On Sep 30, 2009, at 6:03 AM, Martin wrote:

> 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.

The point being is that if the client is not returning good results  
for SaH, it is not that likely that it is returning good results to  
Rosetta.

Aside from what I think are bogus claims as to how much any of my  
proposal would impact total production the truth is we really don't  
know what that level would be until the system is in place.  I happen  
to think it is nominal and John by the tone of his posts thinks it is  
so high nothing else will be accomplished.

The difficulty of the extension from your suggestion to mine is so  
minimal that this is why when I started with your thought as expressed  
above I made the natural extension.

And you know what is the absolute funniest thing... I would wager that  
if I set up a calibration project John would happily do work for  
it ... he has done work for just about every project out there ...   
And that is the even bigger joke, sorry, but he has done work for  
projects that have no science value what-so-ever ... I'm sorry ... but  
I love irony ...

As to being sorry ... whatever for ... you have a different  
concept ... the only real difference is that yours is more limited and  
is not any more likely to be accepted as mine was ...

Unlike Diogenes I was looking for a scientist ... an honest one would  
be frosting ...
_______________________________________________
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.

Reply via email to