of showing how they
contributed to science. Hey, it's bound to appeal that the most well known
public distributed computing projects have "Intel inside" in more ways than
one ;-)

You never know, maybe they'd supply enough for "honour system" loans to
interested optimizers :-)

Worth a shot ? Anyone know anyone at Intel ?

Happy crunching,

Keith
12) Questions and Answers : Web site : Login Page - User Interface nicety. (Message 318740)
Posted 27 May 2006 by Profile Keith Jones
Post:
Hi,

This isn't really a massive thing, it's just a little bit of an annoyance ;-)

Could the "Change Password" link be moved to right of the password box so you can do a straight <username> -> <TAB> -> <password> login without accidently visiting the change password page ?

Shouldn't be too much of job :-) and it would certainly stop me 'tutting' everytime I make the error :-)

Regards to all the team and their brave efforts!

Cheers,

Keith
13) Message boards : Number crunching : Please post ~6 month old WUs, here - Revisited. (Message 167143)
Posted 13 Sep 2005 by Profile Keith Jones
Post:
My last one too...

776741

Here's hoping,

Keith
14) Message boards : Number crunching : Report your ~6 month old dead WU here (Message 145312)
Posted 31 Jul 2005 by Profile Keith Jones
Post:

Cool... some of mine have disappeared.... only one left to go before I can delete the machine :-)

776741

15) Message boards : Number crunching : Report your ~6 month old dead WU here (Message 119681)
Posted 6 Jun 2005 by Profile Keith Jones
Post:
18 Jul 2004 - http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=776741
16) Questions and Answers : Wish list : Merging Hosts (Message 51261)
Posted 4 Dec 2004 by Profile Keith Jones
Post:
> Hi,
>
> I agree, as long as it doesn't lead to anyone tweaking their stats! I've got
> a system I upgraded shortly after joining SETI that only processed a few
> units. I'd really like to merge it with with the replacement but as the CPUs
> are different I can't !
>
> Regards,
>
> Keith
>

Just had a second thought.... if it's likely to cause grief with people 'boosting' stats on a particular machine perhaps you could just allow people to delete the system and allocate any of the credits to some sort of slush fund. (either retained with that user or stored globally for the Seti project).

Then at least if I look on boincstats I'm don't end up getting compared to people with 3 systems when I only have two active.

:-)

Cheers,

Keith

17) Questions and Answers : Wish list : Merging Hosts (Message 51260)
Posted 4 Dec 2004 by Profile Keith Jones
Post:
Hi,

I agree, as long as it doesn't lead to anyone tweaking their stats! I've got a system I upgraded shortly after joining SETI that only processed a few units. I'd really like to merge it with with the replacement but as the CPUs are different I can't !

Regards,

Keith





 
©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.