The discussion is importyant to Rosetta and all BOINC projects because LHC@ home needlessly wastes CPU time that would other wise go to other projects.

If the CPU time is wasted, why do you think it would go to other projects?

Good point. It would go to other projects if and only if the machine is attached to other projects. If the computer is not attached to other projects as well as LHC@home then of course the waste is almost a non-issue.

I peeked at over 100 user profiles at LHC@home and all of them were attached to other projects. I am not saying that proves 100% are attached to other projects. I am saying it appears that for most users the cycles wasted by LHC@home would go to other projects.

---

BOINC FAQ Service
Official BOINC wiki
Installing BOINC on Linux

The discussion is importyant to Rosetta and all BOINC projects because LHC@ home needlessly wastes CPU time that would other wise go to other projects.

If the CPU time is wasted, why do you think it would go to other projects?

Good point. It would go to other projects if and only if the machine is attached to other projects. If the computer is not attached to other projects as well as LHC@home then of course the waste is almost a non-issue.

I peeked at over 100 user profiles at LHC@home and all of them were attached to other projects. I am not saying that proves 100% are attached to other projects. I am saying it appears that for most users the cycles wasted by LHC@home would go to other projects.

It just seems to be a more compelling argument for LHC, since if the CPU time is wasted, it is LHC's loss.

The discussion is importyant to Rosetta and all BOINC projects because LHC@ home needlessly wastes CPU time that would other wise go to other projects.

If the CPU time is wasted, why do you think it would go to other projects?

Good point. It would go to other projects if and only if the machine is attached to other projects. If the computer is not attached to other projects as well as LHC@home then of course the waste is almost a non-issue.

I peeked at over 100 user profiles at LHC@home and all of them were attached to other projects. I am not saying that proves 100% are attached to other projects. I am saying it appears that for most users the cycles wasted by LHC@home would go to other projects.

It just seems to be a more compelling argument for LHC, since if the CPU time is wasted, it is LHC's loss.

For me it doesn't matter whose loss it is because waste is never a good thing. If the waste can be eliminated with minimal effort, as it can be at LHC@home, then to not do so is just lazy and irresponsible.

---

BOINC FAQ Service
Official BOINC wiki
Installing BOINC on Linux

For me it doesn't matter whose loss it is because waste is never a good thing. If the waste can be eliminated with minimal effort, as it can be at LHC@home, then to not do so is just lazy and irresponsible.

let me tell you that I think you're right.

One thing: what happens if LHC@H admins reduce IR to 3? I think it's not something that need a "beta test" and everything should work out automatically, the way WE (and maybe everybody should) like, even without optimizing the rest of the server (for example enabling the option to resend the lost WUs to fast&reliable hosts - I don't know if there's such a quick option in the boinc server, if not it would require unavailable work time).
I don't think that a couple of days longer is a matter... as Paul says, "it is neither indespensable to the LHC project itself nor integral to the success of LHC", and I can tell you that he's right, LHC project doesn't need LHC@H in any way, maybe it's really there "just so some IT guy can state on his resume that he ran a BOINC project". A sad sentence, but maybe (quite sure), a true sentence.
In fact, the GRID (http://lcg.web.cern.ch/LCG/)is a powerful worldwide distributed system I was able to use for my Physics thesis: there they have many times the computing power necessary to these "working units" than what is available on boinc (at least until LHC really starts up), with the assurance that results are good. I think that, for them, we are only testing a platform, trying to see if there's something interesting.
Maybe I'm wrong, to the point that I would like to be wrong...

For me it doesn't matter whose loss it is because waste is never a good thing. If the waste can be eliminated with minimal effort, as it can be at LHC@home, then to not do so is just lazy and irresponsible.

let me tell you that I think you're right.

It is only waste if they really only need a quorum of 3 ... if they want / need a quorum of 4 then there is no waste at all ...

In any case, it is a red herring because there are other source points of waste on BOINC projects and we do not see those projects being dragged through the mud.

