| Info | Message |
|---|---|
| 1) Message boards : BOINC client : Points discussion comments
Message 15530 Posted 23 Feb 2008 by jasong |
Leaving a warning. Keep it civilized or I'll lock the thread. I'll ask him next time I see him in irc. Not sure when that will be. |
| 2) Message boards : BOINC client : Points discussion comments
Message 15518 Posted 22 Feb 2008 by jasong |
This "mythical administrator" as you call him, remembers a system that was BEFORE what you are calling the "old system." You are a bit like those well-meaning idiots who want to abolish portions of the American government and institute a flat tax. As with them, you really need to "check the knowledge." |
| 3) Message boards : BOINC client : Points discussion comments
Message 15510 Posted 21 Feb 2008 by jasong |
Sorry to restart an old thread, but couldn't we at least TRY to reinstitute what the old administrator had? Also, in response to something said in this thread awhile back: In terms of suggested inaccuracies in the first post, if they're inaccurate, then my friend didn't correct them. I honestly don't think he's the type of person who doublechecks something in a half-assed fashion. And he isn't a liar either(I'm not sure if that was implied). If he says he was a Project Administrator of a BOINC project that originally had a better system than the present one, then that is the truth. He is an EXTREMELY intelligent man, and refusing his help is inadvisable, however things may seem. I'm not saying it's stupid to refuse the help, since I realize how all this must seem to some people, but you need to give him the benefit of the doubt so that he can: (1) prove who he is, and (2) implement a better solution than we have now, which really isn't a solution at all. Implement the ORIGINAL solution, as a matter of fact. |
| 4) Message boards : BOINC client : Points discussion comments
Message 15079 Posted 22 Jan 2008 by jasong |
@jasong Well, whether what I quoted(and rephrased, since it came from an irc chat) is true or not, what IS true is that BOINC either needs a benchmark system that can't be tampered with, or point-for-point cross-project scoring comparisons need to be officially rejected by people involved in BOINC. I'm not a programmer, but the idea in my rephrased quotes about how to fix the cheating problem, seems to be a good one. :) |
| 5) Message boards : BOINC client : Points discussion comments
Message 15072 Posted 22 Jan 2008 by jasong |
The following is a message that I was asked to deliver for someone else. They would prefer to stay anonymous until they gauge the response to this: YES, there was MAJOR security. It has all , apparantly, been lost out of the XML file. In the original BOINC, the hosts master XML file was stored on the server and the breach detected if it was modified client-side. It was the only way to prevent cheating, if you touched the client, or the XML, you got hammered. The only thing that could happeen is a faster app, faster cpu, etc.... And each project was responsible for establishing the credits/WU for each version of their apps. The man in charge of BOINC did this all to PREVENT cheating, and sold it as such. Everyone will remember SETI WU's being fed back in as the way to cheat. DA found a way to stop that using the server maintained master XML, which the HOST IS REQUIRED to accept when it connects. The SERVER controlled when benchmarks ran. The SERVER could, if the project wished, send a project-benchmark WU to establish a 'normalized' value. That is BOINC 3 and BOINC 4. It comes from the previous Folding@Home administrator. The user could, in later updates, request a benchmark, but the results would be sent to the server (for that project), normalized at the project level (even if it required a WU... as that is what the architecture/project was supposed to provide but used cobblestones if not available). EACH result returned had to verify the XML's matched or the result was rejected. After the results were sent, normalized, recorded, they were sent back. This was the norm. The users could run all the benchmarks they wanted, but it didn't matter. The server was in control. AKA... you cheat... the server ignores / disqualifies the returned result and puts it back out to dispatch for others, you get NO credit. There was a BOINC-distribued constant, in the server db, which was up to each project to use to map to the BOINC 'standard' for cross-project purposes and uniformity....... it was later to serve as the basis for cross-project status /scores. Each WU was assigned the values, to work in conjunction with cobblestones, to derive a 'project score for the WU'..... then the project used a separate multiplier / function to handle 32 vs 64 bit, pc vs mac, linux vs windows clients. and issues a balanced output 'cross-project' score. The outputting of the data was the responsiblity of the project to normalize... but it was NEVER a credit/WU or credit/cpu hour or credit/clock hour thing... it DID take memory, disk space, (and all the cobblestone) info into consideration. In the beginning, the BOINC project gave each admin the freedom to use either a) BOINC defaults or b) adjust based on the project. Most project adjusted.... as they knew their application better than anyone... AND they were the ones who could compensate for score if the 64 bit mac version was unoptimized , but the 32 bit windows client was..... the project