Posts by Patrick Harnett*

\n studio-striking\n
1) Message boards : Number crunching : Runtimes with 1.3 version (Message 2374)
Posted 23 Jan 2012 by Patrick Harnett*
Post:
I was making some changes and tried boinc v7, but have gone back to 6.x.x

Now I don't seem to be able to do core selection the same way - the list looks a but confusing in the prefs - all I want is to pick #3 core.

Two hour run time is too long considering I was at 6-7 minutes last week.

Edit: think I found the info and settings I needed running benchmarking



Let us know what the fix was so that if it's happening elsewhere folks can work with what you learned and save some time.


Sorry - bad of me.

1: Stopped boinc.
2: Went to the project directory and ran the "dnetc518-win32-x8x.exe" program.
3: Ran the benchmarking option (client -> benchmark -> all cores, all projects)
4: Noticed that the core numbers had descriptions net to them and for me, #3 matched one of those in the pull down list.

Different computers have different core descriptions. So there is a small amount of attention required.

Anyway - running that box to get its RAC to #1 in the project for fun. Should be some time after I pass the 100M milestone. Then it might go back to earning money for me.
2) Message boards : Number crunching : Runtimes with 1.3 version (Message 2356)
Posted 22 Jan 2012 by Patrick Harnett*
Post:
I was making some changes and tried boinc v7, but have gone back to 6.x.x

Now I don't seem to be able to do core selection the same way - the list looks a but confusing in the prefs - all I want is to pick #3 core.

Two hour run time is too long considering I was at 6-7 minutes last week.

Edit: think I found the info and settings I needed running benchmarking
3) Message boards : Cafe : The 1st Cafe Thread, Welcome to All (Message 400)
Posted 20 May 2011 by Patrick Harnett*
Post:
Someone forgot the "n", I always seam to read it as moon-wrapper.

Aside from that - looks like the project is settling down nicely.
4) Message boards : News : Switched to granting static credit (Message 317)
Posted 15 May 2011 by Patrick Harnett*
Post:
@AriZonaMoon: Only 4 words for you: You don't get it.

For me "credit whores" are not the people accumulating more/much credit. For me cw are people asking for more credit than justified or people who moan if a unfair credit system is corrected.


Fixing the variable credits for uneven amounts of work done is the point you appear to be making, but the thread moved across several issues.

One: The project looked at doing something to auto adjust, but that didn't work well, so they went to fixed credits. That annoyed the greedy because they thought they had found a credit bonnanza. No doubt they will go back to running one project (as any secondary project doesn't pay enough/as much).

Two: Most projects have people that whine about credits. it's largely pointless and irritating

Three: There is a degree of petty name-calling and antagonism generated that is not necessary and that crops up in various places in Boinc. I see it mainly between users and admins, and also between users. People crunch for a variety of reasons, and some just for the scores.


5) Message boards : News : Switched to granting static credit (Message 287)
Posted 13 May 2011 by Patrick Harnett*
Post:
Bye Moo! This change is the final nail in Moo's coffin. The credits are not worth it. Milkyway and Collatz are much better. I've read a lot of people today who are dropping Moo. You never even got close to DNet on credits. Why don't you give it up and let someone who wants to get people to do the work.

MOO SUCKS!


Bye Dan. I am sure you will go to the new project that is dishing out one million credits per second and then you'll be happy even if you are not doing any more CPU/GPU cycles than you were before.

It is tedious that so many projects have a credit sh*t-fight thread (too many/too few) and people like to vent pointlessly (ha ha) about leaving when they could have moved on nicely. Project admins don't need extra sh*t.
6) Questions and Answers : Windows : Long run times (Message 147)
Posted 7 May 2011 by Patrick Harnett*
Post:
Is there a problem with 64bit / windows 7 vs 32bit windows etc?



Ah, interesting tip. The computers I have working well are 32-bit xp machines. My xp64 and Win7 machines are all screwy and on NNT since yesterday.



Edit, the XP64 machine is running ok. The Win7 ones are still flogging away on a ton of time with versions 1.01.
7) Questions and Answers : Windows : Long run times (Message 107)
Posted 5 May 2011 by Patrick Harnett*
Post:
Is there a problem with 64bit / windows 7 vs 32bit windows etc?



Ah, interesting tip. The computers I have working well are 32-bit xp machines. My xp64 and Win7 machines are all screwy and on NNT since yesterday.
8) Questions and Answers : Windows : Widely Varying Credits (Message 92)
Posted 4 May 2011 by Patrick Harnett*
Post:
+1 (last four validated units) Looks a little odd.
9) Questions and Answers : Windows : Long run times (Message 56)
Posted 3 May 2011 by Patrick Harnett*
Post:
Steve, I'm hitting a similar checkpoint error, although I would not have thought my i7-930 with 12GB ram or the i7-870 with 6GB would be classed as slow (both are running dual HD5850 GPUs), and only run 7 of 8 cores on boinc CPU projects.
10) Questions and Answers : Preferences : questions regarding credits (Message 55)
Posted 3 May 2011 by Patrick Harnett*
Post:
I have looked at some of the other messages as well - agree that credits are all over the place and looks like I'm not the only one getting huge differences. 400 credits for an hour of GPU is not so good - about the same as seti under ati!?

The first couple of WUs were around 400 seconds for 400 credits (ok), but since then it looks pretty sad. I understand some tinkering for the new project is required, but some notes/guidance would be useful.





 
Copyright © 2011-2024 Moo! Wrapper Project