There is really no point to this "discussion" in that the two sides have been presented and you can pick your side and what you want to believe.

In the LHC Forums one participant asked a pertinent question ... who to believe?

I suggest you look at their tone. Are they respectful of those that they do not agree with? Do they acknowledge errors? Do they call other participants names?

Read the posts, then decide ...

I, for one, see no reason to not do work for LHC@Home ... and if you don't agree, well, then there is more work for me ... :)

For me it doesn't matter whose loss it is because waste is never a good thing. If the waste can be eliminated with minimal effort, as it can be at LHC@home, then to not do so is just lazy and irresponsible.

let me tell you that I think you're right.

It is only waste if they really only need a quorum of 3 ... if they want / need a quorum of 4 then there is no waste at all ...

But you haven't even begun to show they need a quorum of 4. Them wanting a quorum of 4 is just a story you pulled out of the air after all your other reasons for supporting 5/3 were shown to be ridiculous.

In any case, it is a red herring because there are other source points of waste on BOINC projects and we do not see those projects being dragged through the mud.

LHC@home has had over 2 years to eliminate the waste they create with their ridiculous 5/3 policy. The fix takes about 5 minutes but they have done nothing except implement cancels which many of us correctly predicted would never fix the problem.

There are other projects wasting CPU cycles and they are trying to fix the waste. If they were not then I would be going after them too but at least they are trying. LHC@home isn't even making an honest effort.

There is really no point to this "discussion" in that the two sides have been presented and you can pick your side and what you want to believe.

Why is it a "discussion" instead of a discussion? Because nobody agrees with you? Lol!

In the LHC Forums one participant asked a pertinent question ... who to believe?

I suggest you look at their tone. Are they respectful of those that they do not agree with? Do they acknowledge errors? Do they call other participants names?

Good advice. In this discussion you have twisted every word I've said and accused me of saying things I never said and of actions I've never done, for example accusing me of saying LHC@home is involved in a nefarious plot to deprive other projects of CPU time.

You've made up totally ridiculous reasons for keeping the 5/3 policy and have attempted to convert your speculation into fact with absolutely zero proof. In fact you are telling us that we should believe you because you stated your lies and twisted logic politely and that I am impolite by exposing your lies and nonsense for what it is.

You still haven't explained why LHC@home needs a quorum of 4 when they obviously think they need a quorum of only 3. Nor have you explained why they would use such a convoluted and inefficient method as the 5/3 policy for getting 4 when they could just use the far simpler 4/4 method. It would take less network bandwidth, smaller database and fewer resources in general.

Read the posts, then decide ...

Indeed, read and ask questions and think. Buck's story falls completely apart in about 2 minutes when you understand how the quorum system works and if you think about it.

I, for one, see no reason to not do work for LHC@Home ... and if you don't agree, well, then there is more work for me ... :)

Go ahead and waste your precious resources on whatever folly spins your prop. Fools and their money are soon parted and sometimes there is no amount of common sense that can convince them otherwise. You seem to think there is some prestige associated with crunching LHC@home tasks. There is no prestige at all.

---

BOINC FAQ Service
Official BOINC wiki
Installing BOINC on Linux

this head bashing finger pointing thread is getting old.
since you guys can't agree on anything, why not agree to disagree.

I believe the fact of the matter is that neither party has complete information about what it takes to run LHC, and why they've made the decisions they have about their operations.

Dagorath has not reflected any factoring for tasks that are not returned on time in the group of 5 that goes out. And Paul has not defended reasons why the project would need 4 results but set the quarum to three and leave tasks already in progress running rather then cancel them.

And so after 5 days of these rounds of speculation and personal remarks, hoping some valid points would emerge and the tone would calm, I'm locking this thread. If you feel the topic warrants further discussion, I suggest that points be made without reference to specific parties. And that facts be supported by links to relevant information.

I have no problem with discussing the merits, good or bad, of other BOINC projects on the Rosetta boards. But if you read through this thread, that's not really what it is about.

---

Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Sense