![]() Obviously you will never use the results for science but you would get a complete working system. The BOINC software is also open source, so you could build your own DC project. The validation scheme could have a minimum threshold set and would reject that result. If a WU on one thread took 32 minutes to complete, it would take 4 minutes (if the scalability was completely linear). ![]() Rather than a quad core with a total of 8 threads running 8 WU's, you could have all 8 threads working on the same WU. AD Vina supports multiple cores/threads, so one could build it and go through a WU extremely quickly. The project may not accept your result though. It detracts from what they are trying to accomplish.Īs previously mentioned, AD is open source and you could use that. The MCM scientists don't want to deal with WU's being returned that could be suspect. What if someone optimized it and many users used it as it was set to use newer processor technology? Then you have hardcore crunchers using it and what if the error rate was high and you had the same WU given to two people running the optimized code and they both performed the same error? You now have a valid WU result per the system but it really isn't a valid WU result. Sure you can put an NDA and a license attached to it, but it would find its way to others. If the software is proprietary, then if they give it to someone it opens the door for it to be given to others. How could one person do that in a timely fashion? You also have various versions of OS X, Windows, Linux and Android and different processor architectures. What if someone optimized the code and it was one out of 1,000 or even 1 out of 5,000. Hypothetically speaking, we'll say one out of every 10,000 errors out. Some WU's error out on some machines but not others and the researchers expect this. I have no idea what the expected error rate is. This is not something that could easily be performed by anyone here. The researchers spent many hours on the software and the validation process. Just one WU being successfully validated is not a thorough test of the software. ![]() Optimizing software can be easy but for the purpose of this software, it has to go through a long validation process. Last edit by Former Member at 2:04:44 PM] WCG uses AD Vina in modified form for their Ebola and AIDS projects. SCRIPPS has Autodock / and AD Vina as open source available for study or building your own project. They are the owners of the code, not WCG who just hosts/facilitates these projects That said, you could try the scientists directly and see what they say. Several projects have already suffered of intentionally messing to fake full results and get 'credit/points' which to some is the holy grail, though worth absolute nothing but bragging rights. Generally you wont find the code of 'critical' research be available for any BOINC research project. This would force extra copies be distributed for processing, even could cause work to have to be repeated. Sorry to disappoint you, but there's grave danger that 'optimizers' will put their builds in place of the binaries distributed by WCG, and then generating garbage or malforms, certainly results that don't match with the verifier copy.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |