> > Please show exactly how a quorum of 4 in SETI and Einstein
> deprives the
> > other projects of computer time. Your statement of 25 out of 100
> computers
> > doing work is irrelevent, as those 100 computers would be doing SETI
> anyway,
> > on other open work units. How is it depriving CPDN, ProteinPredictor,
> LHC, or
> > other future projects that users may not be signed up for?
> >
> > If you don't like the policies, you always have the option of dropping
> the
> > offending projects and focusing your CPU time on those you find more
> worthy.
> >
>
> I was wondering when the "if you don't like it you can leave" argument would
> surface.
>
And I would have hated to have you disappointed! Now, would you like to address the main part of the message: showing how other projects are being deprived?

> It certainly has not been shown to be false!

Actually, it has. Regardless of SETI's validation policiy, Einstein gets 40% of my CPU time. CPDN gets 10%, Protein gets 10%. The numbers say that your assertion is in error.

So show us how it is true. You seem to be the only one in this thread with that information. Enlighten us.

---

Nice discussion. :)

All i can say is that i would never consider taking a new drug that's only ever been proven successful in helping one other person. Science (good science that is) is all about being able to duplicate a result. Ever since i joined the project back in 1999 i've always felt that the folks in Berkeley have put the science first, and developing BOINC is a continuation of that philosophy.

If we break this down into the most basic terms of why we're all here to begin with (at least me anyway), what if 'THE' work unit, i mean the 'ONE' we're all waiting for, were to go out to just one cruncher instead of three or four and the data were not processed properly? Having the redundnacy means that the same unit is processed by multiple users and validated for accuracy. That is, unless i'm missing something in the brochure?

Have enjoyed reading everyone's thoughts on the matter.

Dig

---

> Please reduce the amount of redundancy that is employed as it is depriving
> other projects of computer time while we are needlessly crunching a qourum of
> 4 when the absolute max needed is 3. Seti is guilty and so is Einstein. I know
> its so that they can grant credit faster and delete the unit from their disks
> but its not justified. In effect for every 100 computers only 25 are doing any
> real work the others are only duplicating. You need redundancy but not that
> much.
>
The way that BOINC is designed, having 'excessive' redundancy in any particular project only deprives THAT PROJECT of computer time. Any other attached project still receives the SAME AMOUNT of CPU cycles from each user regardless of the level of redundancy the first project decides to employ.
.

---

Final Classic total: 11446 WU
Classic CPU hours: 72,366

> I stand by the statement their is too much redundancy crunching a WU 4 times
> is at least 1 time too many. Why would the result be any less valid if it were
> crunched 3 times? That question is also aimed at Paul who seems to think that
> unnecessary repetition and duplication is good science. Oh, and please, please
> forgive the sig.

I suspect it is a waste of time, but here goes ...

The minimum redundency was established at 3, so, the 4th result is not strictly needed for that work unit. Yet, you are looking at it from the perspective of a single work unit instead of from the perspective of the system as a whole.

In the system at large there are penalties for misses on the retirement of work. To minimize that system penalty the issue was raised to 4 to get the required redundency as fast as possible. The minimum redundency has not changed but the efficiency in obtaining a result that can retire the work unit uses some of the effectively unbounded capacity of the "super-computer" to process results.

If you have been around awhile you should have seen a thread or two where there was a discussion of where it has been admitted that the BOINC version of SETI@Home is far more efficient than SETI@Home Classic in producing verifiable, traceable, results.

My personal belief is that all the work done to date by Classic should be re-done with the next generation of the SETI@Home applications because of the improvements within the Science Application.

You did twist the meaning of my earlier statement in the sense that your insistance that once something has been done once it does not have to be done again. Well, some one else said that they would not want to take a drug that was only tested once. Neither would I. More importantly, we do and will continue to repeat expiriments. None of these repititions are "wasted", they are absolutely necessary.

At one time it was thought that gravity was the same all over the world ... we repeated some of the earlier expiriments that "proved" that ... guess what ... it is not constant all over the world ... we would never had known that if we did not "waste" time redoing the tests.

Anyway, I think you are here to pick a fight ... so ...

