> Paul, you (and others it seems) forget that this is a parallel process. The
> computing power is not in the CPU size of each processor, it is in the sheer
> number of processors. This is the benefit of distributed computing. E@H would
> attract more processors (hosts) if the owners of those processors could be
> assured of having credit awarded for the free (to the project) processing
> power that costs them actual money to provide.
To be honest, no, I did not forget.
When I want to move a ton of dirt I rent a truck, not a drag racing car.
When I want to Participate in a distributed computing project I bring several computers to the task. I bought a dual Xeon 3.4 GHz instead of a P4 3.8 Fatal EE machine because though they are the same price the one give much greater throughput. Which is the name of the game. Not how fast you do one WU, but how fast do you do many WU.
The real mistake you are making is that you aare focusing on one part of the system; your computer, and its inability to process Einstein@Home WU the way that you want. The work for Einstein@Home takes aboout 10 hours (give or take) for most of the computers built in the last 5 years. You want to use a computer of a decade ago to do this work and it is not up to the task.
It is especially not up to the task with it only running a few hours of the day. Running only Einstein@Home it might be up to the task or it might not.
Einstein@Home has their deadline set to the value that they do because of other system considerations. The exact point of setting up "Junker" farms is valid to the extent that it is done to do this type of work. Not this project, but this type of project. The computer we have been discussing might be appropriate for SETI@Home or Predictor@Home, but probably not Einstein@Home or CPDN with the constraints you have placed on its run time and its inate speed.
@Gary,
"That last one takes the cake as far as I'm concerned. Paul Buck would be one ..."
[BLUSH]
:)
Are you sure I am not "a legend in my own mind?" (To quote Clint).
Some of the projects run heavily on Level 2 cache on the CPU. Other run on CPU speed. I know Seti runs on L2 cache, Einstein seems to prefer speed.
If you want to run both projects on a computer that has either great L2 cache or great speed, you set your connect to server for anything between 0.5 and 1 day, so you get one unit per project. If either unit is at around 60% of 'been done', it'll contact the server of the project and get you a new unit.
If you got both L2 cache & speed, you set prefs to whatever you want!
I have been doing this long enough on an impaired Celeron 2.3GHz (based on the Northwood CPU, lacks L2 cache: only 128KB, but has good speed), to be able to run 6 to 7 projects side by side, using two different preferences and in all projects I make the deadline with ease.
Trying to suit the project's deadline to your wishes, instead of finding out why the project has this deadline, and thereby going against everyone around you as they are wrong, is just plain stupid.
This is long, but it is in reply to several posts below.
Ok. It seems I am being told in no uncertain terms that my arguments hold no merit here. Thats unfortunate, since it makes the project seem choosy about the donations of CPU time that it recieves. I am not the only one who has concluded this, so please dont slam me for making the observation.
Despite the fact that there are several issues here, people seem to focus on just one - slow computers. These computers would be (and are) welcome on other projects. Often the deadline is defended by comparing it to predictor, without considering that einstein work units take 7 times as long to process. These computers can process predictor work, and recieve credit for doing so.
I have enough experience in IT to know that often, end users ignore issues or hope that they will be raised by someone else more familiar with the problem and will eventually "fix themselves". Some post about it once and hope that a number of similar posts by others will raise awareness and cause the issue to be resolved. Neither approach is particularly successful. I prefer to raise issues and follow them through until they are resolved. That is just my style, but even many similar posts and indeed many similar threads seem to be ignored or shot down around here, which I find puzzling.
When I have an issue with software (or configuration of software) I basically have two choices. I can raise the issue and follow it through to hopefuly improve the software for all that use it, or I can ignore it and find an alternative. The comments below have convinced me to do the latter, so I wont be frequenting these forums in future, since I wont be processing for this project.
Finally, I would like to reply to several of the comments below that impacted me the most.
@Gary
> There is
> really no excuse for simply trying to belittle someone who is making a counter
> argument against your own point of view.
