Brian Beesley wrote: > On Friday 18 May 2007 18:54, Coran Fisher wrote: > > >> be no decrease in accuracy. Also boinc projects are sometimes serious >> scientific endeavors so accuracy is extremely important, do you have any >> reason to suspect a boinc project is returning inaccurate results >> because it's used by boinc? >> > > I don't see much evidence of cross checking. I do see lots of evidence of > massive timewasting e.g. SETI having a few blocks of data run many, many > times. Also the presentational work involved in being run as a screensaver > wastes loads of CPU cycles per client. OK there may be other ways of running > BOINC clients but most people just don't bother. FYI most of the systems I > have running mprime don't run a GUI at all. Command line works just fine, > uses a lot less less resources... and lets mprime run a percent or two > faster, even on state of the art systems running GUIs that are a lot more > efficient than windoze, even when no foreground applications are running. > All the processing routines and work assignment for BOINC projects are done by the project; i.e. SETI in this case. They design the apps, assign the work, and do any cross-checking they feel is necessary. All BOINC does is provide the platform for distributing the project's application and data, and allowing a user to distribute cpu cycles among various projects. Even BOINC's routine communications are with the project's web site, not the BOINC servers.
I don't run the graphical display; in fact, I didn't know there was one until yesterday. Everything runs in the background (as a windoze service) on my system, with just a management app that I can bring up if I feel like checking the status of stuff. D > >> I also suspect you could continue to run >> the stand alone client as a few projects did that for a while so >> basically you could choose the current style of client or boinc. >> > > For a while? Long enough to enable me to find something else? > > >> So I >> see no reason for people to leave if boinc was used. The (minimal) gains >> vs the work involved is the only show stopper I see. >> > > Minimal gains could well be net losses. > > Depends whether you want to see numbers of users or numbers of _useful_ CPU > cycles contributed. > > Regards > Brian Beesley > _______________________________________________ > Prime mailing list > [email protected] > http://hogranch.com/mailman/listinfo/prime > > > _______________________________________________ Prime mailing list [email protected] http://hogranch.com/mailman/listinfo/prime
