Posts by hooded.figure
|
1)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
I Just Don't Believe It
(Message 165199)
Posted 9 Sep 2005 by  hooded.figure
Post: Actually I think that 1,000,000,000 is a Gb. You are right, I was actually working this out when you posted -matt |
|
2)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
AtomChip® Quantum® II processor
(Message 164672)
Posted 8 Sep 2005 by hooded.figure
Post: Notice something missing? EVERY SINGLE website I have ever been to has a copyright notice at the bottom. On that site, there is not one copyright notice anywhere that I found. Also you'd think that when they have patents pending they would secure their website with copyright notices. -matt |
|
3)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Suggestion for clients to help backlog
(Message 163761)
Posted 6 Sep 2005 by hooded.figure
Post: but this isn't normal workload currently. This is all stuff that piled up from the outage. -matt |
|
4)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
A message concerning +/- voting
(Message 163758)
Posted 6 Sep 2005 by hooded.figure
Post: I voted + on both of them for ya :) -matt |
|
5)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Suggestion for clients to help backlog
(Message 163745)
Posted 6 Sep 2005 by hooded.figure
Post: But what I am trying to say is that they have no idea what is causing the issues. Here is a part of the latest tech news: An even better (and quicker) solution is that we release the new SETI@home/BOINC client which does a lot more science (with much better resolution in chirp space) and therefore it takes much longer for workunits to complete. While this will not affect user credit (as BOINC credit is based on actual work, not the more arbitrary number of workunits), this will reduce the load on our servers by as much as 75% (maybe more), since there will be a lot less workunits/results to process. This should have an immediate positive effect on all our backend services, and then we can diagnose our disk wait issues in a less stressful environment. We are still testing this new client, and the scientist/programmer doing most of the work on this will be returning from vacation shortly. This implies that they WANT to lighten the load, strengthening my point. -matt |
|
6)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Suggestion for clients to help backlog
(Message 163736)
Posted 6 Sep 2005 by hooded.figure
Post: As stated, they are trying to test their limits, at least some. If a ton of people stop, how can they test and see what the limits will be? You are just causing more issues, when you come back, as they will get hit hard again, and then not know what they need to do. Please post a link to where it says they are trying to test the limits. It seems to me that the limit has been reached, and right now they don't know how to fix it, or even know what went wrong. First thing's first, we need to lighten the load on the servers so they can get back to normal. THEN they can do what they need to do to test the limits. And also if we do a system like I stated in my previous post, then it will not be so hard of a hit when we come back. -matt |
|
7)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Suggestion for clients to help backlog
(Message 163732)
Posted 6 Sep 2005 by hooded.figure
Post: I didn't think about this earlier, but say we have 5000 people do this, and they all have 2 computers, that is 10000 computers. Now say all these people at once decide to allow new work. That would be quite a large spike and may introduce new backlog. I propose that if enough people do this we create our own system of allowing new work. We can go with something like "ok if your last name starts with a-d allow new work today" and so on. Or if someone has a better idea post it here. Also, so we can know who all does this for systematic purposes, tell us on this thread so we can decide if we need to systematically allow new work or not -matt |
|
8)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Suggestion for clients to help backlog
(Message 163725)
Posted 6 Sep 2005 by hooded.figure
Post: To not compound the backlog further and to help make it blow over quicker, why don't we set our BOINC clients to Not allow any new work. It sounds crazy, but we should give the servers a break while they catch up. That is what I did to my three computers, they are going to finish and upload whatever they have, then start crunching Einstein. I think this is a good idea, we need to do our part to help the servers catch up, and our part is not giving the servers more to do. That is my opinion, just give the servers a break until they can catch up. -matt |
|
9)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
point about credits
(Message 163713)
Posted 6 Sep 2005 by hooded.figure
Post:
hmm, have you read the technical news lately? -matt |
|
10)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
New error message
(Message 163703)
Posted 6 Sep 2005 by hooded.figure
Post: Hey Paul, I wouldn't post your e-mail like that anywhere on the internet. Spiders that crawl the web look for e-mail addresses like that to send spam to. Use something like "blah -at- blah -dot- com" or "blah .at. blah *dot* com". Just use something different like that so spiders don't get ya. -matt |
|
11)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
What am I doing wrong?? Help please!!
