It is causing problems in the database. Now that tells me they CAN tell what is optimized and what is not, because there are issues with how it's interpreted in the database after the validation.
If this is true, then the numbers are NOT EXACTLY the same, and are giving results that are bad. Even though certain numbers match for the validator, they do not match enough for the database, and causing issues.
I believe Akos, in what he says. He made the apps, he has been at Einstein, he knows what is going on behind the scenes. Please heed his warning.
I think you didn't understand, what Akos wrote. He ist writing about the bad results, imho the invalid ones from some of his patched apps, and he is NOT writing about "the results" or "all results".
Later on he added the argument about the view of other scientists, who only accept an official app.
This let's open the question, if the patched apps, returning valid results are producing valid, but wrong results. The project should check this soon, otherwise they loose crunchers with every day.
cu,
Michael
[edit]typo[/edit]
Okay, look at the first like, it says DON'T USE ANY PATCHED VERSIONS OF THE E@H APP
Then is says the bad results, which to me says all results from the patched versions are bad.
I understood it well, and complied.
My HOPE that all those optimized ones get zeroed out, then we will see who was right, and who was wrong. I still believe they can tell. If Akos did his work correctly, he left enough of a signature that can be seen. Since he has worked (and I believe is still working) for E@H, he would know to put something in that when seen on the other side would be enough to tell them it was an optimized application.
AGAIN the results are the SAME compared to the standard app.. although it takes 30 to 40 % less processing time. Thats a FACT why do you keep ignoring that ?
I'm not sure that the results are same, perhaps there are a hidden calculation fault.
Could you justify your assertion on a way that Einstein staff can approve them?
AGAIN the results are the SAME compared to the standard app.. although it takes 30 to 40 % less processing time. Thats a FACT why do you keep ignoring that ?
I'm not sure that the results are same, perhaps there are a hidden calculation fault.
Could you justify your assertion on a way that Einstein staff can approve them?
Could TMR's rescmp tool be used for this? Not sure it'll determine if they're identical though..
AGAIN the results are the SAME compared to the standard app.. although it takes 30 to 40 % less processing time. Thats a FACT why do you keep ignoring that ?
I'm not sure that the results are same, perhaps there are a hidden calculation fault.
Could you justify your assertion on a way that Einstein staff can approve them?
Could TMR's rescmp tool be used for this? Not sure it'll determine if they're identical though..
I don't think that TMR's rescmp tool has any certifications...
Could TMR's rescmp tool be used for this? Not sure it'll determine if they're identical though..
I don't think that TMR's rescmp tool has any certifications...
Oh I didn't mean that. Just could it be used to test the idea results are exacly the same. Still upto the einstien staff and scientists. They'd wont to do their own tests.
[EDIT]
I suppose its a bit pointess really. Dont know why i brought it up.
hm.. one more thing.. if you look a bit above at the sticky "FreeBSD" Thread.... the program is downloadable at the beta-test page and calls itself "beta test App"..... It can process S4 AND S5 WUs and is for that reason (and that it is a beta-test) different from the windows and linux version for example...
The key features of this beta test App include:
* Assembler-coded "hot loop", on SSE machines, being faster while still keeping enough precision
* Tuned sin/cos calculations should give a small speedup on non-SSE-machines, too
* allows to process work for S5R1 as well as for old S4 Workunits
i quote:
Quote:
being faster while still keeping enough precision
so can anyone give me a reason why that version is allowed for official crunching and how the "enough precision" thing fits with that what is said here before?
What I really think is funny, is all those folks who keep saying they are only in it for the science, but suddenly their computers are 'hidden' now after Akos asked us to stop using his apps. Guess you weren't actually in it for the science after all, huh?
It's allways the same ... those who are in for the "science" keep debating about the "leveling playground" of credits ... demand not to use optimized apps...
etc... seen that before ... it's been allways the same... those who claim to be in for "science" are only jealous of the ones who have more machines available and can afford to add even more if they like too.
That's almost 90% true in all the cases.. That's a fact.
Simple case ... take a look at people that demand not to use optimized apps. or boinc clients...
95% of them got an RAC of less than 1K (could be easyly done by one computer)
It's only envy, frustration and rage that some can do better than them.
Nothing else 100% the facts!
Ehm, i have a question for you, Crunch3r :
Why are you here ?
Never i used your "optimised" applications and now i'm happy about that fact.
Want to know my "fantastic" Rac on Seti@home ? 33...
No problem for me, no envy, no frustation, no rage...
