I, too, will comply with the project's wishes and go back to the official app. I had two computers that I was stepping through the patches very slowly (one was on S5T0001, the other on S5T0002) to verify both stability and performance on my hardware, and so I had not yet reached the patches that began producing invalid results. FWIW, all my optimized wu's validated against computers running the official app, so perhaps they won't need to be reissued.
-- Tony, patiently awaiting an official optimized app...
Was a little bit longer in patches but stuck to the patches namned stable, when I noticed that someones started too turn in invaled result. Every result that I turned in has so far past validation some still waiting for second computer.
You have to expect the kiddies to shout and whine when you take away their new lollypop/toy even after only two days. Anyone quitting the project as a result can be thought of as nothing other than a pouting child. If that stings, well, growing up is a painful affair, as all of us adults can attest to.
I am enthusiastically behind any optimizations that can be incorporated in the project. But if the scientific community does not accept results from some of the optimized app's calculations, what's the point of having crunched them in the first place unless you accepted the idea that they were Beta test crunching all along? What I mean is, it was clear that these optimizations were Beta testing all along and there should be no childish whining when they were cut off.
Shame, kiddies.
Those who don’t build must burn. It’s as old as history and juvenile delinquents.
Ray Bradbury - Fahrenheit 451
Ah team! Cut each other some slack .... :-) It's time for some inspiration ......
Einstein had to go back over nearly three years (!) of work to discover that he had in fact already found the right mathematical formulation for General Relativity. He'd unknowingly spent a few years up the wrong lane! His Greek teacher said he 'would never amount to anything'.
Edison attempted over 2000 different substances before he found the one that worked as a filament in his Electric Light. He was profoundly deaf, and dyslexic.
Kepler, even with 'computer' help, took at least a decade to deduce/verify the patterns that he found in the heavens. A computer, then, was a person who did the calculations! This was before logarithms.
Tycho Brahe produced the data that Kepler used. It took him a lifetime to collect it - without the benefit of optics, year round at night, in Sweden!
Pierre and Marie Curie studied the properties of 'pitchblende' for years, finally analyzing brilliantly the phenomenon of radioactivity. While Pierre was run down by a horse, Marie died of too much radiation - they didn't know the dangers then!
Schwarzchild produced his famous solution to general relativity while on the Russian side of the front in WWI. He did this in between calculations for an artillery battery. He died of a horrible skin disease contracted due to the shocking conditions there.
Jocelyn Bell did the 'signal processing' for the first pulsar by scanning with her own eyes along several kilometres of paper strip with wiggles on it!
I could go on .... :-)
So let's not get too hung up on a trip or a stumble here at E@H, eh?
If it's been a comedy of errors then let's all have a chuckle over it .... :-)
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
Nicely stated, Mike. I am a litlle put off though, since I was crafting a very similar post on an Office document when I read yours. I am frustrated to say that yours is better, so I'll just say that I agree with your sentiment.
True science is done correctly only if it is done deliberately and slowly. There can be no shortcuts to true knowledge and certainly none at all to true understanding and enlightenment.
Optimizations are to be welcomed with open arms but only if they produce results that are unimpugnable by the scientific community at large.
We love you akosf, and know that you hold the integrity of the project to heart. Your efforts, and those equal efforts of the others at the core of this project, towards improving the efficiency of the process of discovery are commendable.
I love seeing lots of work units flying out of my mini farm, but knowing that my results are truly valid is the only important consideration. None the less, I'd love to see optimizations integrated ASAP.
I know I'm only one of many that will gladly volunteer cycles to test apps and clients to forward the process.
Best wishes to all the community,
Jim
Those who don’t build must burn. It’s as old as history and juvenile delinquents.
Ray Bradbury - Fahrenheit 451
...Let's not get too hung up on a trip or a stumble here at E@H, eh?
If it's been a comedy of errors then let's all have a chuckle over it .... :-)
Cheers, Mike.
Mike, your characterization is OK by me because I'm interested in finding gravity waves. But your stories of trial and tribulation is not entirely applicable here. The "comedy of errors" to which you refer wasn't so funny to those individuals whose goals in descending order are 1) highest credit/hour, 2) lowest personal cost/hour (high throughput), 3)oh, and btw, if we happen to find a gravity wave so much the better. My evidence for the latter point is taken from all the folks who complain and threaten to go elsewhere if they can't have their Akos optimizations. Having said this I'm entirely sympathetic; if there is a faster way to get business done then the project should pursue it. I too am somewhat frustrated with the 19 hours it takes me to process 2 WUs in HT mode, though I have no logical reason for feeling that way, unless it's because my RAC is one-half what it used to be! :)
BTW, I have not indulged myself with any of the S5 Akos optimizations though I followed its evolution closely.
RE: ... Can somebody please
)
BOINC sets the file timestamps of the download time, not the ones taken from the HTTP server.
You will find a bunch of download locations in your client_state.xml though :-)
RE: Can somebody please
)
It would have the dats/time of when you downloaded it, each of us differant.
