|
1)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Hyperthreading helps ?
(Message 403445)
Posted 22 Aug 2006 by Pfister Online Post: hi all, i just celebrating the double of my credits in only 7 days since i started again to participate on the project's. by the way, i saw that the computer running with active HT got more credits in this week... Recent average credit Total 250.36 3,197.21 <- no HT 266.22 3,427.08 <- active HT Booth of them started to crunch at the same time without any further stops. |
|
2)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Hyperthreading helps ?
(Message 403443)
Posted 22 Aug 2006 by Pfister Online Post: Hi all, just wanna celebrate the double of my credits in the last 7 days..... btw i saw in the stats of the computer that the dual xeon with ACTIVATED HT got more credits..... Recent averagecredit Total 250.36 3,197.21 |
|
3)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Hostname including Domain name....Really needed ?
(Message 399876)
Posted 17 Aug 2006 by Pfister Online Post: Hey hey friends.......please don't expand the "problem" more as needed :-) Atually I installed the BOINC clients for test purpose on approx 10 machines, all of them on NON productive systems. So i'm quiet sure to not stay with one feet in the jail yet.... :-) But my question doesnt points to this part. Trying to seize my ongoing questions and this discussion together: - When a host are a member of a domain, not care about the role and the OS of the host, the Fully Qualified Domain Name are reported to the BOINC projects. Even a manual hosts entry doesnt helps, I tried it already, but this would be anyway an annoying workaround (manual entry, reboot, don't forget it to remove at the end etc.) - When a host are a member of a workgroup only the single hostname without workgroup are reported to the BOINC projects And no, I'm not talking about Win9x or anything like that. For business and private I'm using actually only Win2k or XP or Win2k03. Toby's explanation of the query of the BOINC clients would support these "assumptions": Looking at the code and the MS docs it would appear that you are correct. The BOINC code uses the "hostent struct" (in client/hostinfo_network.C ) for detemining the IP and hostname. The host name is stored in the h_name field. From MS winsock docs: Like he says, it could be a "bug" in the windows client and maybee it will be fixed soon. So it's for me at the moment "pending", the support work ongoing and finally fine for me. At this place i like to congratulate to this forum, I got alot of response in 24 hours and also a believable explanation. Top work ! But to answers the many posts about: "Why you care about it and why you let the client run then...?" Hey, i would like to participate with the projects.....whats wrong with it ? The BOINC client are in my view NOT a security issue, I dislike only the reported FQDN. And........it's just a simple question and if this will be solved....everything will be fine for me........ Don't forget, i called it in my intitial post an "indiscretion", not a security problem.......... Ha ha, i forgot to mention my main reason to join BOINC projects, especially Seti@Home......its simple...meeting new nice peoples with similar interests. The "dream factor" are also present on this........and i hate computers they doesnt work....just turning there empty rounds.....if you know what i mean. This while I even gave my private exchange server also additional 60% cpuload.....ha ha.......let em work !! ------------------------------------ BUT to be serious just for a moment: The BOINC client report so i know at the moment. - Fully Qualified Domain Name like hostname.mydomain.fqdn (my question) - Local IP Range like 192.168.1.1 (i'm not care, for this you got an firewall) - External IP like 212.67.xxx.xxx (still not care....) - OS including SP level (hmm, discutable....but used for some nice statistic reasons, I can live with it....) - lotsa of other stuff like disk, cpu id, benchmarks etc. (not worth to mention) And finally, if you install it as service, the BOINC clients knows (not send) an account with at least Logon as service right. So, if you take all this together and thinks as professional about security issues in general, some bad feelings COULD pop up...... I believe I can trust anybody of the BOINC projects but to stop the ongoing discussion, it would be the best to NOT send the FQDN, just the single hostname. With this I would be happy already, the rest I can handle myself. |
|
4)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Hostname including Domain name....Really needed ?
(Message 399512)
Posted 16 Aug 2006 by Pfister Online Post: None of my windows machines report the domain name. On my linux machines, they do or don't, depending on how I have my /etc/hosts file set up. I'm pretty sure this is an OS configuration issue. All BOINC does is query the OS for its hostname. If the OS returns the full domain then BOINC includes it - otherwise it only reports the hostname without the domain. Then they aren't in a domain, mine are all or at least 98% of them. But if that what you writing is correct it would be fine for me..... Otherwise, would it be a big work to offer a possibility to limit the hostname with a simple click ? Or better to be limited in the default settings already. So no bad feelings can arise to cut the discussion already at the start. Last but not least if there are a trick to supress the domain name be SENT(of course on domain member computers, server or dc's......that would fullfill my wishes already. |
|
5)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Hostname including Domain name....Really needed ?
(Message 399507)
Posted 16 Aug 2006 by Pfister Online Post: So, ultimately, we have to decide for ourselves that we trust Matt, and Eric, and Rom, and David. What Phister Online has to do is decide if he can morally and legally trust them on behalf of this mystery customer -- especially if he's doing so without full disclosure. Thats exactly the point i'm talking about. Guess alot of BOINC users are IT professionals and quiet familiar with security issues. Its not really a problem about not trusting anybody of Seti or other programs. They do very good work and i would enjoy to spare my possibilities with their projects. But like we know all, control are better as trust and i would like to be sure that no compromising data goes out to the internet, secure or not. CPU power ? No problem, got enough of them. But please no network data..... Could bring someone light in this thing ? |
|
6)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Hostname including Domain name....Really needed ?
(Message 399389)
Posted 16 Aug 2006 by Pfister Online Post: Snip..... Thanks alot for the info, i changed it already.... But the client still sends the data out.......maybee the right thing for a feature request ? Not that you guys get me wrong.......but some clients can get really annoying....they like to know every bit of the dataflow goes out of the firewall........business...... |
|
7)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Hostname including Domain name....Really needed ?
(Message 399346)
Posted 16 Aug 2006 by Pfister Online Post: I saw the hostnames listed in my stats......complete with the domain name. Thanks for your input, but my computers/servers are mostly used in an active directory domain, like in any company. Actually i'm installing a new IT enviroment for a company with 24 dual cpu servers. Thats a total of 48 x Xeon cpu's with 3.6 GHz. The best of it, they stay at the moment in our setup lab and will not be used until mid of october. I saw in the ranklist that the hosts on the leader are "hided". Maybee an moderator can give me more hints about that. The 10k credits u see at my stats are builded from a P3 664 MHz. I let em run since the last november :-) I just started this week again to participate more often with the BOINC projects. |
|
8)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Hostname including Domain name....Really needed ?
(Message 399283)
Posted 16 Aug 2006 by Pfister Online Post: I'm not sure why this concerns you as only you can see it. Hmm, i may have not explained the circumstance completely..... I have access to dozens of servers of customers before the servers get "productive" or before they even get delivered to the customers. Mostly for a time period of a week or severals weeks. Some of them are already installed with the customer domain, some not. Whatever, i dislike that the domain name get out of the network. This I called before an "indiscretion", at the most when its not really needed for the project. I'm not care about the hostname and also not care about the IP. A proper firewall will does his work there usually. |
|
9)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Hostname including Domain name....Really needed ?
(Message 399268)
Posted 16 Aug 2006 by Pfister Online Post: I saw the hostnames listed in my stats......complete with the domain name. Are this really needed ? Only the hostname would be better for me.............the complete domain could be sometimes an indiscretion. I know that normal visitor can't see it at my stats, but its still data that not must be sent over the firewall out of the network and furthermore it will be not needed for the project or i'm wrong ? |
©2020 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.