That was not my intention. I think it is fair to say that if someone read the thread they would realise that this suggestion had already been made and would not find it nescessary to make it again. I think that reading the thread is the first step in making enlightened comments which move the issue forward rather than drag it backwards.
Gary goes on to say:
> Please win your argument on its merit and not by casting ridicule.
and then goes on to mock me:
> This is precisely the problem that Todd seems unable to comprehend. Not only
> does he apparently not understand this problem, but he has the temerity to
> label as "ridiculous", those who would dare to suggest that the connect to
> network interval should be lowered to a more reasonable value.
and call me arrogant
> Yet here is this guy, presuming to give him a lecture on the meaning
> of parallel processing as if he were a rank newbie. The arrogance of that
> attitude is quite unbelievable....
and call myself and others inept
> Various people in this thread are laying the entire blame for
> their own ineptitude on the 7 day deadline issue.
and then puts words in our mouths - words that neither I nor other posters in this thread have said.
> They should simply make their
> suggestion about increasing the deadline without stooping to calling the
> developers a bunch of uncaring, unthinking idiots.
He finishes by calling those whose views do not match his own dishonest.
> As a final comment, I would suggest that there is a level of intellectual
> dishonesty in the arguments of those who claim ...
I dont need abuse like that, and believe that I have the right to share my opinions without being subject to it.
> The dishonesty comes from the fact that they are rarely up front with what
> their real intentions are. In a lot of cases their main aim is to give Seti
> the lion's share of the resources and use the other projects as a simple
> backup and for those (many) occasions when Seti seems to have problems. So, they
> are not really wanting to disclose how low a share they are allowing to go to
> the backup projects.
This sounds a bit like paranoia. For the record, I process 4 projects, Einsten, CPDN, Predictor, and Seti. I try to balance those across my machines, except for CPDN which I am trialing on a single machine, however problems (lets just call them problems, ok?) with Einstein that I am not having with any other project, have caused me to detach it from 2 machines so far. I have processed seti for many years and have been trying to give the other projects equal attention. None are so-called "backup" projects. I did try tinkering with the project share but found the default of 100 worked best for me, so each project gets an equal share on each computer it is on. I have disclosed.
> Then they have the temerity to
> attempt to postulate what are effectively ridiculous "proofs" that the backup
> project is entirely at fault in causing them to lose credit.
Interesting that he found my use of the word ridiculous insulting. If I knew what "temerity" meant I might comment further.
> It's great to support multiple projects and it's great to have a "favourite"
> but it's stupid to effectively exclude the backup from getting a meaningful
> share of the overall resources.
Actually einstein is one of my favourites, and was represented on the majority of my machines. It certainly has the coolest screen saver. Perhaps if einstein didnt alienate its volunteers and accepted graciously all cpu cycles donated to it, it might get a larger share of overall resources.
Paul Buck also made comments that I feel I need to reply to
> When I want to move a ton of dirt I rent a truck, not a drag racing car.
Actually I would also liken a disrtibuted computing project to a pile of dirt. A thousand volunteers with wheelbarrows can also move that dirt quickly. Just because they dont have a shiny new truck doesnt make them any less effective.
> The real mistake you are making is that you aare focusing on one part of the
> system; your computer, and its inability to process Einstein@Home WU
> the way that you want. The work for Einstein@Home takes aboout 10
> hours (give or take) for most of the computers built in the last 5 years. You
> want to use a computer of a decade ago to do this work and it is not up to the
> task.
No. Im not. I am having the same problem as a LOT of people. I am trying to resolve the issue which will benefit everyone who is having the same problem by discussing it and hoping to reach a common ground, (this is how problems are solved), but as I have indicated above, I have reached a point where its not worth my time anymore.
What I am saying though is that there are many many older machines out there and allowing them to participate would increase the throughput of work units, simply due to their numbers. Its not just about the deadline - there are several issues that need consideration, even with more recent computers.