100 % a fact !
Ehm, i have a question for you, Crunch3r :
Why are you here ?
Never i used your "optimised" applications and now i'm happy about that fact.
Want to know my "fantastic" Rac on Seti@home ? 33...
No problem for me, no envy, no frustation, no rage...
100 % a fact !
I am not Crunch3r, but he is more than welcome here, his work is very much appreciated. I really liked his applications at SETI as all that used them did. This world needs more people like Crunch3r and Akos to get the programs going good.
Nightbird I respect your right to have a differant oppinion, but thses boards are not the place to try and bring out negatives.
Cheers
Ray
Ehm, i have a question for you, Crunch3r :
Why are you here ?
Never i used your "optimised" applications and now i'm happy about that fact.
Want to know my "fantastic" Rac on Seti@home ? 33...
No problem for me, no envy, no frustation, no rage...
100 % a fact !
I am not Crunch3r, but he is more than welcome here, his work is very much appreciated. I really liked his applications at SETI as all that used them did. This world needs more people like Crunch3r and Akos to get the programs going good.
Nightbird I respect your right to have a differant oppinion, but thses boards are not the place to try and bring out negatives.
Cheers
Ray
Hi, Ray
I hope that I'm free to think and tell what i wish here...
I have respect for AkosF. but i'm tired by others people who are speaking about others people using so-called facts...
Nobody is God here...
Cheers
Nightbird
edit : don't be afraid but i don't use the little /- ...
RE: RE: To those thinking
)
Okay, look at the first like, it says DON'T USE ANY PATCHED VERSIONS OF THE E@H APP
Then is says the bad results, which to me says all results from the patched versions are bad.
I understood it well, and complied.
My HOPE that all those optimized ones get zeroed out, then we will see who was right, and who was wrong. I still believe they can tell. If Akos did his work correctly, he left enough of a signature that can be seen. Since he has worked (and I believe is still working) for E@H, he would know to put something in that when seen on the other side would be enough to tell them it was an optimized application.
RE: AGAIN the results are
)
I'm not sure that the results are same, perhaps there are a hidden calculation fault.
Could you justify your assertion on a way that Einstein staff can approve them?
RE: RE: AGAIN the results
)
Could TMR's rescmp tool be used for this? Not sure it'll determine if they're identical though..
Hi Akosf,here is a
)
Hi Akosf,
here is a interesting discussion about optimization.
Maybe this can help you
RE: RE: RE: AGAIN the
)
I don't think that TMR's rescmp tool has any certifications...
RE: RE: Could TMR's
)
Oh I didn't mean that. Just could it be used to test the idea results are exacly the same. Still upto the einstien staff and scientists. They'd wont to do their own tests.
[EDIT]
I suppose its a bit pointess really. Dont know why i brought it up.
hm.. one more thing.. if you
)
hm.. one more thing.. if you look a bit above at the sticky "FreeBSD" Thread.... the program is downloadable at the beta-test page and calls itself "beta test App"..... It can process S4 AND S5 WUs and is for that reason (and that it is a beta-test) different from the windows and linux version for example...
The key features of this beta test App include:
* Assembler-coded "hot loop", on SSE machines, being faster while still keeping enough precision
* Tuned sin/cos calculations should give a small speedup on non-SSE-machines, too
* allows to process work for S5R1 as well as for old S4 Workunits
i quote:
so can anyone give me a reason why that version is allowed for official crunching and how the "enough precision" thing fits with that what is said here before?
RE: RE: What I really
)
Ehm, i have a question for you, Crunch3r :
Why are you here ?
Never i used your "optimised" applications and now i'm happy about that fact.
Want to know my "fantastic" Rac on Seti@home ? 33...
No problem for me, no envy, no frustation, no rage...
100 % a fact !
[
RE: Ehm, i have a question
)
I am not Crunch3r, but he is more than welcome here, his work is very much appreciated. I really liked his applications at SETI as all that used them did. This world needs more people like Crunch3r and Akos to get the programs going good.
Nightbird I respect your right to have a differant oppinion, but thses boards are not the place to try and bring out negatives.
Cheers
Ray
Try the Pizza@Home project, good crunching.
RE: RE: Ehm, i have a
)
Hi, Ray
I hope that I'm free to think and tell what i wish here...
I have respect for AkosF. but i'm tired by others people who are speaking about others people using so-called facts...
Nobody is God here...
Cheers
Nightbird
edit : don't be afraid but i don't use the little /- ...
[