Slashdot Mirror


"Nightlife" Harnesses Idle Fedora Nodes For Research

A. B. VerHausen writes "If you've given up on SETI, now you can let your idle computer help with other kinds of scientific research. Red Hat employee Bryan Che started a project called Nightlife. He wants people to 'donate idle capacity from their own computers to an open, general-purpose Fedora-run grid for processing socially beneficial work and scientific research that requires access to large amounts of computing power.'" Che hopes to have more than a million Fedora nodes running as part of this project.

171 comments

  1. SETI by pryoplasm · · Score: 5, Informative

    There is also folding at home http://folding.stanford.edu/ that might help someones life more than software ever will.

    I am all for open source, but there are some better places to donate some spare cpu cycles

    --
    Those who live by the sword, get shot by those who live by the gun...
    1. Re:SETI by abolitiontheory · · Score: 1

      Agreed here. I don't have much hope in the mission of SETI, but Folding@Home's research is basically like throwing a gigantic brute force attack at unsolved protein mysteries. It feels like hacking, in a way. I love that idea, instead of just processing bombarded information from outer space.

    2. Re:SETI by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not to mention climate change prediction at home via climateprediction.net.

    3. Re:SETI by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Funny

      I guess that's irony; letting your computer consume large quantities of environmentally unfriendly produced electricity in order to calculate climate change.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    4. Re:SETI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how does his idea differ from BOINC?

    5. Re:SETI by bWareiWare.co.uk · · Score: 1

      You realise folding at home is software right?

    6. Re:SETI by somersault · · Score: 1

      unsolved protein mysteries You mean like the chicken and the egg debate? Why pot noodles are so addictive? Or how that mouldy block of cheese managed to solve the game of solitaire that you'd left lying out on the kitchen table?
      --
      which is totally what she said
    7. Re:SETI by somersault · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's better to think of it as job security.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    8. Re:SETI by somersault · · Score: 3, Funny

      Nightlife is usually what you do before you boink.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    9. Re:SETI by an.echte.trilingue · · Score: 1

      I thought the most interesting part of this is that he thinks he can get a million people to do this.

      Fedora is mostly a hobbyist OS (as opposed to RHEL), and I bet a lot of Fedora machines are desktops. If that number is at all realistic, the number of Linux users worldwide is way underestimated.

      --
      weirdest thing I ever saw: scientology advertising on slashdot.
    10. Re:SETI by mofag · · Score: 1

      I would support folding at home if they supported nvidia GPUs. I don't think they have revisited the possibility of supporting nvidia since the 8800 came out and CUDA. I could let them use my Q6600 but I would just find the whole thing very frustrating and a waste of potential so I will probably just continue to leave my PC idle overnight.

    11. Re:SETI by ljgshkg · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      But for most people, they don't turn on their computer just for that anyway. They just let it run as screensaver when they're away for a while, or they let it to make use of unused CPU cycles while they're working or doing other stuff. It's not like they're using extra electricity.

    12. Re:SETI by Danathar · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you don't know what the guy is talking about, then don't comment.

      Condor is WAY different than BOINC or Folding@home.

      BOINC is middleware but NOT general purpose grid computing. Condor is a distributed batch oriented system that allows people to submitt jobs and get them done. You can configure BOINC to run as backfill to Condor when Condor is not being used.

    13. Re:SETI by Krigl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd personally still prefer Folding@Home - climatology is way too complex, with lots of unexplained and speculative stuff. I'm not a scientist, but I'd guess this needs more basic research of underlying principles before brute force number crunching starts yielding useful results (any climatologist here?), not mentioning this project screams "junk science" out loud. And if they want internet community to get interested maybe someone should enlighten them about possibilities of different picture formats than 22 MB .bmp for high resolution histogram of global temperature change.

      Folding@Home is useful and brings actual results - you'll get a chance to throw your own pack of frozen pea against Africa's hunger, instead throwing it into wastebasket of "well, it seemed as a way to go then".

      As for SETI, well, yes there's a lot of space research fans here and way more Star Trek and Star Wars fans, who just secretly wish aliens to exist because it would be so cool if they existed even if without a chance to get into a hot threesome with Spock and E.T, but let's face it - aliens don't exist. And if they do, hoping to get some proof from SETI is like going to the sea coast once in your life, step on the shore with closed eyes and reach into the water in hope you'll get a grasp of bottle with a message from boat wreck survivor.

      If you gonna donate spare cycles, donate them on something useful instead of something cool or guilt relieving.

      --
      Troll 2.0 Fear my asocial networking!
    14. Re:SETI by deroby · · Score: 4, Informative

      Errr, yes they are !

      When Folding@Home runs in the background my cpu is 100% all of the time (well, one core is in each case). When it's not running, I average around 10% I guess.
      The difference is that in the latter case the cpu runs pretty much idle for 90% of the time and needs some electricity to keep going, while the former situation has it working at full throttle all the time, consuming so much more energy that the generated heat needs to be actively removed from the portable. I'm not saying it draws 10 times the amount of power, but it's going to be considerably more !

      All that said, I often wonder what would be more efficient : 10.000 specialized cpu's in some server-farm / data-center churning away on a given problem, being mostly limited to that single problem and costing heaps of money and energy, or 10.000.000 versatile grid-clients that more or less produce the same output, probably eating just as much energy, if not more.

      --
      If there is one thing to be learned on slashdot, it has to be sarcasm.
    15. Re:SETI by bcat24 · · Score: 1

      But for most people, they don't turn on their computer just for that anyway. They just let it run as screensaver when they're away for a while, or they let it to make use of unused CPU cycles while they're working or doing other stuff. It's not like they're using extra electricity Except that they are. Modern CPUs have quite a bit of power-saving support built in. If the processor is idle for a long period of time, it will practically shut itself down. Don't get me wrong, I like the Folding@Home project, but it does cause a noticeable increase in your electric bill.
    16. Re:SETI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try to use powernowd for managing your CPU's speed, it can ignore programs that run at low priorities and will keep your CPU on low speed if only a distributed computing client is running.

      (I'll just assume you're running Linux as you're posting on /. ;-) This, of course, does not apply if you use Windows; for MacOS, something like this should also be possible.)

    17. Re:SETI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess that's irony; letting your computer consume large quantities of environmentally unfriendly produced electricity in order to calculate climate change. That's not irony, it's just silly.
    18. Re:SETI by Krigl · · Score: 1

      What's the difference for me as a "cycles donator"? I've looked at the Condor's site and yes, it's computing grid, just like stated in an announcement (which is pretty much everything stated anywhere on linked sites, no actual plans or more concrete purpose), but to me as a guy, who'll just give machine's free time and some affordable money for slightly increased power bill, it's more or less the same unless I get involved in the project itself. Hmmm, am I enough social case to be given shell account just to look at the intestines? After all, I'm part of society, so my benefit might be socially beneficial too (until my medication steps in, this reasoning will look flawless to me).

      Anyway, good luck with that, I'm not switching to .rpm based distro (no flame, just sayin'), though I'm still curious about getting million Fedoras put together (Mad Hatter's from the whole world have some serious thread'n'needle work ahead) and hope they'll come with something real. Even if it'd end as mostly bunch of college kids getting some bogomips for their term projects, I believe that there's time or amounts of resources wasted and "wasted".
      Just hope they won't spend it on counting numbers of cattle in European Union, that would be true waste.

      As for Fedora being "desktop and hobbyist", as stated somewhere above, when I worked as a server room tech, I've seen Fedora servers aplenty, (though Debian dominated, followed by Gentoo, Win 2k3, and then Fedora/Suse/Redhat/otherRPMs or *BSD/Slackware) also as far as I know, it's used in academic environment. Both counts for local conditions (Czech Republic), though.

      --
      Troll 2.0 Fear my asocial networking!
    19. Re:SETI by Danathar · · Score: 1

      You know of course you don't HAVE to use Fedora to run Condor. Condor will run under different OS's.

      As for the benefit, let me give you an example of how Condor is being used. The Open Science Grid is a collection of Virtual Organizations that have contributed their clusters for use by Scientists who need them. So for example, when the massive data starts coming from the Hadron accelerator looking for the mythical Higgs particle, Fermilab will be able to use tens of thousands of computers all over the world that these organizations have contributed.

      I have 15 Dell GX280's that were going to be scrapped and are now happily doing work. Sometimes it's biology experiments, other times physics, and when not running BOINC runs either einstein@home or Rosetta@Home.

    20. Re:SETI by Ichelo · · Score: 1

      Stanford and Nvidia are working on GPU folding also GPU folding has so far been much more buggy than cpu folding. Q6600 are great folders, you should give it a try before calling it a waste of potential!

    21. Re:SETI by mofag · · Score: 1

      Thats easy for you to say. I have to live with my own petulance day in day out.

    22. Re:SETI by Otter · · Score: 1
      Folding@Home is useful and brings actual results - you'll get a chance to throw your own pack of frozen pea against Africa's hunger, instead throwing it into wastebasket of "well, it seemed as a way to go then".

      The gap between Folding@Home and anything that addresses "Africa's hunger" is at least as speculative as anything in climatology, and not that much less than SETI.

    23. Re:SETI by Miladinoski · · Score: 1

      but let's face it - aliens don't exist Ummm, what the hell are you talking about? You are saying that in the whole universe only us humans exist?
      --
      [insert lame sig here]
    24. Re:SETI by Krigl · · Score: 1

      Ah, thanks for clearing this, but it's still just "Yet another convenient and good thing to do". Without getting involved as an active contributor it's still the same to me, especially having just one desktop, which usually shuts down for a night (read morning to afternoon) since I have the box just behind the head. Oh, sweet dorm time, with uptime counting in months instead of days, the monster silently humming hidden behind the desk. Of course, "cool factor" is higher, especially considering the licensing conditions of using Folding's client (and .exe under wine, my ass), but I'll stick with Folding - the goals are similar, just more focused on single task. And if I should join some super-duper grid, I'd like to bring more than desktop with 2000+ Athlon-XP and Radeon 9200 SE. It's not like I have enough cycles to spare for both, there are DVD's to shred through x264/Vorbis, too.

      Anyway, good luck, I might check again when I get myself something more powerful.

      --
      Troll 2.0 Fear my asocial networking!
    25. Re:SETI by Krigl · · Score: 1

      That was analogy about the ratio of one's personal share and the vastness of task. It's from Trainspotting, where a guy brings his "getting straight from heroin" friend a bit of hash.
      As for Folding, it would be enough to get some better meds, even the current-like without side effects would be great result.

      --
      Troll 2.0 Fear my asocial networking!
    26. Re:SETI by ksd1337 · · Score: 1

      All that said, I often wonder what would be more efficient : 10.000 specialized cpu's in some server-farm / data-center churning away on a given problem, being mostly limited to that single problem and costing heaps of money and energy, or 10.000.000 versatile grid-clients that more or less produce the same output, probably eating just as much energy, if not more. Um, obviously a Beowulf cluster would be the most efficient.
    27. Re:SETI by phulegart · · Score: 1

      Wow.. here I was, picking out posts that needed some moderation (since I'm sitting on points)... then I came across your post. So much for moderation.

      I can't decide if I should just reword what you've got there, in the standard /. tradition, or if I should just deal with the issues I see one at a time.

      Climatology is way too complex, with lots of unexplained and speculative stuff. Ok. I'll agree to that. You aren't a scientist? Ok. I'll tuck that fact away for future use. How would you have any clue as to what you should designate as "Junk Science" if you are not a scientist? As someone who is not a scientist, how would you have any clue as to how much more research needs to be done before ANY number crunching is done? Does it not occur to you that this number crunching you refer to *is* research? Shouldn't you be a scientist in this specific area before you condemn their actions in attempting to propel advancements in their field? As someone who admits NOT to be a specialist in climatology, what the hell do you know?

      And if they want the internet community involved, they should what?? Get Enlightened as to different image formats? Why? Because you don't like the size of that bmp? Because you realize that they could pass out even more finely detailed images that would be smaller, if they only know what YOU know? Do you already know ALL of the reasons they chose to use BMP? Did YOU inform them of alternate image format possibilities that provide them with ALL the advantages they believe they are getting from BMP images, while also getting other advantages YOU are aware of that they are apparently not aware of? Have you been in contact with them at all, about this image format problem that you see? Or are you waiting for someone ELSE to read your mind as to the details of this issue, and waiting for someone ELSE to send off an email that climateprediction.net should change formats? I mean, I get it. You want someone other than yourself to make a fuss about this BMP thing. You can find the time to post about it here, but you can't be bothered to mention the problem to the people who matter.