To others like myself, who prefer to configure their equipment as they see fit (within the range of available user configurable options), rather than having that configuration dictated to them, I would suggest looking for other projects to donate your time to. There are several, and more are comming. It seems that the people here are not willing to even consider configuring the project in such a way that it is compatible with reasonable configurations that are used to successfully process other projects using the same core software, which is their choice.
Well thats it. Its taken me a long time to write this, so I will in future be spending my time and CPU resources where they are better appreciated.
Actually einstein is one of my favourites, and was represented on the majority of my machines. It certainly has the coolest screen saver.
Since all graphics and the screensaver are using OpenGL, they are taking actual cycles away from crunching. It doesn't matter if you use a slow PC or fast PC for that. Yet if you don't use the screensaver, don't allow Windows/your other OS to use a screensaver and just manually shut down your monitor when you leave your desk, you will notice an increase in crunching speed.
Want to look at the graphics? Use the manager for it, to see the graphics when you want to. Yet do know that every time you use graphics, it bites into your CPU cycles.
I have enough experience in IT
You could've known that. Simple thing, simple fact.
> Paul Buck also made comments that I feel I need to reply to
>
> > When I want to move a ton of dirt I rent a truck, not a drag racing car.
>
> Actually I would also liken a disrtibuted computing project to a pile of dirt.
> A thousand volunteers with wheelbarrows can also move that dirt quickly. Just
> because they dont have a shiny new truck doesnt make them any less effective.
This is true.
But it still obscures the point that a wheelbarrow would be, with enough people a vaild way to move the dirt across the year. Even down the block. But not 5 miles away. Though, if thats all you have, then thats what you do.
But following the argument that an old PC should be allowed to be applied to this project you would have to agree that Einstein@Home should also support my 1MHz 6502 8-bit microprocessor.
Again, the reason that Einstein@Home has the deadline at 7 days if for a valid reason, it allows them to "retire" the work out of the on-line database. But you can only "see" that if you step back.
> > The real mistake you are making is that you aare focusing on one part of
> the
> > system; your computer, and its inability to process Einstein@Home
> WU
> > the way that you want. The work for Einstein@Home takes aboout
> 10
> > hours (give or take) for most of the computers built in the last 5 years.
> You
> > want to use a computer of a decade ago to do this work and it is not up
> to the
> > task.
>
> No. Im not. I am having the same problem as a LOT of people. I am trying to
> resolve the issue which will benefit everyone who is having the same problem
> by discussing it and hoping to reach a common ground, (this is how problems
> are solved), but as I have indicated above, I have reached a point where its
> not worth my time anymore.
And I, at least, have been trying to do that. But the problem I perceive is that you cannot, or will not, see that there is any validity to other viewpoints other than your own.
> What I am saying though is that there are many many older machines out there
> and allowing them to participate would increase the throughput of work units,
> simply due to their numbers. Its not just about the deadline - there are
> several issues that need consideration, even with more recent computers.
Yes, there are people that have slower computers. Yes it would be nice to harness this resource. But, this is not the project right now where those computers can make a contribution.
There are many issues with BOINC. It is still very much a work in progress. It is going to be a work in progress for at least two more years before it starts to "settle-down" with changes coming at a sloweer rate.
> To others like myself, who prefer to configure their equipment as they see fit
> (within the range of available user configurable options), rather than having
> that configuration dictated to them, I would suggest looking for other
> projects to donate your time to. There are several, and more are comming. It
> seems that the people here are not willing to even consider configuring the
> project in such a way that it is compatible with reasonable configurations
> that are used to successfully process other projects using the same core
> software, which is their choice.
There is no one dictating to you, or anyone else. The project has set some limits and said "Here it is, come help if you can."
But, you in turn are dictating, you must change the deadline because I don't like it. And 99% of the people posting here are Participants, just like you, some with more, and some with less experience. We suggested fairly early on that this might not be the project for older resources. Your argument that you can wait for a long period of time is nice. But the project has resource constraints and they may not have the ability to support you in your willingness to accept delayed gratification.