Try the Pizza@Home project, good crunching.
RE: I, too, will comply
)
Was a little bit longer in patches but stuck to the patches namned stable, when I noticed that someones started too turn in invaled result. Every result that I turned in has so far past validation some still waiting for second computer.
You have to expect the
)
You have to expect the kiddies to shout and whine when you take away their new lollypop/toy even after only two days. Anyone quitting the project as a result can be thought of as nothing other than a pouting child. If that stings, well, growing up is a painful affair, as all of us adults can attest to.
I am enthusiastically behind any optimizations that can be incorporated in the project. But if the scientific community does not accept results from some of the optimized app's calculations, what's the point of having crunched them in the first place unless you accepted the idea that they were Beta test crunching all along? What I mean is, it was clear that these optimizations were Beta testing all along and there should be no childish whining when they were cut off.
Shame, kiddies.
Those who don’t build must burn. It’s as old as history and juvenile delinquents.
Ray Bradbury - Fahrenheit 451
Ah team! Cut each other some
)
Ah team! Cut each other some slack .... :-)
It's time for some inspiration ......
Einstein had to go back over nearly three years (!) of work to discover that he had in fact already found the right mathematical formulation for General Relativity. He'd unknowingly spent a few years up the wrong lane! His Greek teacher said he 'would never amount to anything'.
Edison attempted over 2000 different substances before he found the one that worked as a filament in his Electric Light. He was profoundly deaf, and dyslexic.
Kepler, even with 'computer' help, took at least a decade to deduce/verify the patterns that he found in the heavens. A computer, then, was a person who did the calculations! This was before logarithms.
Tycho Brahe produced the data that Kepler used. It took him a lifetime to collect it - without the benefit of optics, year round at night, in Sweden!
Pierre and Marie Curie studied the properties of 'pitchblende' for years, finally analyzing brilliantly the phenomenon of radioactivity. While Pierre was run down by a horse, Marie died of too much radiation - they didn't know the dangers then!
Schwarzchild produced his famous solution to general relativity while on the Russian side of the front in WWI. He did this in between calculations for an artillery battery. He died of a horrible skin disease contracted due to the shocking conditions there.
Jocelyn Bell did the 'signal processing' for the first pulsar by scanning with her own eyes along several kilometres of paper strip with wiggles on it!
I could go on .... :-)
So let's not get too hung up on a trip or a stumble here at E@H, eh?
If it's been a comedy of errors then let's all have a chuckle over it .... :-)
Cheers, Mike.
I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter ...
... and my other CPU is a Ryzen 5950X :-) Blaise Pascal
Wondered where your voice of
)
Wondered where your voice of reason had been throughout this Mike ;-)
Nicely stated, Mike. I am a
)
Nicely stated, Mike. I am a litlle put off though, since I was crafting a very similar post on an Office document when I read yours. I am frustrated to say that yours is better, so I'll just say that I agree with your sentiment.
True science is done correctly only if it is done deliberately and slowly. There can be no shortcuts to true knowledge and certainly none at all to true understanding and enlightenment.
Optimizations are to be welcomed with open arms but only if they produce results that are unimpugnable by the scientific community at large.
We love you akosf, and know that you hold the integrity of the project to heart. Your efforts, and those equal efforts of the others at the core of this project, towards improving the efficiency of the process of discovery are commendable.
Just so, the Scientific Method allows for no short-cuts.
I love seeing lots of work units flying out of my mini farm, but knowing that my results are truly valid is the only important consideration. None the less, I'd love to see optimizations integrated ASAP.
I know I'm only one of many that will gladly volunteer cycles to test apps and clients to forward the process.
Best wishes to all the community,
Jim
Those who don’t build must burn. It’s as old as history and juvenile delinquents.
Ray Bradbury - Fahrenheit 451
RE: ...Let's not get too
)
Mike, your characterization is OK by me because I'm interested in finding gravity waves. But your stories of trial and tribulation is not entirely applicable here. The "comedy of errors" to which you refer wasn't so funny to those individuals whose goals in descending order are 1) highest credit/hour, 2) lowest personal cost/hour (high throughput), 3)oh, and btw, if we happen to find a gravity wave so much the better. My evidence for the latter point is taken from all the folks who complain and threaten to go elsewhere if they can't have their Akos optimizations. Having said this I'm entirely sympathetic; if there is a faster way to get business done then the project should pursue it. I too am somewhat frustrated with the 19 hours it takes me to process 2 WUs in HT mode, though I have no logical reason for feeling that way, unless it's because my RAC is one-half what it used to be! :)
BTW, I have not indulged myself with any of the S5 Akos optimizations though I followed its evolution closely.
RE: the Scientific
)
read about S@H methods - http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=31734
WE OFFICIALLY SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF OPTIMIZED SETI@HOME APPLICATIONS.
RE: RE: the Scientific
)
Yep, that's true. But that's SAH and not EAH.
The goals, requirements, and criteria between the two projects are not the same.
Alinator