(Message 163380)
Posted 5 Sep 2005 by hooded.figure
Post: OK I double-checked this out, and I was incorrect in saying the "ssl" part is needed. That is the correct address that StokeyBob posted. I seem to remember the "ssl" part always being there...am I crazy? Or was it just faded out of existence? -matt |
|
12)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
What am I doing wrong?? Help please!!
(Message 163371)
Posted 5 Sep 2005 by hooded.figure
Post: The reason your nslookup did not work StokeyBob is because you did not type the address in correctly. [EDIT: it seems as though the post has been edited as I was typing this, so nevermind] The correct address is setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu. And Dorphas the same goes to you. When you attached your project to SETI you attached the incorrect address. Dorphas you forgot the "ssl" part and StokeyBob you forgot the "berkeley" part. This should solve the problem. -matt |
|
13)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Why are we here?
(Message 160912)
Posted 31 Aug 2005 by hooded.figure
Post: Keith your log shows only SETI having problems. You successfully contacted the scheduler On Einstein and CP -matt EDIT: You even showed that you contacted the scheduler on SETI also, just can't upload or download any SETI at the moment |
|
14)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Back in service!
(Message 160439)
Posted 31 Aug 2005 by hooded.figure
Post: but also notice that it seems the bandwidth in and out has been decreased. So all the people trying to download and upload are giving the validators a chance to get them as they come in now. Also notice that when the project first came back up the validators showed 8000+ waiting. Then the network bandwidth slowed considerably and limited the number of incoming results. Maybe also the validators were tweaked... -matt |
|
15)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Back in service!
(Message 160430)
Posted 31 Aug 2005 by hooded.figure
Post: Even the WFV Dropped....I guess we blew sumthin'up wow the WFV is now at 0, if that number is correct then wow those validators did a kick ass job -matt |
|
16)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Holy Crap! Fast Optimized client
(Message 160424)
Posted 31 Aug 2005 by hooded.figure
Post: OK I believe I can already give an educated update. I have watching the numbers the past few mins. The % complete steadily increasing, the time spent steadily increasing, and the time left steadily decreasing. For every 5 seconds spent, my time left decreases by around 2-3 seconds. Right now the client is 11% done with 11:45 spent and 1:35:56 left. Going by the numbers now and how they have been increasing/decreasing, I would guess the WU total time to be around 1 hour and 45 minutes. +-10 mins So it would seem to me the XP upgrade helped a little bit, but not much in the short run. In long run, 10-15 minutes is a lot of time -matt |
|
17)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Holy Crap! Fast Optimized client
(Message 160412)
Posted 31 Aug 2005 by hooded.figure
Post: Actually I upgraded to WinXP Pro 64-bit. I don't think BOINC knows the difference. I acted on your thought and checked out one of my other comps running this, the older computer usually takes about 10 hours to complete a WU. I set up the optimized client on that one as well, which knocked it down to about 6 and a half hours. Alright here is whatv I did: I reverted back to the old client to run a WU. I suspended EINSTEIN and suspended the current Optimized client WU so I can start fresh with a new WU and the original client. I will update either later tonight or tomorrow with the total time on that WU -matt |
|
18)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
donator power
(Message 160395)
Posted 31 Aug 2005 by hooded.figure
Post: gotcha man no hard feelings :) -matt |
|
19)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Holy Crap! Fast Optimized client
(Message 160391)
Posted 31 Aug 2005 by hooded.figure
Post: Actually I upgraded to WinXP Pro 64-bit. I don't think BOINC knows the difference. I acted on your thought and checked out one of my other comps running this, the older computer usually takes about 10 hours to complete a WU. I set up the optimized client on that one as well, which knocked it down to about 6 and a half hours. -matt |
|
20)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
donator power
(Message 160373)
Posted 31 Aug 2005 by hooded.figure
Post: ok now that you have mentioned that you pay, i can understand how you feel. but also, I do not believe your money is being wasted. I also believe that you know that when you donate your money, you know that there could, and will, be problems with the service. I cannot even imagine how hard and exhilirating it must be for the SETI admins to keep track of the hundreds of thousands of lines of code that make up SETI. You have to look at the overall picture here. Most of the time SERI/BOINC works great. It coughs every once in a while. This last outage is a good example. The computers were at fault and had problems. The SETI found and fixed those problems. Not only did they do that, they let the project settle during the downtime so all the other problems could get fixed and so when they brought it up again it would run as smoothly as possible. All I am asking is some patience. It is a virtue. Don't blame the admins and don't blame science for a computer error -matt |
Next 20
©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.