![]() ![]() It just so happened that the Linux special app appeared at the same time and soon proved itself to be the most efficient at processing Seti MB classic workunits:20,676 CPU time:74,226 hoursġ) The Linux app is so fast that each machine with a modern GPU cannot last through a normal outage, let alone the sort of problems we had last week.Ģ) Some Linux special app users have recompiled Boinc so as to report large numbers of GPU's typically 64 or 48 so to be able to stockpile work for the outage. Lots of issues and finally I decided I had had enough of Windows and decided to revisit Linux. I never had much issues with Windows 7 but the one machine I converted over to Windows 10 was a large mistake. I started BOINC on Windows but before BOINC on Classic I was an OS/2 Warp user, an even smaller minority. I don't have any animosity towards Windows. The Seti servers run on Scientific Linux so there must be someone at Seti that knows Linux. That is the type of bias I read in the posts. Definitely a minority.īut what I was commenting on are the digs buried in comments that the Linux users are "cheating the system" "causing undo pressures to the database" or "Linux users are not using the system as designed" vis-a-vis that they aren't using Windows as the majority of users are. I would hazard a guess at maybe a couple hundred of active Linux users. There is nowhere near 10% or 9K Linux users. Last stats said Seti had 92K active users. ![]() But it is disheartening to regularly see the anti Linux bias since I want to assume all members who contribute their processing power would be welcomed with open arms and it shouldn't matter what platform they run their computing devices classic workunits:20,676 CPU time:74,226 hoursĪ proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association) I just try an ignore the obvious bias and soldier on as best I can. As we traditionally have.īut then we see negative posts and comments alluding to our use of Linux. So the Linux user community is left to support themselves. We certainly are not getting any direct support from normal BOINC resources that all Windows and MAC users regularly receive. Or approach one of the current Linux users for help and support as we actually can offer some practical support and knowledge that the Windows BOINC support mechanism is useless for now. If the new user needs to install Linux versions of BOINC, they should get it from their distro repository as it at least will be current within a couple of releases of the current code branch. I agree that old 7.2.42 BOINC repository version should be removed. Just ignored as usual with Linux being the red-headed stepchild. Did he get any recognition of that fact? No. So any wonder since we have no official Linux support, for apps or recent BOINC releases that we are left to our own devices to support ourselves?Īnd TBar's BOINC 7.8.3 fixed a bug that had been present for years and never attended to by the BOINC code maintainers with the jumping task lists sorting bug. So pretty obvious.Īnd Richard, you yourself have told me you know nothing about Linux and that I was left to my own devices to compile the BOINC platform once I uncovered a bug that had been present for years. Even have one member using a username professing his bias. The only time I see 'http 500 Internal Server Errors' in Linux is when My other Non-Linux Machines are giving the same Error after an Outage.Īnybody who reads the forums regularly probably has developed the impression as I have that there is an anti-Linux bias present by many members. At present he isn't using any Version of BOINC from the All-In-One package. The 7.8.3 version would have been a welcome addition to that page, as it is, those Linux Apps at Berkeley should probably be removed as they haven't worked on any newer versions of Linux in years.īTW, Keith hasn't used 7.8.3 in a very long time. Shame Linux is the only Platform BOINC will not provide an App. Tested on the current Ubuntu distribution may work on others. There is only one part of the Berkeley download page for Linux that is still current, that would be the part that claims I think I've had One Person say they had a display problem in a Non-Ubuntu system, No complaints from those running Ubuntu. So, without that Bad Manager 'Bug Fix', it is more standard than any compile that includes that alleged 'Bug Fix' which itself is a Bug. The BOINC part is untouched from the release. The only change from the client release is the omission of a failed Manager Bug of a Bug Fix that caused more problems than it allegedly fixed. As the person that compiled 7.8.3 I can declare it is probably More 'standard' than any other version of BOINC for Ubuntu you will find. Could something indigestible be being generated by that non-standard BOINC version?Just curious as to your definition of 'non-standard'. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |