and: when the validator is so hard as its always sad, how can a client like 0709 wich produces results that are valided together with normal clients make wrong results?
I thougt 1 bit difference already makes it invalid. and when the result is EXACT the same... whats wrong with it?
I have used only the proven stable releases, but I will comply with the project's wishes and run only the official client. Here's hoping they incorporate Akos's improvements into it soon.
You do the best thing.
To others: Sorry! I was wrong when i tried to improve the speed of the code unofficially. I didn't think that it causes problems. Sorry again... but don't leave the project if you would like to know more about the gravity.
I have used only the proven stable releases, but I will comply with the project's wishes and run only the official client. Here's hoping they incorporate Akos's improvements into it soon.
You do the best thing.
To others: Sorry! I was wrong when i tried to improve the speed of the code unofficially. I didn't think that it causes problems. Sorry again... but don't leave the project if you would like to know more about the gravity.
No Problemo!! :-)
And I'm sure a lot of your new ideas will find their way into the next official Einstein-S5. ;-)
I have used only the proven stable releases, but I will comply with the project's wishes and run only the official client. Here's hoping they incorporate Akos's improvements into it soon.
You do the best thing.
To others: Sorry! I was wrong when i tried to improve the speed of the code unofficially. I didn't think that it causes problems. Sorry again... but don't leave the project if you would like to know more about the gravity.
Where is the problem and where do you cause problems due to your speed optimations? Or is the problem that you increase the speed unoffically?
Keep in mind, plans have always been in the works to improve Einstein-S5 as the study progresses, it's just that it needs to be done in a controlled fashion.
Alinator
I agree with the rest of your post, but my answer to the above is that today's announcement should have been made instead of the instruction about switching to a version number of 4.10
I think ***** should take to wearing a cricket box at work, and maybe putting a telephone book down the back of his pants. It may be the project management are just as peeved as some of us are.
Please convince me that the Einstein@Home distributed computing project is more than a filter to find promising candidates. There is no way the E@H scientists would publish any findings without recrunching any and all signals that resemble the detection of gravitational waves under tightly controlled circumstances.
30%+ is a huge gain to throw away with that sort of bogus argument.
In Bruce's electricity saving terms: $10K per day in electicity -> some number crunching -> at least 20% electricity savings with optimized apps -> at least $2k per day in savings foregone without current level of optimization -> somewhere between $750K and $1M in energy wasted and paid for by all crunchers over the course of S5.
Quote:
Hi people!
I see that some of us don't understand the current situation. So, the Einstein@Home staff would be get scientificaly reliable results. Unofficial apps can't meet this requirement, because these applications aren't accepted by any different scientific groups.
IMHO: I think the reactions here are overdone. We should wait for an "official" statement from Bruce, et. al. Putting some controls in the WU distribution process is the prudent thing to do (and its need should have been anticipated by the developers when they went to the 2 result quorum). But, give them some time to explain things to us. My guess is Akos' work will be allowed back in sometime in the future, when a better process is in place.
To others: Sorry! I was wrong when i tried to improve the speed of the code unofficially. I didn't think that it causes problems. Sorry again... but don't leave the project if you would like to know more about the gravity.
Hi Akos
You could restore some goodwill for me by answering these question, although they are academic now:
Was there ever any intention that version 4.10 would be subject to more lax validation? I did not believe this, but some did.
Was S5T0713 functionally the same as S5T0712? Some people think it was, and it produced a 0712 message. There is plenty of evidence it was not the same. Please clarify, before I submit myself as a voluntary mental patient!
I will switch to the official science app anyway, but I wish that the project managers would be less defensive and averse to change brought about by the amazing work that Akos has done over the past couple of months.
RE: and: when the validator
)
100 poinst ;)
I don't understand it too
RE: I have used only the
)
You do the best thing.
To others: Sorry! I was wrong when i tried to improve the speed of the code unofficially. I didn't think that it causes problems. Sorry again... but don't leave the project if you would like to know more about the gravity.
RE: RE: I have used only
)
No Problemo!! :-)
And I'm sure a lot of your new ideas will find their way into the next official Einstein-S5. ;-)
Alinator
RE: RE: I have used only
)
Where is the problem and where do you cause problems due to your speed optimations? Or is the problem that you increase the speed unoffically?
Dots
RE: Keep in mind, plans
)
I agree with the rest of your post, but my answer to the above is that today's announcement should have been made instead of the instruction about switching to a version number of 4.10
I think ***** should take to wearing a cricket box at work, and maybe putting a telephone book down the back of his pants. It may be the project management are just as peeved as some of us are.
Dead men don't get the baby washed. HTH
That sounds like complete
)
That sounds like complete baloney to me.
Please convince me that the Einstein@Home distributed computing project is more than a filter to find promising candidates. There is no way the E@H scientists would publish any findings without recrunching any and all signals that resemble the detection of gravitational waves under tightly controlled circumstances.
30%+ is a huge gain to throw away with that sort of bogus argument.
In Bruce's electricity saving terms: $10K per day in electicity -> some number crunching -> at least 20% electricity savings with optimized apps -> at least $2k per day in savings foregone without current level of optimization -> somewhere between $750K and $1M in energy wasted and paid for by all crunchers over the course of S5.
IMHO: I think the reactions
)
IMHO: I think the reactions here are overdone. We should wait for an "official" statement from Bruce, et. al. Putting some controls in the WU distribution process is the prudent thing to do (and its need should have been anticipated by the developers when they went to the 2 result quorum). But, give them some time to explain things to us. My guess is Akos' work will be allowed back in sometime in the future, when a better process is in place.
RE: To others: Sorry! I was
)
Hi Akos
You could restore some goodwill for me by answering these question, although they are academic now:
Was there ever any intention that version 4.10 would be subject to more lax validation? I did not believe this, but some did.
Was S5T0713 functionally the same as S5T0712? Some people think it was, and it produced a 0712 message. There is plenty of evidence it was not the same. Please clarify, before I submit myself as a voluntary mental patient!
Thanks.
Dead men don't get the baby washed. HTH
I will switch to the official
)
I will switch to the official science app anyway, but I wish that the project managers would be less defensive and averse to change brought about by the amazing work that Akos has done over the past couple of months.
RE: IMHO: I think the
)
I's about whether we are doing something useful, or if people are carelessly taking our resources just because they are free.
Dead men don't get the baby washed. HTH