With SETI@Home the order in which work is completed is unimportant. Not knowing the science behind Einstein@Home I cannot say for sure that they have the same luxury. LHC@Home for sure does not. Projects such as these may need the work returned in order, and within a time constraint that does not allow for long delays between issuing the work and the reception of the answer.
> Well thats it. Its taken me a long time to write this, so I will in future be
> spending my time and CPU resources where they are better appreciated.
It is appreciated here as well. And by the majority of us here as well. I feel bad that you have taken this, in my own opinion, rather poorly. But this is a project to which we can donate, but not dictate. We can ask, but not demand. And I am sure if the project could make changes they would, and will.
The computer I am running Einstein@Home on is a good computer. I've spent hundreds of dollars upgrading it, and the only part that is slower than a new computer is the processor. The processor is 448 MHz, which is good for a Pentium II. It isn't like I pulled an ancient computer out of the garbage dump and started running Einstein@Home on it. My computer easily runs Windows XP and almost all of the newest applications and games. Running Einstein@Home is an easy task for the computer, I still have plenty of RAM and hard disk space left. I just think the deadline should be increased so the processor has time to process all of the data.
My computer easily runs Windows XP and almost all of the newest applications and games.
It depends of course what you call the latest games, are they 2D or 3D? Do they have all the terminology enabled that you need these days or not? Are you playing at a speed faster than 2 frames per second at 800x600?
A Pentium 2 motherboard cannot use an AGP 4x/8x Specification 3.0 videocard, though some old (later!) mobos can already use the AGP Spec 2.0 cards AGP1x/2x with Pro option 4x). So you may be able to put in a Radeon or GF4 nVidia chipped board.
Yet playing the latest games? You say newest while I say latest, semantics out of the way, I doubt you can play anything above Need for Speed 2. These days games rely on 3DNow and SSE or SSE2.
It can run Windows XP, yes. But that's because XP doesn't require that much. None of the Windows versions do.
BOINC projects do though. You need some more CPU speed, you need L2 cache, you may even need SSE/SSE2/SSE3/3DNOW, you really need a videocard that can do OpenGL 1.2 at minimum.
I just think the deadline should be increased so the processor has time to process all of the data.
You seem to have missed out on Paul's answer to both you and Todd, just above here.
> Pentium II. It isn't like I pulled an ancient computer out of the garbage
> dump and started running Einstein@Home on it. My computer easily runs
My friend, it IS like you pulled an ancient computer out of the garbage dump. That IS an ancient computer not by human standards, but by the standards of the computer industry it is.
I say this not to be an obnoxious, insulting jerk, but to point out the contrast between your machine and contemporary machines. In PC terms, speed has doubled 5 times since that machine was out. So if your machine was say a "10" the current technology is "320"
> And I, at least, have been trying to do that. But the problem I perceive is
> that you cannot, or will not, see that there is any validity to other
> viewpoints other than your own.
Its funny, but I feel exactly the same way.
> There is no one dictating to you, or anyone else. The project has set some
> limits and said "Here it is, come help if you can."
What you and others are saying is essentially this: If you choose to run this project, you must do so within a narrowly defined set of parameters. Technically you are right, but the only choice the participant has is whether or not to run the project.
> But, you in turn are dictating, you must change the deadline because I don't like it.
That is not what I have been saying at all. I have never dictated, and I dont believe that I have used the word must in relation to changing the deadline. I am very familiar with the varying weights of the words "must" and "should" from my experience in writing standards and specification documents.
Regarding the screensaver mentioned in another post. That was just an off the cuff comment. For the record, My machines run most of the time with the screen off (At least they will when the related power-down problem in boinc is fixed) They at least run without the graphics display, most of the time.
> Paul, you (and others it
)
> Paul, you (and others it seems) forget that this is a parallel process. The
> computing power is not in the CPU size of each processor, it is in the sheer
> number of processors. This is the benefit of distributed computing. E@H would
> attract more processors (hosts) if the owners of those processors could be
> assured of having credit awarded for the free (to the project) processing
> power that costs them actual money to provide.