Normalized this within itself. Before each update. The support tech and *I* ran controlled, known results, known time, known resource utilization standard tests to permit the database to be calibrated.... From there, the Work Unit Generator created WU's to match that calibration / conform to the calibration.....however, one thing that did happen... in a quorum =2 (2 good results out of 3 send out), the middle credit value was selected (OR) the totals were averaged and each user given the same credit for that WU, so sometimes a user got a low score because he/she ran a 32 bit, 1.5 ghz cpu on the WU (giving it a higher credit score... because it had to work harder / use more resources), than say a mac G4 which did it in nothing flat....Sometimes those go in your favor, sometimes they do not..... but that was known AND accepted by the users because statistically it worked out even. This former admin suggests the 'normalized score' be cobblestones & memory & IO (disk & network) related. It is important to remember the scale is not LINEAR... it is a log or ln scale type of score based on the predetermined (by the WU generator) score for each WU.... this is how we could intermix complex WU's (requiring hours of CPU, IO and Memory) with short jobs... ALSO, jobs on a short turn-around time period were given an added bonus for meeting the deadline. This typically was when 3 jobs ran, but no quorum was obtained, so a 4th or 5th host was dispatched to the task. The faster the job got back, the more (fraction of the original) credits the user was given for the WU.... and that user's credits carried more weight in the WU overall scoring... basically like taking a WU.... having 5 different machines run it.... then averaging the scores and giving all users the same score. This made it more statistcally balanced for users...... AND allowed fast WUs to be done quickly & properly as well as tough WUs to be given appropriate credit for their known complexity / resource utilization, think of it as .... 90% of my cpu, 15% of my memory, 3 GB of disk space, and 100% of my 256 Mb DSL. ..... That was one way we determined score based on a 'standard WU'.... the WU Generator assigned the appropriate offset / multiplier based on the 'standard model' for the project. Each project could issue a 'test' / standard WU for the user to run as a benchmark; it had to be done manually by the admin dropping it in the queue, but it was there. We did it often. It was also how a new WU generator was tested while running the 'existing accepted' WU generator. It allowed multiple clients (old, new & test) clients to run concurrently as well. To all: All the best at restoring BOINC to it's root concepts and don't hesitate to notify if needed, this admin hated to leave BOINC/ F@H. What I feel is needed to fix things: a) security to prevent cheating b) uniformity within each project, c) normalization across projects... all based on a common standard. d) And random Benchmarking (which used to be every 'N' days or jobs as determined by the admin to help keep all clients normalized with the apps and WUs. This former admin is willing to help put back what was supposed to be there, AND REMAIN there, from day # 1. If this not considered an agreeable solution, and as this is not rocket science, then BOINC is not Open as defind by it's name and should be scrapped. The admin may be contacted by the respresentative if desired.(I guess that's me, jasong) As admin, I spec'd the servers and set it all up.... the project ran flawlessly from the user perspective unless we got a change from BOINC=central and did not run it on the test bed... adjustments were always required, but THAT *IS* the nature of BOINC.. .the ability to be uniform but different. We had the ability, using the 'architecture-class-OS' name (like i686-pc-cygwin) to use for balancing different hosts. If BOINC is revoking per-project control and NOT going to normalize in a meaningfull, acceptable manner to all projects, then cross-project scoring should be removed. Depending on security, which MUST come first. AND, if cross-project scoring is removed, then Boinc HQ / Mr Anderson does not have the right to that which he dictated was to be controlled on a 'per project' basis. Hence, he cannot disqualify (for example) RS or F@H without removing the 'O' from BOINC, resulting in a 'David Anderson' view of the world. Which is not, by definition, open. No one person can control all. |
| 6) Message boards : BOINC Manager : Why do I need to enter a password to crunch a project?
Message 14021 Posted 21 Nov 2007 by jasong |
It's not that I don't care about stats. And as far as preventing people from installing it using a Trojan, how about a captcha feature? What happened to me was that I was crunching Sudoku and wanted to check my progress using the GUI. Not only did I never get to see my progress, because of the password problem I mentioned(I have no idea what the password was or how I could have figured it out), but after a few tries it started up, but had suddenly decided to use all 4 cores and download Riesel Sieve work units. I've obviously had those settings in the past, but they weren't what I wanted at the time. At the moment, I'm not even sure if it's possible to retrieve the Sudoku work. Now do you understand my frustration? |
| 7) Message boards : BOINC Manager : Why do I need to enter a password to crunch a project?
