Posts by FluffyChicken

21) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 2123) Posted 16 Aug 2006 by FluffyChicken Post: With what I've seen so far in one day with up to a 168% difference from lowest to highest credits for one single computer it's nowhere near ready to roll out on Rosetta. You're moving to a cherry picking heaven at the moment I would guess. Wouldn't be hard for some of the larger teams (or bord individual) to create a program grab the stats, see what the initial credits claimed are for that type and tell the team. Could even build it into the boinc client and get it all done automatically.
22) Message boards : Current tests : 10% difference good enough ? (Message 2122) Posted 16 Aug 2006 by FluffyChicken Post: Now two computer returned results (all results are since this morning) Like I said it can only get worse. AthlonXP 2500+ stock 11 results MAX seconds/credit = 439 MIN seconds/credit = 261 difference 168% from min to max (ave = 357 seconds/credit) Pentium III-m 1GHz MAX seconds/credit = 744 MIN seconds/credit = 529 difference 141% from min to max (ave = 630 seconds/credit) Certainly needs to be improved from just my few results returned
23) Message boards : Current tests : 10% difference good enough ? (Message 2120) Posted 16 Aug 2006 by FluffyChicken Post: I recon a 10% difference is good going for any credit system My first two results for the same coputer 3,324.83 secs 7.57 credit = 439 secs for 1 credit 3,557.41 secs 9.00 credit = 395 secs for 1 credit So we have ~11% difference between these two tasks on the same computer. Really they should be the same time for 1 credit but that's never going to happen :-) Is that good enough? Not a large sample though, that could only make it worse ;-) Well its an improvement over the difference generated by using an optimised client :) The difference for the same computer/client is very good, say using the comparison above but looking at BOINC credit (I think this is currently using 5.5.0) But of course what you mean is between 5.5.0 and 5.4.9/11 well that would be around a 300% difference ;-)
24) Message boards : Current tests : 10% difference good enough ? (Message 2089) Posted 16 Aug 2006 by FluffyChicken Post: I recon a 10% difference is good going for any credit system My first two results for the same coputer 3,324.83 secs 7.57 credit = 439 secs for 1 credit 3,557.41 secs 9.00 credit = 395 secs for 1 credit So we have ~11% difference between these two tasks on the same computer. Really they should be the same time for 1 credit but that's never going to happen :-) Is that good enough? Not a large sample though, that could only make it worse ;-)
25) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 2088) Posted 16 Aug 2006 by FluffyChicken Post: Right. My fault for not using the right terminology. So we're on the same page now? Does this mean you agree or disagree with my points? Basically I'm agree with Ethan's viewpoint. What does that mean in plain english? Could you be more vague? My point in this part of the discussion (that you objected to) was: "In fact, I am a huge fan of the way SETI is doing it. And optomized clients mean exactly that...they crunch the SAME job in less time. More work = more credit = more science! Who can argue with that?" So replace OC with SA to correct my language isssue. Do you still object? Yes an optimised science application does more work in a given time (else it's badly optimised ;-) BUT what has that got to do with what we are talking about here. We are talking about people who either compile their own Boinc 'core client' aka 'client' or use a pre-compiled version that scores differently to the client given by boinc on their download page. (note: Everyone is free to do this, and the boinc site even points to some of them and gives instructions how to do this). This is what the whole cofuffle is about. One one person score (claims credit for) for 12hrs work on a computer is often wildely different to what someone else may calim for that exact same computer if they use a different core client (akak crunch3rs, boinc studio, Mac superbench, truxoft or their own compiled not using 'boinc developers' settings) Note, no mork science work is done just the credit someone has claimed. You are talking about somethng completely different and irrelevant to this problem. Probably just the usual boinc naming convention mix up :-) Me, I see no reason to waste time retrospectively adjusting the credits. (and yes mine are a mix of Crunch3rs, Trux, boincStudio, official and develoment. I don't even know what most are running at the moment though they'll probably be 5.4.9 / crunc3rs 5.5.0 / dev5.5.6/9 when I was trying to get the benchmarks differences.) The only thing you do is please a minority of people here that are trying to help fix this, but you will piss off a whole bunch of people. NOT something you want to do given that is the majority of the enthusiasts and the top teams! They have technically done nothing wrong. (also do you keep adjusting if you find this new method does not work out) Just a quick question, we are not going to have this split system (work credit and credit) at Rosetta? I hope not as it just complicates matters. Just make sure it works over here at Ralph first with actually real measurements for a while through a variety of task. Though be sure to set aside any other work to fix and adjust it as results come back in from Rosetta. There will be people with calclators checking them all (and good on them for making the checks!) I'd say if youcan get a +-10% spread your doing very well and I'd leave it at that.
