So, yeah, for some reason the LHC@home folk are blocking me out.
Hmmmm. Well, the bog trotters are very sensitive about their embarassingly wasteful IR 5 for Q 3 policy. Have heard they're catching a lot of flack over it from other project admins and devs. Have you ever said anything negative about it? They're probably blocking your IP address.
So, yeah, for some reason the LHC@home folk are blocking me out.
Hmmmm. Well, the bog trotters are very sensitive about their embarassingly wasteful IR 5 for Q 3 policy. Have heard they're catching a lot of flack over it from other project admins and devs. Have you ever said anything negative about it? They're probably blocking your IP address.
Or perhaps he happens to be in the same IP address range with someone who has been banned multiple times over the past couple of months who might create a new account under an assumed name...?
So, yeah, for some reason the LHC@home folk are blocking me out.
Hmmmm. Well, the bog trotters are very sensitive about their embarassingly wasteful IR 5 for Q 3 policy. Have heard they're catching a lot of flack over it from other project admins and devs. Have you ever said anything negative about it? They're probably blocking your IP address.
Or perhaps he happens to be in the same IP address range with someone who has been banned multiple times over the past couple of months who might create a new account under an assumed name...?
So, yeah, for some reason the LHC@home folk are blocking me out.
Hmmmm. Well, the bog trotters are very sensitive about their embarassingly wasteful IR 5 for Q 3 policy. Have heard they're catching a lot of flack over it from other project admins and devs. Have you ever said anything negative about it? They're probably blocking your IP address.
Or perhaps he happens to be in the same IP address range with someone who has been banned multiple times over the past couple of months who might create a new account under an assumed name...?
So, yeah, for some reason the LHC@home folk are blocking me out.
Hmmmm. Well, the bog trotters are very sensitive about their embarassingly wasteful IR 5 for Q 3 policy. Have heard they're catching a lot of flack over it from other project admins and devs. Have you ever said anything negative about it? They're probably blocking your IP address.
Or perhaps he happens to be in the same IP address range with someone who has been banned multiple times over the past couple of months who might create a new account under an assumed name...?
Could be.
Hey Don! Are you in same address range as B.S. ?
You know to whom he's referring.
I think he's referring to himself because he broke the forum rules over there so many times.
I know he's not refering to me because they ain't blocking my IP :)
It's a very sad day for the BOINC community. On the one hand we have projects like Einstein@home that are developed and run by skilled, community minded people who have a conscience. They make the effort to keep their science app, work units and policies efficient, thereby reducing wasted effort.
On the other hand we have bad apples like LHC@home that make the whole barrel stink and rot. The LHC@home project knowingly and purposefully tosses 25% of everyone's contribution of CPU time, hardware and electricity into the waste basket. They don't receive any benefit from that 25% waste that they cannot get from a 0 waste policy and practice. The 25% would be acceptable if it could not be avoided but it can be avoided. All the tools and technology exist to eliminate the waste but the project admins refuse to even admit the problem exists. What's even sadder is that they now censor posts in the LHC@home forums that even mention the issue and they promote lies that cover up the waste.
If you have computers attached to LHC@home, detach them and donate your precious CPU time, hardware and electricity instead to a project run by competent people who need your donation and do what they can to conserve the resources that ALL the BOINC projects need.
Well, I thought long and hard about replying to the question you asked me earlier.
I reviewed all the discussion I could find on LHC about IR/MQ, and also looked at quite a few of the WU's still shown for a number of hosts to see if I could get a feel for what the task failure rate was for LHC.
From that, I would have to say the arguments for excess replication speeding their throughput are somewhat lame today. Most cleared on 3 returns, indicating that there is no pressing need to issue trailers by default, at least from my POV. Even if they needed the minuscule turnaround time decrease, they should drop it to 4/3. Personally, I still think that's needlessly wasteful, but at least would be acceptable to me as a compromise.
