Posts by Nicolas

21) Message boards : Questions and problems : Initialization files being ignored? (Message 32940)
Posted 22 May 2010 by Nicolas
Post:
Please enable the http_debug flag in cc_config.xml
22) Message boards : BOINC Manager : Poll: BOINC Manager remote control (Message 32893)
Posted 19 May 2010 by Nicolas
Post:
Thinking about it some more, I take that back; I have decided removing support for hostnames in remote_hosts.cfg is not an option. I'll need to do some more research to find how to keep it but removing the current problems...

But sticking to a system that doesn't work, is that a good idea?
Because the name resolving is simply not working, one day it may work, the next now way.

I have been told (correctly) that users may not know the IP addresses of their local network, while they probably would know the computer names.

And with IPv6, hostnames would be more important than ever, for two reasons. First, the addresses are longer. Second, even your local network will use an address block given by your ISP, not fixed private addresses like 192.168.*.*. I don't remember that my computer's IP is 2001:470:1f05:a58::2 without looking it up...

So, as much as I would like to drop support for hostnames in remote_hosts.cfg and be done with it, that's just not acceptable :P I need to find a way to keep it, but remote the current problems (such as hanging the client).

One possibility is to do a reverse lookup on the incoming connection (resolve the IP into a hostname), and compare it to the allowed hostnames; instead of resolving the allowed hostnames into IPs and comparing them to the incoming connection's IP. But I'm still testing if this works fine on a typical Windows-based home network.

So thinking about something better is alway good. Some form of authentication would be far better?

Huh? Password authentication has always been there (ever heard of gui_rpc_auth.cfg?)
23) Message boards : BOINC Manager : Poll: BOINC Manager remote control (Message 32869)
Posted 19 May 2010 by Nicolas
Post:
I'm almost wondering if it would be a good idea to stop supporting hostnames in remote_hosts.cfg... People often report it doesn't resolve properly anyway (so they can't connect).

Thinking about it some more, I take that back; I have decided removing support for hostnames in remote_hosts.cfg is not an option. I'll need to do some more research to find how to keep it but removing the current problems...
24) Message boards : Questions and problems : New Function Suggestion/Wish (Message 32868)
Posted 19 May 2010 by Nicolas
Post:
How long ago did you delete the hosts from the projects? It may take up to 24 hours for new information to be picked up by stats sites.
25) Message boards : BOINC Manager : Poll: BOINC Manager remote control (Message 32850)
Posted 17 May 2010 by Nicolas
Post:
A better way to handle DHCP, so a better way to resolve the hostname would be a great thing. A way that really works.

Do you have any suggestions? I think using hostnames in a whitelist like this is *inherently* flawed, I don't know any way that would work well...

Do your own check.
A program like BoincTasks could check a range or addresses where the client would be. Should be easily read somewhere from the system, Windows knows......

The BOINC client should respond with telling BoincTasks who he is, so give out a name would be nice.
This would allow a connection with host names, over an ever rotation IP range.
And it would allow BoincTasks to scan for clients and let you choose them.
Making it more or less automatic and simple for everybody.

And adding the IP address of the computer running BoincTask, to the trusted list would be nice. When BoincTasks provides the valid key for that remote computer.

As most networks have automatic IP address assignments, the current system with fixed addresses is unnecessary complicated.

You're suggesting the manager searches the network for available clients, and that the client tells the manager its own hostname? I'm talking about the whitelist on the client that says what computers running the manager can connect to the client. I don't think we're talking about the same thing at all.
26) Message boards : BOINC Manager : Poll: BOINC Manager remote control (Message 32848)
Posted 17 May 2010 by Nicolas
Post:
A better way to handle DHCP, so a better way to resolve the hostname would be a great thing. A way that really works.

Do you have any suggestions? I think using hostnames in a whitelist like this is *inherently* flawed, I don't know any way that would work well...
27) Message boards : BOINC Manager : Poll: BOINC Manager remote control (Message 32827)
Posted 15 May 2010 by Nicolas
Post:
Richard wrote:
4) Started with two names only, later added matching IP addresses as a fallback (had some resolving issues on my network)

Sekerob wrote:
- Do you have any hostname, or only IP addresses? BOTH

Ageless wrote:
I know, but since someone in this flat changes her hostname about every 4 months, it's useless. So I added all 4 first IP addresses instead.

KSMarksPsych wrote:
IP addy. But the host name is in a comment.


I'm almost wondering if it would be a good idea to stop supporting hostnames in remote_hosts.cfg... People often report it doesn't resolve properly anyway (so they can't connect).

There is also a significant but hard-to-fix problem: when you connect, the client resolves all hostnames in remote_hosts.cfg before deciding if it will let you in. If DNS is down, the client may get stuck in that process for up to 30 seconds per hostname. While it's doing that, it doesn't answer science app heartbeats, so apps may quit. But it can't be changed to only resolve hostnames on startup, because if the corresponding IPs change later, it wouldn't let you connect...
28) Message boards : Questions and problems : New BOINC mode: VM for real parallel operation!? (Message 32822)
Posted 15 May 2010 by Nicolas
Post:
I really don't understand how virtual machines are related to high-bandwidth inter-node communication...
29) Message boards : BOINC Manager : Poll: BOINC Manager remote control (Message 32821)
Posted 15 May 2010 by Nicolas
Post:
Never paid attention to the cc_config.xml option <allow_remote_gui_rpc>1</allow_remote_gui_rpc> if that cuts the maintenance i.e. creates transparent connection will be trying it out and temp rename the remote_hosts files.

It's a command-line switch; I didn't even know it was also available in cc_config.xml (since 6.10.46).