26) Message boards : Number crunching : Default computer location (ralph preferences) (Message 1655) Posted 16 May 2006 by FluffyChicken Post: On this URL http://ralph.bakerlab.org/prefs_edit_form.php?subset=project Was removed the hability of set default computer location ---- Meaning newly created computer will be created at default (global) location Now, only home school work are being allowed So, at each new host I attach I had to manually set the new host Venue to ---- (global/default) *This, after my new host crash, or is flooded by WUs -:( I do have different preferences to ---- and the others 3 , regardimg RAM usage and connect to Network ! Thanks Been like this for a while and as far as I can see, is the same for most projects :-( I accidently set from default too home and now there is no going back, I need more than the 4 options, even wosre since I only have 3 now :-( Carlos, you can use the local preference override file with Boinc-5.4.9, though in their ultimate wisdom, only made this for global preferences and not project <why I have no idea, seems and oversite to me>
27) Message boards : Feedback : Upgrade server to support AMS (Message 1590) Posted 11 May 2006 by FluffyChicken Post: bump, please especially Rosetta :-) Though I seem to have managed to have some of Rosetta at home working with an Account Manager, my preferences changed.
28) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Bug reports for Ralph 5.09 and 5.10 (Message 1488) Posted 5 May 2006 by FluffyChicken Post: Though having some work to test would help ;-) Unless of course you have all you need sent out.
29) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Bug reports for Ralph 5.09 and 5.10 (Message 1486) Posted 5 May 2006 by FluffyChicken Post: See news page for a description of improvements in 5.09. Also, by the way, if you're seeing problems with workunits of the following type, please abort them: HOMO_XXXX... They have a known problem. We're glad we tried these on ralph before on rosetta@home! Hi, although I'm unable to do actual application test on Ralph :-( do the the file size nature .... May an idea for future version of Ralph tests (after the many others ;-) would be to try a terminate commend to remove these 'bad' units. I would assume a way similar to how ClimatePrediction terminates it's task over there. I something like this. - Select tasks that need terminating (server end) - When client connects to server, instruct it to stop the task. - Send a little message along with it (I think others have managed to do this) to say sorry... etc.. Mainly useful for members that use larger caches, so you can pull them out and they don't waste time (at the best) or have big problems (at the worst). since the clients will contact to send a result back, update or just becuase it scheduled to. I know CPDN.net do that because there it wastes lots of time if a model isn't working. Though I'm tempted to see the new screensaver changes... Right, of out to a cafe with a good Wi-fi connection with my laptop to have some fun :-)
30) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : OLD- Bug reports for Windows Ver - 5.00 (and higher) (Message 1181) Posted 15 Apr 2006 by FluffyChicken Post: [quote]... Btw, how do I set my right margin on these forums? My right margin is way off the screen to the right, and it never was like that before. It's either some long text or Tank Masters sig. Either the text needs editting or Tank master need to put a space betwen the teo sig images (or you can turn them of in your forum settings) I'm assuing your using a resolution of less than 1024x768 then. since you mention it after Tank started to post I would assume that's the first place to look.
31) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Debugger Stuff (Message 1179) Posted 15 Apr 2006 by FluffyChicken Post: <offtopic> I can't see why it wouldn't work with other porjects. Since all 5.4.x really is, is a bug fixes and some added features to 5.2.13 If you want to see the 'change log' look at the Mac's changlog it shows the alterations (that are probably relevant) throughout the development (5.3.x series). Don't know why the Mac log has them and the windows only starts from 5.4.0 Mind I have 5.3.31 running and it's fine on all the projects I run so far. Actually a lot better than 5.2.13, so thank's to Rom and the rest of the boinc dev team.
32) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : OLD- Bug reports for Windows Ver - 5.00 (and higher) (Message 1159) Posted 14 Apr 2006 by FluffyChicken Post: Got another one: http://ralph.bakerlab.org/result.php?resultid=86795 Hi, to make it easier for people to get to the link put [url]http://whatever[/url] around you link (without the spaces in the [url ][ / url] )
33) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : OLD- Bug reports for Windows Ver - 5.00 (and higher) (Message 1156) Posted 14 Apr 2006 by FluffyChicken Post: Note. Version 5.00 of Resetta_beta is out, so I guess abort and recieve. Also Rom has requested if people could use the newer Boinc clients 5.4.x (as it aids in debugging)
34) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Debugger Stuff (Message 1155) Posted 14 Apr 2006 by FluffyChicken Post: for the peopl that do not know, 5.4.x is not in official/recommended release so you'll need to look on the development page as well. i.e. http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php?min_version=5.0&dev=1
35) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : RALPH Version News! - Mac Version 5.0 released! (Message 1154) Posted 14 Apr 2006 by FluffyChicken Post: ok just had a look rosetta_beta_5.00_i686-pc-linux-gnu 13-Apr-2006 15:33 8.5M rosetta_beta_5.00_powerpc-apple-darwin 13-Apr-2006 15:34 10M rosetta_beta_5.00_windows_intelx86.exe 13-Apr-2006 15:33 6.6M rosetta_beta_5.00_windows_intelx86.pdb 13-Apr-2006 15:33 7.0M so still just PPC, bit of a bugger if your running boinc 5.4 ;-)
36) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : RALPH Version News! - Mac Version 5.0 released! (Message 1153) Posted 14 Apr 2006 by FluffyChicken Post: is this both x86 and PPC ?
37) Message boards : Feedback : BOINC 5.5.0 Server upgrade (Message 1120) Posted 13 Apr 2006 by FluffyChicken Post: The link to the BOINC WIKI on the main page (true for both sites and not really an introduced problem) needs updating to http://boinc-wiki.ath.cx as it moved a while back.
38) Message boards : Feedback : BOINC 5.5.0 Server upgrade (Message 1119) Posted 13 Apr 2006 by FluffyChicken Post: re-contacted but still the update logs do not seem to be getting created e.g. http://ralph.bakerlab.org/sched_logs/2006-04-13_12/2006-04-13_12:07.txt is not being made and looking at other people same problem.
39) Message boards : Feedback : Mac Intel Application? (Message 1118) Posted 13 Apr 2006 by FluffyChicken Post: The boinc developers are activley asking people to make the Mac Intel Client at the same time as the PPC one. Especially with the new 5.4 release. And also to notify them about it. Though with Rom on the team here, i am assuming they already know. http://www.ssl.berkeley.edu/pipermail/boinc_dev/2006-April/005266.html [boinc_dev] Public rollout of i686-apple-darwin platform Charlie Fenton charlief at ssl.berkeley.edu Tue Apr 11 05:12:04 PDT 2006 Previous message: [boinc_dev] Suggested text change. Next message: [boinc_dev] Running status on top Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The public release of BOINC version 5.4 is imminent; it is currently in final alpha test. This means that the general public will be running BOINC natively on Intel Macintoshes. When Intel Mac users upgrade to 5.4, they will be switched to the new i686-apple-darwin platform. If your project has not implemented this platform, they will no longer be able to run your application. Apple has already converted six models to Intel processors, including two models each of the iMac, PowerBook Pro and Mac Mini. They plan to have all models switched by the end of 2006. I would find it very helpful to have a list of projects which have applications for the Macintosh. Please take a moment and let us know if your project supports: - Macintosh PowerPC - Macintosh Intel - Graphics on Macintosh Thanks for your help! For more information on implementing the i686-apple-darwin platform, see my earlier post at: http://www.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/private/boinc_projects/2006-February/001721.html Build instructions for BOINC and project applications for the Mac can be found at: http://boinc.berkeley.edu/mac_build.html Cheers, --Charlie
40) Message boards : Feedback : BOINC 5.5.0 Server upgrade (Message 1117) Posted 13 Apr 2006 by FluffyChicken Post: click throuhg lots of links all seems fine other than the host last contact sent to a 404, will creat a contact and see if that solves it. But seems faster, well faster than the rosetta forum anyway and I'm on dial-up so notice it quite a lot :-)

Previous 20 · Next 20