Krokr wrote:

Thanks for posting the FAQ, it was quite interesting.

[...]

strange approach to 'system efficiency'. If you make the client code twice as efficient but can't support the results coming back twice as fast, then give them out only at a rate you can support. You can give the users the same WU's and let them have back half their CPU cycles - nothing forces you to keep them fully occupied!  CPU cycles are a resource and it is NEVER a good idea to waste a resource.

s@h proved to be far more popular than expected. CPU performance increases from the many users also outstripped the limited and fixed tape splitter machine capacity s@h had available... There will have been a very understandable urge to 'keep everyone interested'...

I would imagine that the vast majority of users just enjoy the pretty graphics and 'feel good' factor rather than get technical for advancing science as efficiently as possible.

My worry is that I would like to use my spare CPU cycles efficiently to support several good causes, but if SETI(or any other project) is going

[...]

This was a strong motication for creating Boinc. CPU resource can be shared between projects as required. If one project runs out of data, other Boinc clients can soak up the spare resource, automatically.

There has also been some thoughtfulness to make the statistics more meaningful for the crunch junkies, and add robustness against 'helpful' improvements or outright cheating or sabotage.


I have other projects soaking up my spare CPU cycles while Boinc gets underway. I guess Boinc will be oversubscribed for a little while yet.


Happy crunchin'
Martin