Slashdot Mirror


Hosting Problems For distributed.net

Yoda2 writes "I've always found the distributed.net client to be a scientific, practical use for my spare CPU cycles. Unfortunately, it looks like they lost their hosting and need some help. The complete story is available on their main page but I've included a snippet with their needs below: 'Our typical bandwidth usage is 3Mb/s, and reliable uptime is of course essential. Please e-mail dbaker@distributed.net if you think you may be able to help us in this area.' As they are already having hosting problems, I hate to /. them, but their site is copyrighted so I didn't copy the entire story. Please help if you can." Before there was SETI@Home, Distributed.net was around - hopefully you can still join the team.

7 of 210 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Suggestion by hkhanna · · Score: 5, Informative

    No because the distributed.net client needs to communicate on it's own port in whatever internal protocol it uses. That's what causes the bandwidth usage, not the downloading of the client, if that's what you think.

    You can't put your own server software on sourceforge's servers, at least not to my knowledge, so all sourceforge would be good for is hosting the client downloads...which it might actually already do. Hope that answers your question.
    Hargun

    --

    Think nothing is impossible? Try slamming a revolving door.
  2. Re:Aliens, crypto or cancer - what's your choice? by Sircus · · Score: 4, Informative

    You're wrong, so I'll correct you :-)

    d.net was around a long time before SETI@home - I've personally been running the client since 1997. SETI@home launched on May 13, 1999 (though they were fundraising and doing development for a couple of years before that).

    I'm personally strongly interested in cryptography for various reasons, so d.net gets my processor time. I seem to recall various people have concerns about how exactly the cancer project will use the eventual data it collects - i.e. whether the products produced as a result of the project will be commercially exploited - they don't want companies just using this large distributed network to make a fast buck.

    --
    PenguiNet: the (shareware) Windows SSH client
  3. Re:Dnet, is it useful ? by Graspee_Leemoor · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Cancer research? I've yet to see a viable distributed project for cancer research. By that, I mean an organized effort with real data, a complete and concise goal, and a clean method for reaching that goal. "

    http://members.ud.com/home.htm

    This is real research, worked on by United Devices, helped by the University of Oxford, Intel and the National Foundation for Cancer Research.

    It meets all your criteria- this is from their site:

    "The research centers on proteins that have been determined to be a possible target for cancer therapy. Through a process called "virtual screening", special analysis software will identify molecules that interact with these proteins, and will determine which of the molecular candidates has a high likelihood of being developed into a drug. The process is similar to finding the right key to open a special lock--by looking at millions upon millions of molecular keys."

    graspee

  4. Re:Dnet, is it useful ? by BovineOne · · Score: 4, Informative

    Because distributed.net is a purely volunteer project, many of its staff also have their paid day-time jobs working for United Devices (who are responsible for the THINK Cancer project). That includes myself, Nugget, Decibel, Moose, Moonwick

    --
    Don't waste those cycles! Put them to use! http://www.distributed.net/
  5. Re:Suggestion by BovineOne · · Score: 4, Informative
    Finding new hosting for our central "keymaster" is what the issue is. We have enough "fullsevers" for serving the computational data to clients (See http://n0cgi.distributed.net/rc5-proxyinfo.html).

    FWIW, Our clients actually can speak a pure HTTP protocol for requesting data, allowing a simple /cgi-bin/rc5.cgi script handle direct serving, but the default communications mode is a more compact raw binary mode.

    --
    Don't waste those cycles! Put them to use! http://www.distributed.net/
  6. Re:So 3Mb/s huh? by BovineOne · · Score: 4, Informative

    That figure is actually closer to the current average peak. We in fact currently have an ipfw bandwidth limit on the machine to limit it to 3Mbit/sec and it mostly stays under it. We just over-quoted that figure a little bit in our announcement so that there would be fewer concerns over some marginal potential growth and try to factor in some of the bandwidth peaks.

    --
    Don't waste those cycles! Put them to use! http://www.distributed.net/
  7. Re:Issues Resolved? by BovineOne · · Score: 5, Informative

    Although United Devices is currently graciously hosting some of the displaced distributed.net hardware temporarily, they've indicated that they are not willing to do this long term (which is quite a reasonable decision, since it is a lot of bandwidth).

    Note that several of the distributed.net volunteer staff (including myself) do indeed work for United Devices during the day, and that our employment there began awhile ago (more than 15 months ago), so that partnership announcement is not really related.

    --
    Don't waste those cycles! Put them to use! http://www.distributed.net/