Given the current state of the BOINC Community, it is far preferable if you need fast turnaround to set tight deadlines and set the IR/MQ appropriate for what you need to validate your science and make for an 'equitable' credit system for the project. IOW, MQ of 3 is still appropriate even if you only need two scientifically, if you are using BMT scoring.
However, there is little point to arguing the case there, since even if the people who are running the BOINC side of the project agree with you in principle, the ones who have the final say aren't listening. Thus the odds are low anything will be changed.
In any event, this has nothing to do with EAH. As you pointed out, this project rarely (if ever) makes decisions which would impact the way it runs by itself or with others lightly. Most of the time they even go as far as to float the idea here in NC first to get other opinions and viewpoints. ;-)
However, there is little point to arguing the case there, since even if the people who are running the BOINC side of the project agree with you in principle, the ones who have the final say aren't listening. Thus the odds are low anything will be changed.
If nearly everybody detached their hosts in protest of the waste, they would be forced to either:
1) eliminate the waste and woo contributors back, or
2) mothball the collider
Quote:
In any event, this has nothing to do with EAH.
It has a lot to do with EAH and with every other BOINC project too because every minute spent crunching an LHC task that has already met quorum is a minute that could be spent crunching an EAH task that DOES need crunching.
P.S. Anyway, thanks Alinator for taking the time to think about it and your post in defense of the truth.
However, there is little point to arguing the case there, since even if the people who are running the BOINC side of the project agree with you in principle, the ones who have the final say aren't listening. Thus the odds are low anything will be changed.
If nearly everybody detached their hosts in protest of the waste, they would be forced to either:
1) eliminate the waste and woo contributors back, or
2) mothball the collider
Quote:
In any event, this has nothing to do with EAH.
It has a lot to do with EAH and with every other BOINC project too because every minute spent crunching an LHC task that has already met quorum is a minute that could be spent crunching an EAH task that DOES need crunching.
P.S. Anyway, thanks Alinator for taking the time to think about it and your post in defense of the truth.
Well, I don't have to worry about detaching my hosts, since they're still blocking my IP address.
It makes me wonder. . .
How many other people are getting their IP addresses blocked by LHC?
(And no, I've never made any comments in the LHC forum that could have gotten me banned.)
Well, I don't have to worry about detaching my hosts, since they're still blocking my IP address.
It makes me wonder. . .
How many other people are getting their IP addresses blocked by LHC?
(And no, I've never made any comments in the LHC forum that could have gotten me banned.)
LOL...
Agreed! That makes whether you approve or disapprove of excess replication moot. ;-)
On a serious note, have you determined if it is just your IP or if a whole netblock is is getting dropped.
I recall a similar situation for some folks a while back getting through to the Lunatics site (home of fine SAH opti apps).
IIRC, the problem there was a bad route on one of the backbone providers which these people had to transit through to get to Lunatics. In this case all the carriers were pointing fingers at each other, and it took what seemed like forever for the issue to get resolved.
Another possibility could be a small scale peering spat between carriers, which isn't getting a lot of 'public' focus.
I just checked for you, and you are not currently banished over there. So it would seem the problem is more technical rather than political! :-)
RE: So, yeah, for some
)
Hmmmm. Well, the bog trotters are very sensitive about their embarassingly wasteful IR 5 for Q 3 policy. Have heard they're catching a lot of flack over it from other project admins and devs. Have you ever said anything negative about it? They're probably blocking your IP address.
BOINC FAQ Service
Official BOINC wiki
Installing BOINC on Linux
RE: RE: So, yeah, for
)
Or perhaps he happens to be in the same IP address range with someone who has been banned multiple times over the past couple of months who might create a new account under an assumed name...?
RE: RE: RE: So, yeah,
)
Could be.
Hey Don! Are you in same address range as B.S. ?
BOINC FAQ Service
Official BOINC wiki
Installing BOINC on Linux
RE: RE: RE: RE: So,
)
You know to whom he's referring.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Quote
)
I think he's referring to himself because he broke the forum rules over there so many times.
