On 25/05/10 00:20, jay wrote: > On Monday 24 May 2010 03:03:17 pm David Anderson wrote: >> The bottom line: as long as a host is sending correct results, >> it shouldn't have a daily quota at all. > > Exactly.
Nope! An absolute maximum daily quota is still needed to catch fault conditions where Boinc doesn't know or can't detect any faults. I'm sure we all know that Boinc is far from complete and definitely not perfect! There still needs to be a daily maximum that is set to say x10 whatever is conceivably possible with today's hardware, or set to whatever the project *servers* can withstand without suffering a effective DOS attack. A finer absolute limit could be to have hard limits for each class of known client hardware. For example: X * CPU_clock * number_CPUs; Y * GPU_clock * number_GPU_processing_elements; ... Assume a generous maximum for anything unknown. (OK, so Intel P4 CPUs and any RISC CPUs would score badly on that!) Also, would you really want a supercomputer cluster to blockade a project's servers for the day and leave all other participants dry? I favour the idea of maintaining a "normal average" WU rate per application per host CPU and limiting to say x4 of that as a WU *rate* limit over a shorter period of say 6 hours. Adjust accordingly if the project's WUs vary in compute requirements. For s...@h as highlighted, how do you distinguish s...@h "-9" results as a real error or not? Can a checksum test be included in the client to detect failed computations?... 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.