To be honest, no, I did not forget.
When I want to move a ton of dirt I rent a truck, not a drag racing car.
When I want to Participate in a distributed computing project I bring several computers to the task. I bought a dual Xeon 3.4 GHz instead of a P4 3.8 Fatal EE machine because though they are the same price the one give much greater throughput. Which is the name of the game. Not how fast you do one WU, but how fast do you do many WU.
The real mistake you are making is that you aare focusing on one part of the system; your computer, and its inability to process Einstein@Home WU the way that you want. The work for Einstein@Home takes aboout 10 hours (give or take) for most of the computers built in the last 5 years. You want to use a computer of a decade ago to do this work and it is not up to the task.
It is especially not up to the task with it only running a few hours of the day. Running only Einstein@Home it might be up to the task or it might not.
Einstein@Home has their deadline set to the value that they do because of other system considerations. The exact point of setting up "Junker" farms is valid to the extent that it is done to do this type of work. Not this project, but this type of project. The computer we have been discussing might be appropriate for SETI@Home or Predictor@Home, but probably not Einstein@Home or CPDN with the constraints you have placed on its run time and its inate speed.
@Gary,
"That last one takes the cake as far as I'm concerned. Paul Buck would be one ..."
[BLUSH]
:)
Are you sure I am not "a legend in my own mind?" (To quote Clint).
> Are you sure I am not "a
)
> Are you sure I am not "a legend in my own mind?" (To quote Clint).
Nahhh... You're a legend in your own lunchtime.....
:) ;).
Cheers,
Gary.
Some of the projects run
)
Some of the projects run heavily on Level 2 cache on the CPU. Other run on CPU speed. I know Seti runs on L2 cache, Einstein seems to prefer speed.
If you want to run both projects on a computer that has either great L2 cache or great speed, you set your connect to server for anything between 0.5 and 1 day, so you get one unit per project. If either unit is at around 60% of 'been done', it'll contact the server of the project and get you a new unit.
If you got both L2 cache & speed, you set prefs to whatever you want!
I have been doing this long enough on an impaired Celeron 2.3GHz (based on the Northwood CPU, lacks L2 cache: only 128KB, but has good speed), to be able to run 6 to 7 projects side by side, using two different preferences and in all projects I make the deadline with ease.
Trying to suit the project's deadline to your wishes, instead of finding out why the project has this deadline, and thereby going against everyone around you as they are wrong, is just plain stupid.
Pauly, you're a legend all over. :)
This is long, but it is in
)
This is long, but it is in reply to several posts below.
Ok. It seems I am being told in no uncertain terms that my arguments hold no merit here. Thats unfortunate, since it makes the project seem choosy about the donations of CPU time that it recieves. I am not the only one who has concluded this, so please dont slam me for making the observation.
Despite the fact that there are several issues here, people seem to focus on just one - slow computers. These computers would be (and are) welcome on other projects. Often the deadline is defended by comparing it to predictor, without considering that einstein work units take 7 times as long to process. These computers can process predictor work, and recieve credit for doing so.
I have enough experience in IT to know that often, end users ignore issues or hope that they will be raised by someone else more familiar with the problem and will eventually "fix themselves". Some post about it once and hope that a number of similar posts by others will raise awareness and cause the issue to be resolved. Neither approach is particularly successful. I prefer to raise issues and follow them through until they are resolved. That is just my style, but even many similar posts and indeed many similar threads seem to be ignored or shot down around here, which I find puzzling.
When I have an issue with software (or configuration of software) I basically have two choices. I can raise the issue and follow it through to hopefuly improve the software for all that use it, or I can ignore it and find an alternative. The comments below have convinced me to do the latter, so I wont be frequenting these forums in future, since I wont be processing for this project.
Finally, I would like to reply to several of the comments below that impacted me the most.
@Gary
> There is
> really no excuse for simply trying to belittle someone who is making a counter
> argument against your own point of view.
That was not my intention. I think it is fair to say that if someone read the thread they would realise that this suggestion had already been made and would not find it nescessary to make it again. I think that reading the thread is the first step in making enlightened comments which move the issue forward rather than drag it backwards.
Gary goes on to say:
> Please win your argument on its merit and not by casting ridicule.
and then goes on to mock me:
> This is precisely the problem that Todd seems unable to comprehend. Not only
> does he apparently not understand this problem, but he has the temerity to
> label as "ridiculous", those who would dare to suggest that the connect to
> network interval should be lowered to a more reasonable value.
and call me arrogant
> Yet here is this guy, presuming to give him a lecture on the meaning
> of parallel processing as if he were a rank newbie. The arrogance of that
> attitude is quite unbelievable....
and call myself and others inept
> Various people in this thread are laying the entire blame for
> their own ineptitude on the 7 day deadline issue.
and then puts words in our mouths - words that neither I nor other posters in this thread have said.
> They should simply make their
> suggestion about increasing the deadline without stooping to calling the
> developers a bunch of uncaring, unthinking idiots.
He finishes by calling those whose views do not match his own dishonest.
> As a final comment, I would suggest that there is a level of intellectual
> dishonesty in the arguments of those who claim ...
I dont need abuse like that, and believe that I have the right to share my opinions without being subject to it.
> The dishonesty comes from the fact that they are rarely up front with what
> their real intentions are. In a lot of cases their main aim is to give Seti
> the lion's share of the resources and use the other projects as a simple
> backup and for those (many) occasions when Seti seems to have problems. So, they
> are not really wanting to disclose how low a share they are allowing to go to
> the backup projects.
This sounds a bit like paranoia. For the record, I process 4 projects, Einsten, CPDN, Predictor, and Seti. I try to balance those across my machines, except for CPDN which I am trialing on a single machine, however problems (lets just call them problems, ok?) with Einstein that I am not having with any other project, have caused me to detach it from 2 machines so far. I have processed seti for many years and have been trying to give the other projects equal attention. None are so-called "backup" projects. I did try tinkering with the project share but found the default of 100 worked best for me, so each project gets an equal share on each computer it is on. I have disclosed.
> Then they have the temerity to
> attempt to postulate what are effectively ridiculous "proofs" that the backup
> project is entirely at fault in causing them to lose credit.
Interesting that he found my use of the word ridiculous insulting. If I knew what "temerity" meant I might comment further.
> It's great to support multiple projects and it's great to have a "favourite"
> but it's stupid to effectively exclude the backup from getting a meaningful
> share of the overall resources.
Actually einstein is one of my favourites, and was represented on the majority of my machines. It certainly has the coolest screen saver. Perhaps if einstein didnt alienate its volunteers and accepted graciously all cpu cycles donated to it, it might get a larger share of overall resources.
Paul Buck also made comments that I feel I need to reply to
> When I want to move a ton of dirt I rent a truck, not a drag racing car.
Actually I would also liken a disrtibuted computing project to a pile of dirt. A thousand volunteers with wheelbarrows can also move that dirt quickly. Just because they dont have a shiny new truck doesnt make them any less effective.
> The real mistake you are making is that you aare focusing on one part of the
> system; your computer, and its inability to process Einstein@Home WU
> the way that you want. The work for Einstein@Home takes aboout 10
> hours (give or take) for most of the computers built in the last 5 years. You
> want to use a computer of a decade ago to do this work and it is not up to the
> task.
No. Im not. I am having the same problem as a LOT of people. I am trying to resolve the issue which will benefit everyone who is having the same problem by discussing it and hoping to reach a common ground, (this is how problems are solved), but as I have indicated above, I have reached a point where its not worth my time anymore.
What I am saying though is that there are many many older machines out there and allowing them to participate would increase the throughput of work units, simply due to their numbers. Its not just about the deadline - there are several issues that need consideration, even with more recent computers.
To others like myself, who prefer to configure their equipment as they see fit (within the range of available user configurable options), rather than having that configuration dictated to them, I would suggest looking for other projects to donate your time to. There are several, and more are comming. It seems that the people here are not willing to even consider configuring the project in such a way that it is compatible with reasonable configurations that are used to successfully process other projects using the same core software, which is their choice.
Well thats it. Its taken me a long time to write this, so I will in future be spending my time and CPU resources where they are better appreciated.
Actually einstein is one of
)
Actually einstein is one of my favourites, and was represented on the majority of my machines. It certainly has the coolest screen saver.
Since all graphics and the screensaver are using OpenGL, they are taking actual cycles away from crunching. It doesn't matter if you use a slow PC or fast PC for that. Yet if you don't use the screensaver, don't allow Windows/your other OS to use a screensaver and just manually shut down your monitor when you leave your desk, you will notice an increase in crunching speed.
Want to look at the graphics? Use the manager for it, to see the graphics when you want to. Yet do know that every time you use graphics, it bites into your CPU cycles.
I have enough experience in IT
You could've known that. Simple thing, simple fact.
> Paul Buck also made
)
> Paul Buck also made comments that I feel I need to reply to
>
> > When I want to move a ton of dirt I rent a truck, not a drag racing car.
>
> Actually I would also liken a disrtibuted computing project to a pile of dirt.
> A thousand volunteers with wheelbarrows can also move that dirt quickly. Just
> because they dont have a shiny new truck doesnt make them any less effective.
This is true.
But it still obscures the point that a wheelbarrow would be, with enough people a vaild way to move the dirt across the year. Even down the block. But not 5 miles away. Though, if thats all you have, then thats what you do.
But following the argument that an old PC should be allowed to be applied to this project you would have to agree that Einstein@Home should also support my 1MHz 6502 8-bit microprocessor.
Again, the reason that Einstein@Home has the deadline at 7 days if for a valid reason, it allows them to "retire" the work out of the on-line database. But you can only "see" that if you step back.
> > The real mistake you are making is that you aare focusing on one part of
> the
> > system; your computer, and its inability to process Einstein@Home
> WU
> > the way that you want. The work for Einstein@Home takes aboout
> 10
> > hours (give or take) for most of the computers built in the last 5 years.
> You
> > want to use a computer of a decade ago to do this work and it is not up
> to the
> > task.
>
> No. Im not. I am having the same problem as a LOT of people. I am trying to
> resolve the issue which will benefit everyone who is having the same problem
> by discussing it and hoping to reach a common ground, (this is how problems
> are solved), but as I have indicated above, I have reached a point where its
> not worth my time anymore.
And I, at least, have been trying to do that. But the problem I perceive is that you cannot, or will not, see that there is any validity to other viewpoints other than your own.
> What I am saying though is that there are many many older machines out there
> and allowing them to participate would increase the throughput of work units,
> simply due to their numbers. Its not just about the deadline - there are
> several issues that need consideration, even with more recent computers.
Yes, there are people that have slower computers. Yes it would be nice to harness this resource. But, this is not the project right now where those computers can make a contribution.
There are many issues with BOINC. It is still very much a work in progress. It is going to be a work in progress for at least two more years before it starts to "settle-down" with changes coming at a sloweer rate.
> To others like myself, who prefer to configure their equipment as they see fit
> (within the range of available user configurable options), rather than having
> that configuration dictated to them, I would suggest looking for other
> projects to donate your time to. There are several, and more are comming. It
> seems that the people here are not willing to even consider configuring the
> project in such a way that it is compatible with reasonable configurations
> that are used to successfully process other projects using the same core
> software, which is their choice.
There is no one dictating to you, or anyone else. The project has set some limits and said "Here it is, come help if you can."
But, you in turn are dictating, you must change the deadline because I don't like it. And 99% of the people posting here are Participants, just like you, some with more, and some with less experience. We suggested fairly early on that this might not be the project for older resources. Your argument that you can wait for a long period of time is nice. But the project has resource constraints and they may not have the ability to support you in your willingness to accept delayed gratification.
With SETI@Home the order in which work is completed is unimportant. Not knowing the science behind Einstein@Home I cannot say for sure that they have the same luxury. LHC@Home for sure does not. Projects such as these may need the work returned in order, and within a time constraint that does not allow for long delays between issuing the work and the reception of the answer.
> Well thats it. Its taken me a long time to write this, so I will in future be
> spending my time and CPU resources where they are better appreciated.
It is appreciated here as well. And by the majority of us here as well. I feel bad that you have taken this, in my own opinion, rather poorly. But this is a project to which we can donate, but not dictate. We can ask, but not demand. And I am sure if the project could make changes they would, and will.
The computer I am running
)
The computer I am running Einstein@Home on is a good computer. I've spent hundreds of dollars upgrading it, and the only part that is slower than a new computer is the processor. The processor is 448 MHz, which is good for a Pentium II. It isn't like I pulled an ancient computer out of the garbage dump and started running Einstein@Home on it. My computer easily runs Windows XP and almost all of the newest applications and games. Running Einstein@Home is an easy task for the computer, I still have plenty of RAM and hard disk space left. I just think the deadline should be increased so the processor has time to process all of the data.
My computer easily runs
)
My computer easily runs Windows XP and almost all of the newest applications and games.
It depends of course what you call the latest games, are they 2D or 3D? Do they have all the terminology enabled that you need these days or not? Are you playing at a speed faster than 2 frames per second at 800x600?
A Pentium 2 motherboard cannot use an AGP 4x/8x Specification 3.0 videocard, though some old (later!) mobos can already use the AGP Spec 2.0 cards AGP1x/2x with Pro option 4x). So you may be able to put in a Radeon or GF4 nVidia chipped board.
Yet playing the latest games? You say newest while I say latest, semantics out of the way, I doubt you can play anything above Need for Speed 2. These days games rely on 3DNow and SSE or SSE2.
It can run Windows XP, yes. But that's because XP doesn't require that much. None of the Windows versions do.
BOINC projects do though. You need some more CPU speed, you need L2 cache, you may even need SSE/SSE2/SSE3/3DNOW, you really need a videocard that can do OpenGL 1.2 at minimum.
I just think the deadline should be increased so the processor has time to process all of the data.
You seem to have missed out on Paul's answer to both you and Todd, just above here.
> Pentium II. It isn't like
)
> Pentium II. It isn't like I pulled an ancient computer out of the garbage
> dump and started running Einstein@Home on it. My computer easily runs
My friend, it IS like you pulled an ancient computer out of the garbage dump. That IS an ancient computer not by human standards, but by the standards of the computer industry it is.
I say this not to be an obnoxious, insulting jerk, but to point out the contrast between your machine and contemporary machines. In PC terms, speed has doubled 5 times since that machine was out. So if your machine was say a "10" the current technology is "320"
> And I, at least, have been
)
> And I, at least, have been trying to do that. But the problem I perceive is
> that you cannot, or will not, see that there is any validity to other
> viewpoints other than your own.
Its funny, but I feel exactly the same way.
> There is no one dictating to you, or anyone else. The project has set some
> limits and said "Here it is, come help if you can."
What you and others are saying is essentially this: If you choose to run this project, you must do so within a narrowly defined set of parameters. Technically you are right, but the only choice the participant has is whether or not to run the project.
> But, you in turn are dictating, you must change the deadline because I don't like it.
That is not what I have been saying at all. I have never dictated, and I dont believe that I have used the word must in relation to changing the deadline. I am very familiar with the varying weights of the words "must" and "should" from my experience in writing standards and specification documents.
Regarding the screensaver mentioned in another post. That was just an off the cuff comment. For the record, My machines run most of the time with the screen off (At least they will when the related power-down problem in boinc is fixed) They at least run without the graphics display, most of the time.