Paul D Buck is right as usual, but I guess occasional chunks of WUs are better than no WUs at all. Their project does keep a spot in my system, and requests go out on a daily basis. I might miss the small packets, but when a big one hits, my machines will get their fair share ...
How is having more people wanting to crunch LHC work than LHC has meaningful work to provide an LHC problem? They could increase replication or create junk WUs to keep a continual supply, but the only results would be increased server load on their end and less real science done boincwide.
How is having more people wanting to crunch LHC work than LHC has meaningful work to provide an LHC problem? They could increase replication or create junk WUs to keep a continual supply, but the only results would be increased server load on their end and less real science done boincwide.
What you mean "they could"? They already do replicate more tasks than necessary and because of it less real science gets done boincwide.
How is having more people wanting to crunch LHC work than LHC has meaningful work to provide an LHC problem? They could increase replication or create junk WUs to keep a continual supply, but the only results would be increased server load on their end and less real science done boincwide.
What you mean "they could"? They already do replicate more tasks than necessary and because of it less real science gets done boincwide.
Agreed, having the IR/MQ at 5/3 is retarded and a complete waste of 40% of the donated resources they get every time they make a science run.
This has been pointed out to them more than once, and if they couldn't care less what the impact of their bad decision is on other projects (not to mention wasting the money it takes for participants to run the useless trailers), then I couldn't care less about running their work (and don't). ;-)
But, have you tried accessing their site lately? Here, every time I try to connect, I get a "connection error" message. And, it's been like that for the past several months. It shouldn't be due to anything on my end, since everything else I access works just fine.
How is having more people wanting to crunch LHC work than LHC has meaningful work to provide an LHC problem? They could increase replication or create junk WUs to keep a continual supply, but the only results would be increased server load on their end and less real science done boincwide.
What you mean "they could"? They already do replicate more tasks than necessary and because of it less real science gets done boincwide.
Agreed, having the IR/MQ at 5/3 is retarded and a complete waste of 40% of the donated resources they get every time they make a science run.
This has been pointed out to them more than once, and if they couldn't care less what the impact of their bad decision is on other projects (not to mention wasting the money it takes for participants to run the useless trailers), then I couldn't care less about running their work (and don't). ;-)
Alinator
Actually, the last time I had any workunits from them, they had started canceling any uncompleted workunits that were no longer needed.
But, have you tried accessing their site lately? Here, every time I try to connect, I get a "connection error" message. And, it's been like that for the past several months. It shouldn't be due to anything on my end, since everything else I access works just fine.
Seriously, the site is fine, both the website and with BOINC Manager.
Can you reach them on your BOINC Manager and get a "No Work" message from them, or is neither working?
How is having more people wanting to crunch LHC work than LHC has meaningful work to provide an LHC problem? They could increase replication or create junk WUs to keep a continual supply, but the only results would be increased server load on their end and less real science done boincwide.
What you mean "they could"? They already do replicate more tasks than necessary and because of it less real science gets done boincwide.
Agreed, having the IR/MQ at 5/3 is retarded and a complete waste of 40% of the donated resources they get every time they make a science run.
This has been pointed out to them more than once, and if they couldn't care less what the impact of their bad decision is on other projects (not to mention wasting the money it takes for participants to run the useless trailers), then I couldn't care less about running their work (and don't). ;-)
Alinator
Actually, the last time I had any workunits from them, they had started canceling any uncompleted workunits that were no longer needed.
Wrong. LHC@home cancels unneeded tasks that have not started crunching. The problem is hosts regularly start tasks even though the work unit has already achieved quorum. Therefore the wasted effort continues, as many of us predicted it would when they announced that they were looking at implementing cancels.
What's up with LHC at Home?
)
They are fine. :-))
http://lhcathome.cern.ch/lhcathome/
cu,
Michael
RE: RE: Has anyone heard
)
Not in my view ... if they were FINE we would get constant work ...
However, they have not gone away ...
Paul D Buck is right as
)
Paul D Buck is right as usual, but I guess occasional chunks of WUs are better than no WUs at all. Their project does keep a spot in my system, and requests go out on a daily basis. I might miss the small packets, but when a big one hits, my machines will get their fair share ...
If I've lived this long - I gotta be that old!
How is having more people
)
How is having more people wanting to crunch LHC work than LHC has meaningful work to provide an LHC problem? They could increase replication or create junk WUs to keep a continual supply, but the only results would be increased server load on their end and less real science done boincwide.
RE: How is having more
)
What you mean "they could"? They already do replicate more tasks than necessary and because of it less real science gets done boincwide.
BOINC FAQ Service
Official BOINC wiki
Installing BOINC on Linux
RE: RE: How is having
)
Agreed, having the IR/MQ at 5/3 is retarded and a complete waste of 40% of the donated resources they get every time they make a science run.
This has been pointed out to them more than once, and if they couldn't care less what the impact of their bad decision is on other projects (not to mention wasting the money it takes for participants to run the useless trailers), then I couldn't care less about running their work (and don't). ;-)
Alinator
RE: RE: Has anyone heard
)
But, have you tried accessing their site lately? Here, every time I try to connect, I get a "connection error" message. And, it's been like that for the past several months. It shouldn't be due to anything on my end, since everything else I access works just fine.
RE: RE: RE: How is
)
Actually, the last time I had any workunits from them, they had started canceling any uncompleted workunits that were no longer needed.
RE: But, have you tried
)
Seriously, the site is fine, both the website and with BOINC Manager.
Can you reach them on your BOINC Manager and get a "No Work" message from them, or is neither working?
RE: RE: RE: RE: How
)
Wrong. LHC@home cancels unneeded tasks that have not started crunching. The problem is hosts regularly start tasks even though the work unit has already achieved quorum. Therefore the wasted effort continues, as many of us predicted it would when they announced that they were looking at implementing cancels.
BOINC FAQ Service
Official BOINC wiki
Installing BOINC on Linux