What's up with LHC at Home?

Donald A. Tevault
Donald A. Tevault
Joined: 17 Feb 06
Posts: 439
Credit: 73,516,529
RAC: 0
Topic 194138

Has anyone heard any news about them? Their website has been down for a few months.

M. Schmitt
M. Schmitt
Joined: 27 Jun 05
Posts: 478
Credit: 15,872,262
RAC: 0

What's up with LHC at Home?

Quote:
Has anyone heard any news about them? Their website has been down for a few months.

They are fine. :-))

http://lhcathome.cern.ch/lhcathome/

cu,
Michael

Paul D. Buck
Paul D. Buck
Joined: 17 Jan 05
Posts: 754
Credit: 5,385,205
RAC: 0

RE: RE: Has anyone heard

Message 89927 in response to message 89926

Quote:
Quote:
Has anyone heard any news about them? Their website has been down for a few months.

They are fine. :-))

http://lhcathome.cern.ch/lhcathome/

cu,
Michael

Not in my view ... if they were FINE we would get constant work ...

However, they have not gone away ...

Ocean Archer
Ocean Archer
Joined: 18 Jan 05
Posts: 92
Credit: 368,644
RAC: 0

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!

DanNeely
DanNeely
Joined: 4 Sep 05
Posts: 1,281
Credit: 1,389,705,962
RAC: 1,230,456

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.

Dagorath
Dagorath
Joined: 22 Apr 06
Posts: 146
Credit: 226,423
RAC: 0

RE: How is having more

Message 89930 in response to message 89929

Quote:
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.

Alinator
Alinator
Joined: 8 May 05
Posts: 927
Credit: 9,352,143
RAC: 0

RE: RE: How is having

Message 89931 in response to message 89930

Quote:
Quote:
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

Donald A. Tevault
Donald A. Tevault
Joined: 17 Feb 06
Posts: 439
Credit: 73,516,529
RAC: 0

RE: RE: Has anyone heard

Message 89932 in response to message 89926

Quote:
Quote:
Has anyone heard any news about them? Their website has been down for a few months.

They are fine. :-))

http://lhcathome.cern.ch/lhcathome/

cu,
Michael

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.

Donald A. Tevault
Donald A. Tevault
Joined: 17 Feb 06
Posts: 439
Credit: 73,516,529
RAC: 0

RE: RE: RE: How is

Message 89933 in response to message 89931

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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.

Phil
Phil
Joined: 24 Feb 05
Posts: 176
Credit: 1,817,881
RAC: 0

RE: But, have you tried

Message 89934 in response to message 89932

Quote:

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?

Dagorath
Dagorath
Joined: 22 Apr 06
Posts: 146
Credit: 226,423
RAC: 0

RE: RE: RE: RE: How

Message 89935 in response to message 89933

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.