---

> So basically, you're saying we'll waste it because we have it to waste. In
> fact, much the same attitude America has to every resource on this planet.

For those who are actually doing as asked the resource being used is excess CPU cycles. No one asked people to set up crunching farms, but they are free to do so if they wish.

That said, there are more waste CPU cycles than there is work. So, what is happening is that a certain amount of "make work" is going on because that makes the average user happier (faster credits, more work, etc.).

Again, the key concept is that computers often sit idle, and when the CPU clock "ticks" those cycles are gone. SETI and BOINC are designed to make use of processing power that would otherwise be wasted.

But, you have so far chosen to ignore what may be the most important statement: most people here just want to crunch SETI. They don't want to crunch E@H, or LHC, or CPDN, or Pirates, or BURP.

So, anything can follow from a false premise. You simply cannot assume that starving SETI will feed LHC.

But, as Paul said, trying to explain this to you is like trying to teach a pig to sing.

---

>
> So basically, you're saying we'll waste it because we have it to waste. In
> fact, much the same attitude America has to every resource on this planet.
>

I was going to stay out of this little catfight until you made a big mistake on this forums: you started bring national affiliation into things as an insult.

We're all here because we like to crunch Seti and it's fun to talk to people from the other side of the world about a projet we all love to participate in. Country of origin is only important insofar as it lets other people know where you live. Once you say "You're bad because you're from _____" you show how immature you are.

You are, what we call in America, a "douchebag."

---

-----

And in the Redundancy department, the title to this thread has.......well an abundance of redundancy.

---

> You're just rehashing what you've already said and I agree to the extent that
> 1 WU is sent out to 3 hosts te ensure accuracy. By your own admission the 4th
> is only sent out to satisfy "a vocal group of users" impatient to have their
> credit awarded quickly.
>
> I would call that a waste of computer resources, wouldn't you?
>
But you are missing the whole point! When the unit was sent out only 3 times, there were times when all 3 could not be returned for lots of reason. i.e. bad download, bad crunching, bad upload, work unit expired, etc. When that happened the unit was sent out 3 more times! Now the unit is sent out 4 times initially and most of the time at least 3 come back. We are actually saving time and resources by sending it 4 times initially instead of 6 times or more when it is not returned correctly.
I would actually call that a saving of resources, wouldn't you?
Sometimes we look at a situation and say "I know a better way", but when we dig deeper into the actual situation we see that sometimes our way is not better.
In this case only sending the unit out 3 times initially actually wastes resources!

---

In
> fact, much the same attitude America has to every resource on this planet.
>

Ah so, we reach the real reason for your post, just another anti-American nut!

(and I am from UK as well, so no need to think we are all like you!)

---

> Please reduce the amount of redundancy that is employed as it is depriving
> other projects of computer time while we are needlessly crunching a qourum of
> 4 when the absolute max needed is 3.

This is not true, because...

> The way that BOINC is designed, having 'excessive' redundancy in any
> particular project only deprives THAT PROJECT of computer time. Any other
> attached project still receives the SAME AMOUNT of CPU cycles from each user
> regardless of the level of redundancy the first project decides to employ.

Very well said! This pretty much summarizes everything. You would be right if the resource share per project was hard-coded.

As for national affiliations and insults, I couldn't agree more with Matt. We should keep them out of here.

Happy crunching...

> I suspect it is a waste of time, but here goes ...

Yes.


It is impossible to reason someone out of something that he did not reason himself into in the first place.
Jonathan Swift.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

> Personally, I'd like to see less free advertising in the forums.

