I'd say its own team or none. Random, is, shall we say, random.
Aside from that, great news that resources are being added. Tiny though my own contribution may be, it helps me to feel that someone thinks this enterprise worthwhile.
I'd say its own team or none. Random, is, shall we say, random.
Aside from that, great news that resources are being added. Tiny though my own contribution may be, it helps me to feel that someone thinks this enterprise worthwhile.
The output of Atlas should go either to its own team or to no team at all.
If there was a prospect of it being added randomly to the output of an existing team, I would hope there would be an "opt-out" preference box somewhere that one could tick. I have a suspicion that a large majority of current team founders would probably want to tick that box :-).
It's rather a different matter if a "big hitter" decides to join a team because he feels some empathy with the aims of that team and consciously decides to support those aims.
1. The granted credits from Atlas were monthly shared with a constant value either between all active hosts or all active teams. Means if Atlas get 1M credits granted every host could be happy with a bonus from maybe 1k or every team with a 10k bonus.
2. Atlas is its own host and team. Everybody has the chance to make a comparison between yourself as host/team and Atlas.
I kind of like the "team lottery idea", I think this could be a fun thing. But yes, there are problems as well. Teams that are doing races etc woould want to opt-out of the lottery, for one thing.
BTW, would ATLAS appear as one giant super-host or (like the other clusters) as a multitude of hosts, one per cluster node?
I'm asking because it would really be interesting to see the output of ATLAS as a whole. So in any way I'd like to see an aggregation of all the ATLAS clusters, either in a unique host, a (non anonymous!) user or a separate team.
That would not be possible if all the ATLAS cluster nodes would just join Einstein@Work for some anonymous user or be merged with other cluster accounts (e.g. that of Merlin/Morgane).
From what it currently looks like ATLAS will run as 1342 quad-core machines (and possibly a few more management machines) on a single user account that will join no team at all. I don't think that that "user" will keep the machines hidden.
I'd say its own team or none.
)
I'd say its own team or none. Random, is, shall we say, random.
Aside from that, great news that resources are being added. Tiny though my own contribution may be, it helps me to feel that someone thinks this enterprise worthwhile.
RE: I'd say its own team or
)
Ditto.
"But it's turtles all the way down!"
Comments the same as MikeB
)
Comments the same as MikeB and archae86
Shih-Tzu are clever, cuddly, playful and rule!! Jack Russell are feisty!
The output of Atlas should go
)
The output of Atlas should go either to its own team or to no team at all.
If there was a prospect of it being added randomly to the output of an existing team, I would hope there would be an "opt-out" preference box somewhere that one could tick. I have a suspicion that a large majority of current team founders would probably want to tick that box :-).
It's rather a different matter if a "big hitter" decides to join a team because he feels some empathy with the aims of that team and consciously decides to support those aims.
Just my own opinion, of course.
Cheers,
Gary.
I'll add to the chorus of no
)
I'll add to the chorus of no team or its own team.
Kathryn :o)
Einstein@Home Moderator
RE: I'll add to the chorus
)
Ditto
RE: 1. ATLAS doesn't join a
)
I'd suggest option one, no team.
BOINC blog
My suggests: 1. The
)
My suggests:
1. The granted credits from Atlas were monthly shared with a constant value either between all active hosts or all active teams. Means if Atlas get 1M credits granted every host could be happy with a bonus from maybe 1k or every team with a 10k bonus.
2. Atlas is its own host and team. Everybody has the chance to make a comparison between yourself as host/team and Atlas.
3. All credits from Atlas goes to its maintainer.
I kind of like the "team
)
I kind of like the "team lottery idea", I think this could be a fun thing. But yes, there are problems as well. Teams that are doing races etc woould want to opt-out of the lottery, for one thing.
BTW, would ATLAS appear as one giant super-host or (like the other clusters) as a multitude of hosts, one per cluster node?
I'm asking because it would really be interesting to see the output of ATLAS as a whole. So in any way I'd like to see an aggregation of all the ATLAS clusters, either in a unique host, a (non anonymous!) user or a separate team.
That would not be possible if all the ATLAS cluster nodes would just join Einstein@Work for some anonymous user or be merged with other cluster accounts (e.g. that of Merlin/Morgane).
CU
Bikeman
From what it currently looks
)
From what it currently looks like ATLAS will run as 1342 quad-core machines (and possibly a few more management machines) on a single user account that will join no team at all. I don't think that that "user" will keep the machines hidden.
BM
BM