I am a moderator at the Test4Theory project aka T4T, some of you already know me. We all know and accept the fact that every new project has problems in the beginning and we all know that good projects do what they can to fix those problems. One of the cardinal rules in the BOINC community is that a project absolutely must not steal CPU cycles you have allocated to other projects. T4T has broken that rule. The admins know they are stealing and have refused to do anything about it for over 6 months. Why? Because they like the extra CPU cycles and because they don't know how to get more CPU cycles through honest means.
Recently they proposed testing a new application that would alleviate the problem but they will not install the new server code their new application requires. Without the new server code the application will not function properly which will allow them to say "sorry, the new application failed the test so we must continue with the current application". Yes, they have sabotaged the test application.
At one time I thought they were making an honest effort to fix the problem and be a "good project". Now I see I was wrong. They have no intention of changing their ways and their lies, lame excuses and theft of CPU cycles from other projects will continue. I am ashamed to have been part of their project. I don't want my name associated with T4T any longer and I present this information to the BOINC community so that you can avoid being another one of their victims.
Exactly how do they steal CPU cycles? Their application is actually a wrapper that starts/stops/suspends a virtual machine that does the actual crunching. The wrapper starts the virtual machine but does not suspend it in spite of the fact BOINC manager indicates it has been suspended. Everything appears normal and you don't even know the virtual machine is still running unless you look very carefully. Most volunteers assume the project is honest so they don't check and look carefully. The virtual machine runs at normal priority which means it does not relinquish the CPU for your other BOINC projects or for most of your personal computing needs the way a normal BOINC task does. So do the math... the task doesn't suspend and it runs at normal priority... that adds up to a lot of CPU cycles stolen from your other projects.
A fix for this problem has been available for many months but they have steadfastly refused to implement the fix citing one lame excuse and lie after another. Avoid T4T like the plague.
I've placed this information on many project forums and will place it on many more. Some of you might call that spamming but I think what T4T is doing is atrocious and I am convinced it is necessary to spread the word as quickly as possible which means as many forums as I can. I am not a spam bot, I post manually. Obviously I can't return to all the forums to discuss the issue so if you want more info/discussion please drop in to the T4T forums. This is NOT a ploy to get you to join T4T in fact I am advising that you NOT join T4T.
Copyright © 2024 Einstein@Home. All rights reserved.
rogue project: Test4Theory@home, don't join
I am running Test4Theory@home on 2 systems along with other 5 BOINC projects including Einstein@home and Albert@home,plus a Solaris Virtual Machine running SETI@home and I don't agree with what is written in this post. I know I shall be hated for this and maybe called a "moron" as has happened once in a Aqua@home forum but I do not care. I am a physicist and I am glad to cooperate with CERN.
Tullio
RE: I am running
Here! Here!
RE: I am running
I concur!
Team Linux Users Everywhere
RE: I am a moderator at the
Was a moderator, I see they already demoted you. ;-)
It's never too late, Kim. Welcome to the Asylum. To your left it's the ultra-insane, to the right it's the extremely-insane. Where do you want to go? ;-)
I have been running T4T
I have been running T4T almost since it started. (Back in the days where joining was by invitation only.) It's an interesting project that has introduced the concept of running a virtual machine under BOINC. It has been my experience that the developers are reasonably responsive and are doing as much as possible to make T4T a first class project. Just as in any new approach, there are some issues that can be improved but I give Five Stars to the efforts of the group working on T4T development.
Is it perfect? No. There is an issue with the way the virtual machine doesn't switch out and share the processor with other BOINC projects but posting a rant on other Projects doesn't help in resolving the issue. Especially when these kinds of process interactions are involved. The developers know about the issue and understand that at some point it needs to be addressed. However, fixing it may not be simple especially since BOINC kicks off the virtual machine and it runs without direct control by BOINC.
I've been crunching for SETI for a long time and have lived through the (often) issues when SETI was just getting things sorted out. Maybe those that don't have a very high tolerance for less than instant gratification should consider giving their CPU cycles to a project that is more mature.
I cannot understand why a
I cannot understand why a volunteer is allowed to use the forums of other projects to attack the project in which he is taking part. This was the tactics of a guy called Dagorath referring to the previous version of LHC@home. He was banned from most projects for insulting those who did not agree with him, like myself. I think he has reappeared under a different name.
Tullio
RE: I am running
You can disagree with the facts all you want but the facts are still the facts: their application does not relinquish the CPU to your other projects when your resource shares stipulate that it should. There are at least 200 posts on Test4Theory forums detailing that fact and ~200 more that give advice on what to do about it. I know you didn't miss those posts because you responded to some of them. Now you wish for us to believe none of that is true? You can't be serious!
The fact that the T4T project had in their possession fixes for the bug that causes the app to not relinquish the CPU was established in the 2 test projects where the fixes were tested. I believe the reason they did not issue updates to their apps is because they did not want to fix the bug that brings them a huge windfall in CPU cycles at the expense of other projects. If you don't think that is the reason then publish a rebuttal and give what you think is a better explanation.
You're a physicst? I doubt that. A physicist would know better than to attack established facts. Also, I did not call you a moron.
RE: RE: RE: I am a
You were once a moderator at the T4T too. You quit in disgust over exactly the same issue I now raise.
Topic locked. End of
Topic locked. End of discussion. Take it elsewhere.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal