|
1)
Message boards :
BOINC Manager :
My wish list
(Message 4972)
Posted 11 Jul 2006 by Michael Gmirkin Post: I'd like to see a tab that describes visually what the long-term debt is for any projects I'm running. Perhaps a simple bar graph showing each project either above or below the "line". I'd think a separate tab wouldn't be necessary, maybe an extra button under statistics (I'd assume this would be a statistic)? Maybe something also saying what the next project to work on is scheduled to be and what the next project(s) to download arescheduled to be and how many WU's will be downloaded for each (or CPU seconds, asthe message screen likes to say)... I'd think this would just be an internal thing to the manager, so there wouldn't be any server or communication overhead with it, yeah? |
|
2)
Message boards :
BOINC Manager :
BOINC client "communication deferred", hardware firewall problems
(Message 4970)
Posted 11 Jul 2006 by Michael Gmirkin Post: I installed BOINC and get "communication deferred" all the time; I suspect my hardware firewall is to blame. What port does BOINC use for communication? If it is standard HTTP port 80, there should be no problem there and the cause is something else. Yeah, why is it that basically every time I hit update it comes back with "communication deferred" (I just hit retry communications, and sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't). Am I supposed to be getting "communication deferred" (I mean are the servers THAT busy that they always tell my machine to back off for 10 minutes), or does that signal a communication problem with the server? It happens on my home machine, my work machine, etc. They're mostly XP SP 2 (home & pro). Probably have windows firewall turned on, but I've never gotten a pop-up asking whether or not to allow traffic or whatever. So, I assume all is working? Like I said, I just hit retry communications and more often than not it works the second time? |
|
3)
Message boards :
BOINC Manager :
Projects being preempted?
(Message 4969)
Posted 11 Jul 2006 by Michael Gmirkin Post: Why do some projects get preempted? Shouldn't I be able to tell the program to do one project and when it is done to work on another? Vaguely recall that current project selection is based roughly on short-term debt, and on which deadlines are in danger of being missed (IE, if you have one that's due today and is 5 hours long it'll preempt one due tomorrow and 3 hours long). Whereas which projects download WU's is based on long-term debt (IE if you allocate 60% of time to Seti and 40% to Einstein, but it's been working 60% recently on Einstein, next it'll download Seti WU's to even it out and get closer to the average WU %'s you've specified). So, it might preempt WU's that have a low or non-existent debt in favor of items with a higher debt and/or WU's with closer deadlines in danger of being missed. Long and short of it, don't micro-manage projects and the schedulers will do what they do and work on what they work on, and over thel ong term you'll get the results you'vetold the schedulerto give you, in terms of WU %'s among projects. I know, I sometimes wish I could just say "work on this unit" too. Actually since I onlt work on Seti at the moment, I'd like a "work on this unit" button, or a "shortest unit first" scheme or a "nearest deadline first" scheme. Right now it seems to work on them rather randomly. It seems like it would work on the units with the closest deadlines first, and out of the ones on the sameday, the ones with either the longest predicted CPU times, or the shortest CPU times first. Personally, I tend toward the "shortest unit first" idea, since it'll finish a higher number of units quickly and then churn the longer one. Though it would probably make more sense to churn the longest first and get it out of the way, and then churn several shorter units in rapid succession to finish up. But whatever, I'll just trust it to make good decisions and try not to worry too much about what gets cmpleted when so long sa it DOES get completed. ~Michael |
|
4)
Message boards :
BOINC Manager :
XP shutdown problems with BOINC 5.4.9
(Message 4968)
Posted 11 Jul 2006 by Michael Gmirkin Post: After I installed 5.4.9, whenever I shutdown my XP SP2 system, BOINC refuses to close and has to be ended manually. I have waited for several minutes to no avail. When I remove it and reinstall 5.2.13, there are no such problems. Hmm, I have a similarthough less severe version of the problem. I've run it on XP Home & XP Pro SP2, generally without issue. Though sometimes when shutting down it will pop up a window saying ostensibly that BOINC refuses to shut down or failed to shut down or failed to respond to the command to shut down. But then after like 2-3 seconds the message goes away and shutdown proceeds normally... So, it seems to me like maybe it's waiting to get to a safe check-point before exiting? Mine never really seems to have a problem shutting down though if I let it sit therefor a second it seems to "catch up" and shut down. What other stuff do yuo have running in the background / system tray? Sometimes if too much junk is running it takes a while for Windows to close it all. Try closing all task tray items other than BOINC before clicking shut down and see if you still encounter the problem. If not, try exiting half of them and leaving the other half open, if the problem comes back it's maybe one of the other system tray items conflicting? If not, try exiting the other half and see if the problem persists. Basically just if exiting everything other than BOINC causes it to shut down properly, try to narrow down what it was that might have been causing a conflict or slow shutdown. OF course you might have other stuff running in the background that doesn't show up in the tray either, since some programs let you run them with the icons hidden. I just know that when I worked tech support, it was usually best to close everything before trying anything, just to make sure nothign else was interfering. Antivirus, pop-up blockers, and quicktime always seemeed to do naughty things. So did IE toolbars and extensions... Can't tell you the number oftimes tht exiting everything and disabling extensions and toolbars cleared up people's problems. ;o] |
|
5)
Message boards :
BOINC Manager :
BOINC and/or Project auto-update interface...
(Message 4967)
Posted 11 Jul 2006 by Michael Gmirkin Post: Auto update of BOINC has been discussed before and the answer was no for the moment as it is too hard to implement and they want to work on the actual bugs rather than adding this feature Ahh, but something to consider for the future, I guess...? Seems like when BOINC is initially installed and connected to a project it downloads a few setup files or whatnot (aside from just WU's). So, it seems like there's already somewhat of an inline update process. Though no doubt upgrades between release versions might be trickier... I'd wonder if there are any open source projects that may have already pre-built an auto-updater, and maybe it could be emulated or mooched from (in order to not re-invent the wheel). I mean someone somewhere must have come upon this issue previously, yeah? I'd think a solution would be around someplace. But, bug and other basic features are more pressing, I suppose. Like I said, just something to consider. Cheers! |
|
6)
Message boards :
BOINC Manager :
My wish list
(Message 4713)
Posted 14 Jun 2006 by Michael Gmirkin Post: Just an update of what was posted so far. Cool, sounds like they're finally getting around to CPU utilization capping. That answers one of my questions... Now, can we combine CPU capping with "idle" time feature so that you can specify something like: Always run at appx 50% CPU use (50% free for other user/system apps) until idle timer hits 2 minutes then 99% usage. So basically you'd have it always running a small percentage (not enough to bottle-neck your system), but once you hit your regular idle time limit it maxes to 99% usage until you get back, then goes back to its steady state of appx 50% usage. I think that would be handy way to maximize usage without bottlenecking. Ohh, and if someone wanted to pass along to the developers the seed of an idea: BOINC/Project Auto-Update options? I think this would be handy. So long as it's implemented right. IE, give users an option to ignore or disable automatic updates (or self-compile/self-install), notify but don't install, or fully automate the process. And include a dependency checker of some sort so you can'tdownload updated projects that require an updated client you don't have yet. I just think this would be a nice way to streamline distribution and keep everyone up to date with the most current software version, project version, etc. A uniform API that all projects can use the same way would be good too. So, yeah, if someone thinks it's handy and wants to pass it along to the dev's, sounds good to me. :) |
|
7)
Message boards :
API :
Auto-update for BOINC and/or projects?
(Message 4712)
Posted 14 Jun 2006 by Michael Gmirkin Post: Wasn't sure which forums this should go into, I guess it has elements of both... Auto-update thread in BOINC Manager forum. So, anyway hopefully one of the two forums will get the right eyes on it to make it happen or consider it for future implementation. I just hink that auto-update would be handy... And I'd assume there should be some kind of standard API interface for the backend programmers at Seti@Home or other projects so everyone can use the same commands/interfaces in the same way to push updates. But any update scheme should have dependency checking and user control over how automatic it is (from turned off, to notification but no actino without user permission, to fully automatic download/install of updates of both the core boinc manager / client and individual projects a machine might be attached to). |
|
8)
Message boards :
BOINC Manager :
BOINC and/or Project auto-update interface...
(Message 4711)
Posted 14 Jun 2006 by Michael Gmirkin Post: Okay, I posted this over at the Seti@Home forums, but the directed me over here, saying you'd be better equipped to assist in this. I guess this is both an interface issue (auto-update would be handy for users and admins if implemented properly) and an API issue for the projects to use (so there's a common interface for all projects to issue automatic updates for their portion of the software)... Pardon the reposting. ---------- Original: I'd still love to see online auto-update integrated into BOINC, where it'll go fetch and installed the latest appropriate version of BOINC. But, you could specify auto-update preferences by machine (client-end, I guess), in case you prefer to do your own builds based on the latest current, or if you want to keep a specific version because you know it runs stably (barring and REQUIRED upgrades to work properly with upgradedWU's in the future or what have you). I just hink it would make keeping people up-to-date a whole lot simpler and then everyone could theoretically be on the same page, performance tweaks, better new processor timings / multi-core processor support and interface streamlining could be automatically propagated, etc. I mean why not build that into BOINC's download process? One could even modularize it to include certain uploads/downloads and exclude others. * Download * [ ] BOINC Client udates [x] Seti@Home Updates [x] Einstein@Home Updates [ ] New Work Units [x] Statistics [ ] Etc. * Upload * [x] Results [ ] Preferences (for account managers? like BAM or whatever) That way folks could get only what they're looking for, updates [for BOINC and project-specific updates] could be propagated automatically, people can avoid getting work units if they're not wanting to potentially get overcommitted, people can just request stats updates without wasting bandwidth on their side or server side on other issues... I think that would handily streamline the interface. Right now there's only the one 'Update' button. Usually the first tiem you click it it tries to report and download new WU's (whici is annoying since I usually only want to get any new stats that were pending), after upload/download is complete, THEN it'll try for stats or whatever. It's just a weird interface to have one button do like 2-3 different things depending on the time of day and how recently you already pushed it. ;o) Hmm, I guess the above examnple was two-fold... It would be nice of the 'update' button were replaced with more of a wizard-style interface for manual uploads/downloads. And supplementing that it would be nice if there was a way to set auto-update preferences by machine so things automatically get downloaded when available and the machine has an open internet connection and the server isn't too busy... Don't know if this was on the agenda or not. If so, sorry, didn't see it in my list of most currently posted stuff for this forum. If not, maybe an idea for future version so everyone can more easily get onto the same page in terms of client revisions, updates to specific projects for improved functionality, etc. Cheers! ---------- Response to negative first response in clarification: NO NOT GONNA HAPPEN! Sorry for the caps, I am NOT hsouting, I am "emphasing". The problem is too many people run Boinc on computers that are "critical" to their work. Berkeley has agreed to only auto update, and you can turn it off, the underlying Seti software. The Boinc software is manually updated ONLY and probably will be forever. Hmm, alrighty, though I can see myriad flaws in the logic. Must challenge a few assertions (sorry it got wordy, I runneth over at the mouth sometimes). I think I already said there should be an option to DISABLE auto-updates, so whoever installs it should be able to set it so it CAN'T update itself without permission (intended precisely to NOT disrupt critical systems with unauthorized updates). However the option should exist for those who WANT it (I'm guessing it's more than just me). Secondly, Microsoft DOES issue patches for security and for usability. (HELLO!! XP SP2, anyone??) Critical updates can be and routinely ARE downloaded automatically for those who have it set up (they update and upgrade me weekly it seems, and I'm fine with it; XP is actually quite stable from an end users perspective [mine], I've never had a problem with auto-updates and they've never caused issues for me). And YES, there's an option (default option, as I recall) to NOT have it automatically updated, but only MANUALLY updated. This request is NO DIFFERENT from M$'s own policies. Why can we not set up a system like M$'s? I mean right tyhere in the Automatic Updates control panel it says (Bottom to top) 1) Turn off Automatic Updates. 2) Notify me of, but do not automatically download, available updates. 3) Downloads updates automatically, but allow me to select whether/when to install updates. 4) Automatically download and apply critical updates. This actually seems like a logical way to do it. It gives the user or system admin choices of how to update (manually through varying degrees of automation). Similarly, for a non M$ perspective/approach to the issue, Symantec's Live Update functionality works in much the same way. You log in you select what stuff you want it to look for, it tells you what's available, and if you want to you select what to download. User has complete control and is in charge of their own destiny. Apple also has auto-update functionality for their OSX products (it's not just an M$ thing, everyone's doing it). I'm not ostensibly asking for a complete redesign of the software every 5 months as your erroneous 95 -> 98 -> XP analogy seems to indicate (or similarly BOINC 3.01 -> 5.4). I'm asking for an in-version update patch scenario such as XP -> XP SP1 -> XP SP2 (Or BOINC 5.2.13 -> 5.4.9). I'm not asking for XP to Longhorn update, just for any major usability patches. I mean whoever is GOING TO UPDATE their system is going to do it however they can, they'll go and download the latest update and install it manually. But for the casual user, why would you want to do that if there's an automatic version that does EXACTLY THE SAME THING AUTOMATICALLY (*cough* emphasis added *cough* sorry, must be having trouble controlling the volume of my characters *wink*). ;o] Even if I was asking for XP->Longhorn (or the BOINC equivalent), so what? BOINC isn't in it for profits like M$, BOINC/Seti@Home/Folding@Home, etc. have a vested interest in keeping their users up-to-date and able to run the latest version of their software; frankly, as long as it worked seamlessly and all things still worked properly, I'd be all for seeing a free XP -> Longhorn update from M$; just 'cause they decide NOT to do it doesn't mean they SHOULDN'T do it if it was feasible. I mean seriously for the user who wants to be up-to-date and WILL download and install the update manually, why can there not be an automatic way to do the exact same thing. The administrator (usually the user who actively uses it), would have full control over how/when updates are updated. If they want to approve any/every update, they can micro-manage. If they assume it has been sufficiently well tested to be released for general consumption they can set it to auto update. I see little to no difference between that system and what's already in place (aside from the extra work created for end users). And the problem with the M$ analogy is also the fact that M$ is operated for profit, thus has an interest in NOT distributing updates from version to version (XP -> Longhorn). However BOINC is innately open source and not profit-oriented (rather, science and knowledge oriented), and is innately aligned toward disseminating information, sourcing out its product to whever wants to participate. Aside from which perticipation is voluntary. The people who participate do so because they WANT to and assume the risks. Administrstors should be aware of the reisks before downloading any piece of software. If not, they shouldn't be admins. So, I see no inherent conflict with the auto-update approach so long as sufficient leverage and control is given to the users in how it is applied (if at all). If properly implemented, if you want to do it manually or compile your own version of the source, go right ahead. Nothing stopping you from disabling the auto-update and going about self-compiling, then you've REALLY got nobody to blame but yourself. *wink* Sorry to be so wordy, I just hink that ease-of-use *IS* a valuable feature and will attract more users than it will driveaway. Especially if it has the features that many other 'modern' programs have already... ---------- Okay, hopefully that all encapsulates the idea. Basically, I think it would be cool if there was a simple and admin-configurable/reasonably granular way for the administrator to set up automatic updates of the core client within a particular version (5.2.3 -> 5.4.9) (or even between version 3.2 -> 5.4.9). The user/admin should be able to turn off the feature, if they don't want to risk unknown "features" compromising the system or they wish to compile it themselves, perhaps have a notify but don't download option and a fully automatic download and apply feature. That way staunch admins can disable updates, and loose admins can enable all. Hopefully then everyone can stay up to date. w00t! One other consideration I guess I just thoght of is versioning compatibility kind of like in Firefox, so you know what projects/downloads have dependencies on others. IE, you can't download version 5 of Seti if you only have version 3 of boinc, since version 5 of Seti requires some features from versino 4.3 or higher of BOINC in order to work properly. Just food for thought... Anyway, I'd assume that auto-update functinoality in various software is pretty mature by now, right? I'd assume there would be some kind of software to emulate or incoroporate open source code from, etc. And I'd assume they'd have worked out dependency and versioning stuff already... Cheers, ~Michael |
Copyright © 2024 University of California.
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License,
Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.