Likewise.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

> > > Please show exactly how a quorum of 4 in SETI and Einstein
> > deprives the
> > > other projects of computer time. Your statement of 25 out of 100
> > computers
> > > doing work is irrelevent, as those 100 computers would be doing
> SETI
> > anyway,
> > > on other open work units. How is it depriving CPDN,
> ProteinPredictor,
> > LHC, or
> > > other future projects that users may not be signed up for?
> > >
> > > If you don't like the policies, you always have the option of
> dropping
> > the
> > > offending projects and focusing your CPU time on those you find
> more
> > worthy.
> > >
> >
> > I was wondering when the "if you don't like it you can leave" argument
> would
> > surface.
> >
> And I would have hated to have you disappointed! Now, would you like to
> address the main part of the message: showing how other projects are
> being deprived?
>
> > It certainly has not been shown to be false!
>
> Actually, it has. Regardless of SETI's validation policiy, Einstein gets 40%
> of my CPU time. CPDN gets 10%, Protein gets 10%. The numbers say that your
> assertion is in error.
>
> So show us how it is true. You seem to be the only one in this thread with
> that information. Enlighten us.
>

Resource share is irrelevant. By having a WU done 4 times instead of only 3 25% of whatever resource share is wasted.

---

> Nice discussion. :)
>
> All i can say is that i would never consider taking a new drug that's only
> ever been proven successful in helping one other person. Science (good
> science that is) is all about being able to duplicate a result. Ever since i
> joined the project back in 1999 i've always felt that the folks in Berkeley
> have put the science first, and developing BOINC is a continuation of that
> philosophy.
>
> If we break this down into the most basic terms of why we're all here to begin
> with (at least me anyway), what if 'THE' work unit, i mean the 'ONE' we're all
> waiting for, were to go out to just one cruncher instead of three or four and
> the data were not processed properly? Having the redundnacy means that the
> same unit is processed by multiple users and validated for accuracy. That is,
> unless i'm missing something in the brochure?
>
> Have enjoyed reading everyone's thoughts on the matter.
>
> Dig
>

If you read my post you would have known that I wasn't advocating sending a WU to only 1 user but to 3. My argument is to get more than 3 results is a waste of resources.

---

> > Please reduce the amount of redundancy that is employed as it is
> depriving
> > other projects of computer time while we are needlessly crunching a
> qourum of
> > 4 when the absolute max needed is 3. Seti is guilty and so is Einstein. I
> know
> > its so that they can grant credit faster and delete the unit from their
> disks
> > but its not justified. In effect for every 100 computers only 25 are
> doing any
> > real work the others are only duplicating. You need redundancy but not
> that
> > much.
> >
> The way that BOINC is designed, having 'excessive' redundancy in any
> particular project only deprives THAT PROJECT of computer time. Any other
> attached project still receives the SAME AMOUNT of CPU cycles from each user
> regardless of the level of redundancy the first project decides to employ.
> .
>

If your computer is crunching the 4th instance of a seti unit it can't be crunching anything else so it has an impact on whatever projects you are crunching.

---

>
> >
> > So basically, you're saying we'll waste it because we have it to waste.
> In
> > fact, much the same attitude America has to every resource on this
> planet.
> >
>
> I was going to stay out of this little catfight until you made a big mistake
> on this forums: you started bring national affiliation into things as an
> insult.
>
> We're all here because we like to crunch Seti and it's fun to talk to people
> from the other side of the world about a projet we all love to participate in.
> Country of origin is only important insofar as it lets other people know
> where you live. Once you say "You're bad because you're from _____" you show
> how immature you are.
>
> You are, what we call in America, a "douchebag."
>

Where in my posts did I say "You're bad because you're from _____" that?

---

> In
> > fact, much the same attitude America has to every resource on this
> planet.
> >
>
> Ah so, we reach the real reason for your post, just another anti-American
> nut!
>
> (and I am from UK as well, so no need to think we are all like you!)
>

No, I'm not Anti American, you're just paranoid.

If anybody says anything that the Americans don't agree with they bring out the time honoured cliche "Anti American"

---

>
> > Personally, I'd like to see less free advertising in the forums.
>
> Likewise.
>

LOL

---

> > I suspect it is a waste of time, but here goes ...
>
> Yes.
>
>
> It is impossible to reason someone out of something that he did not reason
> himself into in the first place.
> Jonathan Swift.
>

Engage your brain and perhaps you will see the reason that you are trying to argue me out off.

---

Just my opinion but this whole tread and argument has become redundant.

Is there a way to just block an entire thread?

---

Boinc V7.2.42
Win7 i5 3.33G 4GB, GTX470