I know he's not refering to me because they ain't blocking my IP :)
BOINC FAQ Service
Official BOINC wiki
Installing BOINC on Linux
It's a very sad day for the
)
It's a very sad day for the BOINC community. On the one hand we have projects like Einstein@home that are developed and run by skilled, community minded people who have a conscience. They make the effort to keep their science app, work units and policies efficient, thereby reducing wasted effort.
On the other hand we have bad apples like LHC@home that make the whole barrel stink and rot. The LHC@home project knowingly and purposefully tosses 25% of everyone's contribution of CPU time, hardware and electricity into the waste basket. They don't receive any benefit from that 25% waste that they cannot get from a 0 waste policy and practice. The 25% would be acceptable if it could not be avoided but it can be avoided. All the tools and technology exist to eliminate the waste but the project admins refuse to even admit the problem exists. What's even sadder is that they now censor posts in the LHC@home forums that even mention the issue and they promote lies that cover up the waste.
If you have computers attached to LHC@home, detach them and donate your precious CPU time, hardware and electricity instead to a project run by competent people who need your donation and do what they can to conserve the resources that ALL the BOINC projects need.
BOINC FAQ Service
Official BOINC wiki
Installing BOINC on Linux
RE: It's a very sad day for
)
Well, I thought long and hard about replying to the question you asked me earlier.
I reviewed all the discussion I could find on LHC about IR/MQ, and also looked at quite a few of the WU's still shown for a number of hosts to see if I could get a feel for what the task failure rate was for LHC.
From that, I would have to say the arguments for excess replication speeding their throughput are somewhat lame today. Most cleared on 3 returns, indicating that there is no pressing need to issue trailers by default, at least from my POV. Even if they needed the minuscule turnaround time decrease, they should drop it to 4/3. Personally, I still think that's needlessly wasteful, but at least would be acceptable to me as a compromise.
Given the current state of the BOINC Community, it is far preferable if you need fast turnaround to set tight deadlines and set the IR/MQ appropriate for what you need to validate your science and make for an 'equitable' credit system for the project. IOW, MQ of 3 is still appropriate even if you only need two scientifically, if you are using BMT scoring.
However, there is little point to arguing the case there, since even if the people who are running the BOINC side of the project agree with you in principle, the ones who have the final say aren't listening. Thus the odds are low anything will be changed.
In any event, this has nothing to do with EAH. As you pointed out, this project rarely (if ever) makes decisions which would impact the way it runs by itself or with others lightly. Most of the time they even go as far as to float the idea here in NC first to get other opinions and viewpoints. ;-)
Alinator
RE: However, there is
)
If nearly everybody detached their hosts in protest of the waste, they would be forced to either:
1) eliminate the waste and woo contributors back, or
2) mothball the collider
It has a lot to do with EAH and with every other BOINC project too because every minute spent crunching an LHC task that has already met quorum is a minute that could be spent crunching an EAH task that DOES need crunching.
P.S. Anyway, thanks Alinator for taking the time to think about it and your post in defense of the truth.
BOINC FAQ Service
Official BOINC wiki
Installing BOINC on Linux
RE: RE: However, there is
)
Well, I don't have to worry about detaching my hosts, since they're still blocking my IP address.
It makes me wonder. . .
How many other people are getting their IP addresses blocked by LHC?
(And no, I've never made any comments in the LHC forum that could have gotten me banned.)
RE: Well, I don't have to
)
LOL...
Agreed! That makes whether you approve or disapprove of excess replication moot. ;-)
On a serious note, have you determined if it is just your IP or if a whole netblock is is getting dropped.
I recall a similar situation for some folks a while back getting through to the Lunatics site (home of fine SAH opti apps).
IIRC, the problem there was a bad route on one of the backbone providers which these people had to transit through to get to Lunatics. In this case all the carriers were pointing fingers at each other, and it took what seemed like forever for the issue to get resolved.
Another possibility could be a small scale peering spat between carriers, which isn't getting a lot of 'public' focus.
I just checked for you, and you are not currently banished over there. So it would seem the problem is more technical rather than political! :-)
Alinator