It's a bad idea to use it; it allows connections from any computer at all...
30) Message boards : BOINC Manager : Poll: BOINC Manager remote control (Message 32813)
Posted 15 May 2010 by Nicolas
Post:
I'm about to add a few minor features to the client's GUI RPC code, and I have a few questions. Basically I'd like to know how people are using the remote access features so I avoid adding things that very few people need and would confuse users who don't :P

Do you remotely control your BOINC clients, be it with BOINC Manager, BoincTasks, BOINCView, or even boinccmd?

Are you using --allow_remote_gui_rpc, or are you using a remote_hosts.cfg file to say what computer(s) can connect?

If you're using remote_hosts.cfg:
- How many lines do you have in the file?
- Do you have any hostname, or only IP addresses? did you even know you can put hostnames in remote_hosts.cfg?
- Do you have a large number of IPs in remote_hosts.cfg to represent a single computer, just because that computer changes its IP address often (due to DHCP or otherwise)?
- Do you think it would be useful if you could type a range of IP addresses in the file, such as 192.168.1.1 - 192.168.1.50 (begin-end) or "192.168.0.0/24" (CIDR)?
31) Message boards : Questions and problems : New BOINC mode: VM for real parallel operation!? (Message 32806)
Posted 15 May 2010 by Nicolas
Post:
BOINC is simply not made for tasks that need communication between separate instances. If you need a cluster, use a cluster.

"The main requirement of the application is that it be divisible into a large number (thousands or millions) of jobs that can be done independently."
32) Message boards : BOINC Manager : My Wish List - part 3. (Message 32564)
Posted 4 May 2010 by Nicolas
Post:
I would like to be able to tell my client:...

Already available with the latest clients (6.10.36 and above), set resource share of the project you want to fetch one task from to zero. This requires that the project update their server software to at least changeset [trac]changeset:21134[/trac]. Without that update the project will not honor this setting!

Ah well it would be nice to have more control then that and have it built in to the client not the server.

Moving that feature so it's built into the client would need server changes, so you're back at square one.
33) Message boards : BOINC Manager : boinccmd debian, can't connect. (Message 32539)
Posted 2 May 2010 by Nicolas
Post:
Just in case someone blindly follows your advice in a situation where it doesn't apply...

Your suggestion works in this case because he installed from the BOINC-provided self-extracting archive.

However, if you install from Debian packages, you should never run the BOINC client typing 'boinc'. It's already running as soon as you install the package, and will start again when the system boots.

Many people run the client manually, usually to try attaching a project (not knowing that's done with 'boinccmd', not 'boinc'), usually with $HOME as their current directory, scattering BOINC's state all over it. It's made worse by the fact that boinccmd works only if your current directory is BOINC's data directory (/var/lib/boinc-client if you install from Debian packages), or if you give the GUI RPC password explicitly.
34) Message boards : BOINC client : Make Boinc IPv6 compliant (Message 32526)
Posted 2 May 2010 by Nicolas
Post:
When will we make Boinc IPv6 compliant?


It already is. It has been since libcurl was IPv6 compliant.

I actually tried setting up a BOINC project with the webserver listening only on IPv6, and the BOINC client could attach and get work normally.
35) Message boards : BOINC Manager : My Wish List - part 3. (Message 32222)
Posted 16 Apr 2010 by Nicolas
Post:
I have 3 computers running boinc. one of them is a notebook which is eighter connected via a proxy in the company or direct when I am outside.

the request is, that if there is a proxy set, boinc should try to go direct without proxy if it cannot reach it. this could be done eighter with a extra new setting in the options/proxy tab (like "try to bypass proxy if unreachable") or without extra setting just doing it. the report in the log should reflect the path used.

That could be generalized to "I have different proxy settings and change between them" (which could mean proxy vs no proxy, or two different proxies). It would be better to have a solution that can support that too.
36) Message boards : API : JavaApi example, where to find? (Message 32205)
Posted 15 Apr 2010 by Nicolas
Post:
There isn't a Java API for BOINC.
37) Message boards : BOINC Manager : My Wish List - part 3. (Message 32006)
Posted 7 Apr 2010 by Nicolas
Post:
Can we have an extra line on the projects tab giving us totals for work done and avg. work done please?

What totals?

I have a 118,980 score in Hexic, and 225,200 in Bejeweled. Do I have a "total casual-gaming score" of 344,180?
38) Message boards : BOINC Manager : My Wish List - part 3. (Message 31711)
Posted 22 Mar 2010 by Nicolas
Post:
My wishlist is to make an option to "force applications to 32bit even if it runs on 64bit machine(I mean so-called amd64/intel64). Currently 64bit applications of seti@home enhanced and astropulse are full of bugs and people want to 32bit applications. However recent boinc Linux core downloads 64bit applications even though the core itself is a 32bit application and began crunching!!

Wouldn't it make more sense to fix the bugs in the 64bit app??
39) Message boards : Server programs : Boinc Server on Windows computer? (Message 31666)
Posted 19 Mar 2010 by Nicolas
Post:
The problem is that nobody on the team has any experience dealing with Linux, and I can't seem to find a way to build the server directly within Windows.

If you have no experience with Linux, you'll feel just as lost in cygwin. Maybe you'll have more problems in cygwin than in a native Linux system...
40) Message boards : BOINC Manager : 6.10.36 HTTP error on upload (SETI@home [file_xfer_debug] FILE_XFER_SET::poll(): http op done; retval -184) (Message 31665)
Posted 19 Mar 2010 by Nicolas
Post:
Appears to be resolved. Transfers working on *all* machines now and for *all* projects. Thanks.

Yep, announced in the last technical news: "The sudden upswing today maybe means we're back to full upload capability."


Previous 20 · Next 20

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.