Lifemapper

[aberant]

lol yep, gotta love my 1024/256 connection

I already signed up to the team, was the first thing i did Just took a while for my poota to do its first wu. If i can get the £ for some silent fans then i'll start running 24/7, but i gotta have my sleep too Team is currently 21 out of 38, and that's just not good enough Pity i'm 4th of 4 in the team

 

[Lifemapper]

Hi, Guys.

Work Units are 300K to 500K on average. It depends on the number of the data points available for this particular job (you actually see data points on the map). It can be from minimum of 10 up to several hundreds of data points for some instances. But it seldom pushes job packet size over 0.5 Mb at this point.

What you see as numbered folders in the client folder (of about 1 - 1.5 Mb) are just environmental data sets that are downloaded only once as needed, then they are being reused when appropriate. Some more info posted here on May 1, 2003: LM FAQs
LM Team (Greg)

 

[Lifemapper]

Also, we do consider shrinking those packet sizes when we get to it. We tried to use Xeed (?) Zip library once before for zipping/unzipping them, but it was corrupting some packets. So we decided to postpone this til later.

 

[deerslayer]

Thanks for the info Lifemapper I am still running the client, and I will probably leave it running now. It seems to be working rather well, I need to go downstairs and check on it thought because I shut my modem off at night.

 

[TAandy]

Originally posted by: Lifemapper
Hi, Guys.

Work Units are 300K to 500K on average. It depends on the number of the data points available for this particular job (you actually see data points on the map). It can be from minimum of 10 up to several hundreds of data points for some instances. But it seldom pushes job packet size over 0.5 Mb at this point.

What you see as numbered folders in the client folder (of about 1 - 1.5 Mb) are just environmental data sets that are downloaded only once as needed, then they are being reused when appropriate. Some more info posted here on May 1, 2003: LM FAQs
LM Team (Greg)

Thanks for keeping me right Lifemapper

 

[Lifemapper]

No problem.
Here is one of little articles that float around, good brief explanation of the project: here

 

[deerslayer]

How often is the stats page updated? My computer says i've done 20 whereas the stats page for TeAm Anandtech says i've only done 18. I'm assuming the stats are updated in a fairly large interval?

 

[deerslayer]

Anyone know?

 

[TAandy]

Group stats don't seem to get updated as often as individual stats, which seem to be updated daily. Lifemapper ?

 

[Lifemapper]

Hello guys,

User stats are generated on the fly, so it is always up-to-date.
Group stats are generated once a day or so (need to check with Greg... he is out of office right now).

Ricardo

 

[aberant]

Hi there - just got my new CPU, a K6-2+, and it seems that lifemapper just crashes after about 2 minutes of running. it didn't do this before when i had a normal k6-2, and its not a bad cpu cos everything else is running fine. Any ideas ? Thanks

 

[Lifemapper]

aberant:

I think I replied to your email on processor issue. I am hoping that poor Ricardo may tinker with this problem overnight sometimes . But then we would need your computer to play with.

But seriously: no idea so far .

LM Team (Greg)

 

[aberant]

yeah sent you a reply to the email. My computer is yours far as i'm concerned matey see if you can figure it out

 

[deerslayer]

yhpm Lifemapper!

 

[Overkiller]

group stats are a lil. borked. the names show up only alphabetically and not well...stat wise lol...is it by the amount of units or by the amont of species mapped?

 

[Lifemapper]

Sorry, Overkiller, cant really understand your comment. We got that you did not like the format. But could you comment in this approximate format: "stats are bad/good/wrong/great, because...."?....

We can not really react in any way until we understand the comment. Please post you detailed comment here or send us email to lifemapper@ku.edu.
We would appreciate to hear from you.

LM Team

 

[Lifemapper]

Version 1.1.0 of Lifemapper's screen-saver client displays an incorrect value for the current user's total time. For example, time value might be displayed as "6d 14h 0.24min" when the correct value should really be "6d 14h 14m 19s". This problem is due to a bug in our software that incorrectly formats the time.

No workaround is available. The Lifemapper team will implement a fix for this problem in the next release (1.1.01) of the screen-saver client. Note that the stats on the web site are correct.

 

[Confused]

When this thing can run at idle, then I'll consider running it alongside my other projects, in case they can't get work, but until then, won't be trying it!


Confused

 

[Lifemapper]

Hello Lifemappers,

A new Lifemapper client has been released (version 1.1.01). It is available on our our website (http://www.lifemapper.org). Check it out.

It is a maintenance release so there are no big changes.
This version fixes some bugs identified by many of our users from this forum. Thanks for the feedback!!

The most important fixes are:
- LM client now runs on low priority. It does not compete for CPU with other foreground application when in Application Mode anymore.
- Client now displays CPU time contributed correctly on screen. The calculation of the minutes was incorrect in previous versions.
- Bug that prevented LM Client from starting in screen saver mode on NT4 machines is fixed.

Other minor fixes are:
- Client displays version number correctly, i.e, minor release with 2 digits (x.y.zz) instead of only one (x.y.z), to avoid confusion about 1.1.1 and 1.1.10 for example.
- Client saves intermediate results to disk every 100 iterations or every minute, whichever occurs first. Previous versions would just count number of iterations which could take a long time on slow machines.
- Client now checks periodically whether its tray icon is on the tray (if in bg mode). Prior versions would loose the icon on tray, if explorer crashes, preventing the user to restore its window.
- More sources can be listed on the legend. When many sources are available, different symbols are used.

Other bugs reported and features requested will be considered for implementation in next releases.

Thanks again for all your feedback and interest. Please come visit us.

Cheers,

Ricardo
Lifemapper Team


PS. Hey, Confused! You can try it out now

 

[Lifemapper]

There is new Lifemapper support forum here. It was created to post all non-DC related and Lifemapper specific issues there. Please check it out.
LM Team

 

[deerslayer]

I'll have to give the updated client a look

 

[SlangNRox]

Priority still seems high on the new client.

 

[Lifemapper]

Really? Is it still running in high priority for you?

On all Win2k and WinXp that I tested, Windows Task Manager says that the client Base Priority is Low. Not sure what Win98/NT would say, but should be the same.

However, when your CPU is idle, even the task with lowest priority will use what is available.

Ricardo
Lifemapper Team

 

[Confused]

Lifemapper,

Is it true idle (ie priority 1) or Windows 2000/XP idle (priority 4, like Seti)?

Because if it's 4, then there will be some issues with programs like Outlook 2000, if people are using Offline folders, as they run at a lower priority than 4, so they appear to stall.

If you can get it running at true idle (1) then I will put it on as a backup to SoB, which runs at 4 (i think). If LM runs at 4, then that will be splitting evenly with SoB, which is not what I want, as I would like LM as a "backup" to SoB in case their servers go down or similar.


Confused

 

[SlangNRox]

I am running SOB at idle using the gui. I know you can set the priority lower using the service thing or something. Lifemapper is taking up my cpu time with sob showing 4181 cem/sec after 43 hrs. Hardly any dc programs run at a priority of 1 liked distributed.net.