Message 14007 Posted 21 Nov 2007 by jasong |
Why on earth do I need to enter a password to crunch under an already existing account? Entering a password when you create an account makes sense, if you don't want people stealing your points. And if you don't care one way or another about your points, than a password isn't necessary. I'm trying not to be rude, and it's very hard. There is no reason to prevent someone from crunching under an account that's not theirs. If someone transferred money to your bank account, would you want to suppress further transfers? Probably not. It is truly mind boggling that someone smart enough to do stuff at Berkeley(I'm assuming it was a student or teacher that programmed that feature) did something like this. |
| 8) Message boards : The Lounge : Looking for a project to implement in BOINC? How about factoring?
Message 11788 Posted 26 Jul 2007 by jasong |
Darn, I should have read things before I made that post. wblipp can be contacted on Mersenne Forum. http://www.mersenneforum.org For questions involving compiling or how the factoring works(not just for the Odd Perfect Search, but for any number), you should go to the factoring forum. |
| 9) Message boards : The Lounge : Looking for a project to implement in BOINC? How about factoring?
Message 11787 Posted 26 Jul 2007 by jasong |
Hi Jasong Sorry for the super-late response. :( Try http://oddperfect.org |
| 10) Message boards : The Lounge : Looking for a project to implement in BOINC? How about factoring?
Message 11550 Posted 7 Jul 2007 by jasong |
Firstly, I admit that I am posting this for totally selfish reasons. I have a favorite project, the Odd Perfect Number Search, and it has almost no users. I possess a Linux box that is at least 2 years old, and it's doing AT LEAST 20% of the work in that project. With BOINC, you could come up with just about anything and you could get a good amount of crunching power attached to it, even if you're a total ass, like the administrator of a project that I'm not going to mention.(key word,"censorship") What is the Odd Perfect Number Search? Well, a perfect number is a number where, if you add up all the factors of the number, you get the number itself. The first two are 6(1+2+3=6) and 28(1+2+4+7+14=28). In the case of even perfect numbers, there is a formula, and each even perfect number is directly related to a Mersenne prime. If 2^n-1 is prime, than 2^n-1 for that n is a Mersenne Prime. Once you find a Mersenne Prime(only 44 are known) you simply calculate (2^n-1)(2^(n-1)-1)) and you have an EVEN perfect number. The problem comes when you want to find an odd perfect number. None are known, but it has been calculated that an OPN would have more than 473 digits. There is an ongoing search going on at oddperfect.org , which basically involves applying mathematical logic and using computers to factor certain numbers. Considering the amount of power given to most projects, there is almost no work being done on this. But if this were made into a BOINC project, usage would probably sky-rocket. The best thing about it is that you don't even have to understand a lot of the math behind the programs. You just need to be able to dynamically set a few parameters to keep the processes from hogging the computer. It is preferable that the factoring program be compiled for each cpu and OS, but if you don't do it for every single choice, it just degrades efficiency, so really no big deal. If you are interested or curious about this, the oddperfect.org site gives a lot of good info. I'm not sure how wblipp(the owner of the site) will respond to finding out I've made this post, but I would hope he'd welcome the interest. I know this post is probably a waste of time, but I just thought I'd make an attempt. |
| 11) Message boards : BOINC client : Priority settings involving an inconsistent DC project and a related question.
Message 5174 Posted 31 Jul 2006 by jasong |
I have a program that I want to run on exactly 1 of my dual-core cpus. The problem is that the server for that program(non-BOINC program)gets frequently hung-up with some of the processing tasks necessary for the project. The processing can't be off-loaded and no new work units can be generated until it's finished. If I give it a Priority setting that lets it dominate BOINC on that one processor is there a way to get BOINC to notice that one processor tends to advance tasks faster than the other? I have a fear that I'll end up getting a lot of overdue work-units because of BOINC not being able to handle it. Note: There's no reason I absolutely have to restrict it to one processor. I probably should have written one "instance." |
| 12) Message boards : Server programs : Can Windows and Linux communicate to run BOINC?
Message 4915 Posted 4 Jul 2006 by jasong |
Can I have a Windows box give out BOINC tasks to a Linux box without too much headache? What would be really awesome would be a thumb-drived based Linux who's main job would be to boot Linux into RAM(my lingo may be off :) ) and could get BOINC files from a Windows hard drive, and report back to Windows. Doable? ...by a novice? I have nothing but time on my hands, plus a cap on how much I can have in the bank(based on the odd welfare laws in Arkansas) so I'd love to build a big farm with best bang for buck with the money I have. |
Copyright © 2025 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.