Paul D. Buck wrote: > [... ad-hominem exasperation removed ...] > > Were we to implement my proposal there would be two classes, or more of > work. All would be "real" work in that the test tasks would be just > like the real tasks in that they would take as long to process because > there would be no difference in the construction of the task. TO put it > another way in the context of SaH, the test task would be the same type > input file the only difference would be that the data within would be > artificially generated. In other words a known signal. > [...] > > Lastly, like Redundant computing and Validation of duplicate or > triplicate processing this is a cost we should be willing to pay for > increased quality of known results. > > As to waste, how much more wasteful than to find out that large batches > of results are potentially unusable because of a series of flaws that > allowed bad data to pass validation? > > How big is the problem? You may be right and there is no problem. But > just as security by obscurity is not a safe answer, neither is > pretending that these potential problems don't exist. [...]
OK, this is where Paul's apparent wishes (note, should be expressed as "ideas",) and my ideas diverge. Paul is proposing that special "calibration WUs" are to be passed through the Boinc system end-to-end for the dual purpose of calibrating the performance of the client that processed the WU, and to also act as a validation check of the entire Boinc WU data path. My proposal is that we just do the minimum necessary to calibrate the host performance and credits against a known project lab reference computer using the normal pool of live WUs. Then, the only 'wasted' compute time is that needed to characterise the one (or few) reference computer systems in the lab. Everything else is then compared against them. The calibration is propagated hierarchically through the participants hosts in a similar way to what is done for such as NTP and for NIST standards. At least a small level of WU redundancy is required so that the calibration can propagate by comparing the hosts that have processed the same WU. The coordination for this can be done totally server-side (as part of the validator?). Sorry Paul, the end-to-end 'validation' is something that is likely so specific to each project that it is up to the project to test/prove the correctness of the Boinc generated results. For example for the case of s...@h, inject a test signal into the Arecibo data recorder? Or note when Arecibo scans across a distant space probe? Meanwhile, Boinc includes various checks and tests to overcome the problem of using untrusted and unreliable hosts. Keep with the "ideas"! Regards, Martin -- -------------------- Martin Lomas m_boincdev ml1 co uk.ddSPAM.dd -------------------- _______________________________________________ boinc_dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and (near bottom of page) enter your email address.
