I think we're more than a bit off-topic for the developers' list. This whole discussion probably belongs in Alpha, and not here.
I did not say that "power users" weren't of value. In fact, I agree that people who use and care enough about BOINC to devote the time and study are a major asset. Where I have a problem is with "power user features." For example, the idea of selecting the mix of projects that can run at any one instant seems problematic. Let's take one scenario: I have a four core system, and I'm signed up for four projects. Let's assume for a moment that I have equal resource shares. ... and let's assume one of those (call it LHC, for historical reasons) has work sometimes, and not at others. Strict interpretation of the rule says that when LHC is out of work, and my queue is empty, I can't use that core for other processing because that would mean two instances of the same project running at the same time. So, idle cores and debt that will run away because the rule doesn't allow more than one work unit per project -- and that means no way to make up for projects that are overworked. Sure, there are users who could tune that to work, but there are also ways to create a whole lot of edges and impossible situations. Martin raised questions about a "Computer Science" view vs. "Computer Engineering" and frankly, as an applications programmer, I'm not sure how to tell how large the cache is, or what other programs are running that could bump my data or code from the cache. I do know how to arrange loops to minimize the odds of a cache fault, but that's the limit. So, I think it's good to listen to power users (and anyone else) when they start pointing out problems. What I worry about are the solutions that many power users "demand." While I don't believe a "mom and pop" scenario like you suggested exists (I don't think the common set-and-forget cruncher is more than dimly aware, or even dimly interested, in what BOINC is doing on a day to day basis), is that user better served by more buttons and knobs, or are they better served by a "per processor" DCF? Limiting the total number of work units probably makes a lot of sense (as a safety in case of a poor DCF), but how many power users would accept that? It doesn't seem like a popular idea. ... and personally, I'm just a little bit offended by the "We're power users, they'd better cater to us or else!" attitude. Milo Bloom said it best when he said "The first sign of a nervous breakdown is when you start thinking your work is terribly important." But that's my personal opinion, it's not a technical position, nor does it represent anyone but myself. It does not represent BOINC, SSL, or the Regents of the University of California. Anyone who sees a problem and reports it is an asset. If it's possible to change BOINC so that it solves the problem without help, that's the best possible result. -- Lynn On 2/12/2010 9:26 PM, Pappa wrote: > Generally speaking it is the "power users" (that includes testers) that > identify problems with, which ever Boinc Core or Server Side issues. So they > have value, please do not dismiss them that easily. They are needed for that > simple reason. _______________________________________________ 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.