      Now... where is the address at the site Stanford put up to support Folding@Home? You know the address I'm talking about... the one that I can mail my frozen peas to, to feed starving folk in Africa. Because I didn't find it. No, you can't get away with saying that you were just pointing out how using Folding@home is LIKE actually sending food to end African hunger. I do get it that you are CLEARLY saying here that using anything other than Folding@Home (in your opinion) is a complete waste of time and energy... your wastebasket reference. But on the whole, and in parts, you are wrong. Folding@home is no more, or no less a waste of time than SETI@Home... or any other distributed processing that is being passed around. Remember, you are not a scientist. You have no idea if the numbers you are crunching are going toward a problem that is going to be solved in 5 years, or in 50 years... or at all. However, for all you know, data crunched for Climateprediction.net could provide positive and useful results in 2 years. You admit that you are not a scientist, or a climatologist. So you are simply an ignorant individual who is claiming to have all the right answers.

      Now... SETI. Ok. Fine. You don't believe that there is intelligent life out there in the Cosmos. You have done a good job in proving to me that there was no intelligence at work behind the creation of your post. So, since I see no evidence of thought or intelligence in your post, I should assume there is no intelligent life on Earth? Show me your proof that we are the only intelligent life in the Galaxy... or the Universe? I won't leave you hanging... you CAN'T prove it, because it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that we are the only intelligent life out here. However, it is the height of arrogance and hubris to assume that we are the MOST intelligent species out here in the universe. We are on the v

      --
      "I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." -D. Adams
    28. Re:SETI by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Well, since we haven't seen any just yet, we don't have any proof that aliens do or do not exist. Unless you want to get into conspiracy theories that make great X-Files episodes, but not very good science.

    29. Re:SETI by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Show me your proof that we are the only intelligent life in the Galaxy... or the Universe? I won't leave you hanging... you CAN'T prove it, because it is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that we are the only intelligent life out here.
      Only because it's impossible to prove a negative. You also can't prove that aliens do exist, precisely because, to date, no one has said publicly that they have such evidence. I don't doubt that extraterrestial intelligent life might and probably does exist, but without tangible proof that I can see with my own eyes, well, I can't say for certain that it does exist.
    30. Re:SETI by phulegart · · Score: 1

      Granted you quoted and repeated me... although while I just said that it can't be proven that we are the only life out here, you did a nice job of pointing out that you can't prove a negative.

      You did lose sight of facts and details in my post (probably because it was too long for you to read)... I can prove that aliens do exist. In fact, let me rephrase that... it can be proven that Aliens do exist. SETI is in the process of proving that. If you choose to see the fact that it has not been proven YET as concrete evidence that it will NEVER be done, you fail to remember your history. I don't even have to mention any one specific historical fact, because there are countless examples of where something had not been done, that same something was called impossible to do, and then it was done.

      I'm not saying that Aliens exist. I am also saying that they probably do exist. However, you know Air exists although you can't see it. You know that microbial bacteria exist, even though you can't see, or touch them. You know that there are planets orbiting other stars, even though you personally can't see, touch, taste, smell, or hear them.

      But which probability is higher... the probability that there is other sentient life, somewhere out there in the universe, or the probability that we are the ONLY sentient life in the entire universe?

      --
      "I love deadlines. I love the whooshing sound they make as they fly by." -D. Adams
    31. Re:SETI by Otter · · Score: 1
      As for Folding, it would be enough to get some better meds, even the current-like without side effects would be great result.

      Again, getting to that from Folding@Home results is at least as speculative as climate modeling.

    32. Re:SETI by TClevenger · · Score: 1
      That's why I don't participate with the hardware I have. A PS3 is 10-20x the speed of my system in those calculations, while using about 1.5x the electricity (~200W vs. ~125W for my desktop.) Those with certain graphics cards can use a GPU client and also get 10-20x the performance, for only slightly more power consumption than my desktop.

      Hopefully they get a multi-GPU client polished soon. Then I would consider buying two or three supported GPUs and running a megaclient, but only when I need the heat anyway (i.e. wintertime or cold nights.) Right now, running a desktop client in my office would be even worse--I would need A/C to remove the extra heat.

    33. Re:SETI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't doubt that extraterrestial intelligent life might and probably does exist, but without tangible proof that I can see with my own eyes, well, I can't say for certain that it does exist. That is pretty much how I look at religion.
    34. Re:SETI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention climate change prediction at home via climateprediction.net. You don't need to waste mass amounts of computer power on that. The climate change and "global warming" is just a scam created by either a lab mouse or a bunch of evil communists in order to take over the world.

      Just tell people what they must and mustn't do. And if they don't obey, then threaten them with global flooding because the ice caps melted. Keep the people believing you by blaming every storm on global warming and claiming that it was the worst one ever, no matter what real historical records say.

      If you want to waste cpu time for something worthless, have your pc look for the way to turn lead into gold.
    35. Re:SETI by CycoChuck · · Score: 1

      Another reason to do Folding@Home over the climate change predictor: There is NO climate change. It is only a scam made up by environmentalist wackos that are trying to control your life.

      --
      Windows is as solid as quicksand.
    36. Re:SETI by Danathar · · Score: 1

      Well, obviously it's your choice, but I stress it's not an either/or proposition.

      The BOINC people have partnered with the Condor people because quite frankly many of these clusters DO sit idle a lot of the time. When they do, Condor can fire off BOINC to run in the background. My systems run 24x7 at 100%. If not running some job submitted by some scientist somewhere (and it's pretty flexible) then running rosetta@home or Einstein@home or whatever.

      Note the systems I run are Dell GX260's, 270's and 280's which are on the order of 4 years old+ and they are used quite nicely.

      An Athalon 2000+ is an older processor, but it's still valuable as a resource.

    37. Re:SETI by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      Please explain to me why you think protein folding is as speculative as trying to predict the climate of an entire planet.

    38. Re:SETI by J.Y.Kelly · · Score: 1

      Because protein folding is still a long way from being understood. There have been big improvements in recent years, but there are still big holes in our knowledge about exactly how the protein folding process works. There are ways to predict the structure of a novel protein sequence, but all of the really reliable methods depend on determining similarity to an already known structure. It's also possible to use energy minimisation to predict the effect of a small change to an existing structure. What doesn't work well yet (and what folding @ home is doing) is to simulate larger scale folding events in proteins. The ultimate aim is to be able to take a protein sequence and predict accurately what it's folded structure will be. We are still a long way from being able to do that (just look how much people spend on crystallography and NMR rather than using computer predictions of structure). I'm not saying that folding@home isn't a useful and valuable piece of science (it most certainly is), but don't kid yourself about it producing immediate benefits.

    39. Re:SETI by Otter · · Score: 1

      Beyond the fact that, as J.Y. Kelly explains, protein folding is an insanely complex problem, the assertion was variously that Folding@Home results would directly lead to solutions for "Africa's hunger" and "some better meds", both of which are rather wild extrapolations from what the project actually produces.

    40. Re:SETI by ljgshkg · · Score: 1

      I see. My mistake.

  2. It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by Nursie · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's the not-so-idle electricty bill that'll turn up when I let people use my PC's spare cycles all the time.

    That's why it's off, in stand by or auto throttling the processor. That's why letting people use your "idle" cycles is not as simple a charitable proposition as it sounds.

    1. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by abolitiontheory · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What's the actual difference in energy costs, though? Not saying you're stupid or selfish for not donating, just interested in the real figures, if you've got any. I throw my system into hibernation most nights, and try to turn off the monitor at least when I go away for a couple hours during the day. What have you found your general savings to be?

    2. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by Hairy+Heron · · Score: 4, Informative

      In my experience it's around 5 dollars a month more to run my computer all the time rather than shutting it down or putting it into hibernation at night.

    3. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by Nursie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Real figures?

      I don't know, but given that people have PSUs rated from 250W - 1KW these days, I would have thought fairly significant, assuming a pretty high utilisation of "spare" cycles.

      I know we've managed to cut our electricity bill in half lately by moving to energy saving bulbs and making sure we actually switch stuff off at the socket when it's not in use.

      Also, there's that whole "not using more than you need" thing to do with electricity having to come from somewhere, and that simewhere usually being a source of CO2 and other nasties.

    4. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by abolitiontheory · · Score: 5, Interesting

      ... making sure we actually switch stuff off at the socket ... I keep trying to think of a funny and poignant way to point out that we Americans don't have the slightest notion of this concept, because its not built into to our electrical system. I'm sure you could get switches at the sockets if you intentionally looked for them, but I was 21 before I ever knew of this concept, from going over to England to visit family. It's one of those small details that sticks in your head, kind of like slang words or Cadbury chocolate. American chocolate is rubbish.
    5. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by Yvanhoe · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't see it as free, see it as a really easy way to give some money that you know will go into CPU cycles quickly and efficiently.

      And to donate your company's money as well ;-)

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    6. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by Nursie · · Score: 1

      Come to think of it, you're right, I haven't noticed power switches on power sockets whenever I've been in the US (quite a lot over the years). Guess you don't notice the absence of little things like that.

      Ghirardelli do an ok bit of chocolate. OTOH, Hersheys is like some sort of brown soap.

      Actually unplugging everything would be more hassle, having the switch right there on the socket is a good thing, IMHO. I'm not obsessive about this and have a home server and a router that are UPS'd and on all the time. If anyone can get any use out of the spare cycles on my 266MHz ARM box then they're welcome to 'em...

    7. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by Idbar · · Score: 1

      Well, as you can use your CPU cycles to help research, I guess you can also help by not wasting energy too. Both are common efforts and achieve better results as more people join. If blackle has any numbers that only by changing the background (I have all my windows with dark background anyways, just because I don't get so tired of my eyes at the end of the day), you can help. I think, that as a common effort to achieve different goals, you are free to chose either one, independently on how much it cost to each individual.

    8. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by analog_line · · Score: 2, Informative

      A power strip with a switch does the job just as well as a switch on a socket. In fact, that's what I thought he meant until I read your post.

    9. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by Nursie · · Score: 4, Informative

      Err, blackle is nonsense in the modern world, IMHO.

      LCD/TFT screens don't work that way. There is a bright light that's always on, and the colours and darkness come about by blocking portions of said light, not by generating more of it.

      Of course, once OLED comes in that'll change again.

    10. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      What do you pay per KWH? The rule of thumb is that each 10W on your PSU will cost about 90 KWH per year, running around the clock. So a 250/10 == 25 25*90 == 2250 KWH per year. If you pay say, 6 cents per kwh: .06*2250 == $135 per year or $11.25 per month to run that 250W PSU 24 hours per day. I leave other wattages as an exercise to the reader.

    11. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by Idbar · · Score: 1

      Yes I was just setting an example. There are several places I know they still use CRTs, and I'd guess in that case it makes a little sense to use black. But if by turning your computer off, you are completely avoiding consumption, then makes much more sense, than any pseudo-screensaver.

    12. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by pablomme · · Score: 1

      Americans don't have the slightest notion of this concept, because its not built into to our electrical system. Actually, no-one other than the British do, AFAIK. Haven't seen a switch in a socket in Portugal, Spain, France, Germany, Italy or the US. Maybe Ireland?
      --
      The state you are in while your HEAD is detached... - wait, what?
    13. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by lubricated · · Score: 1

      I've wondered about this. If the light is always on and you need electricity to not let part of it through then white should in theory waste less power than black. Also setting your backlight lower during the screensaver would help too.

      --
      It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
    14. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 4, Informative

      What's the actual difference in energy costs, though?

      I just hooked a Killawatt to my Athlon 64 X2 4800+ system. Idle, it uses 67 watts at the wall outlet. Simultaneously transcoding two videos with mencoder reads 130 watts.

      If this runs 24x7, the extra 63 watts would use 1.5 KwH per day, which would cost me $71 per year with my incremental electricity cost of about 13 cents per KwH. That costs almost as much as a subscription to Netflix.

      Another consideration is that when idle, the system is almost silent. Under load, both the power supply fan and CPU fan crank up and get rather loud.

    15. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by Nursie · · Score: 1


      I'm sure I've seen them in other places...

      Maybe Singapore (OK, so they use british standard sockets).... Hmmm.

    16. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by Krigl · · Score: 1

      There are several places I know they still use CRTs

      Like my room until this February, when it suddenly died, being replaced by even more shitty (but also more expensive, hence the progress) LCD, which happily showed first dead pixel just on Tuesday.
      Actually, here in Czech Republic, there's still significant number of people still using CRTs (or Pentium 166/233 notebooks, USB pensticks with 128 MB, comps with read-only CD drive etc., hell my machine still has just CD-RW, but it has floppy drive)

      --
      Troll 2.0 Fear my asocial networking!
    17. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are just applying a large voltage across the crystals. There is no current draw. That's why displaying black and white on an LCD uses virtually the same amount of power.

    18. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by farmerj · · Score: 1
      Yep the Irish power sockets are the same as the British ones. A lot of our fittings and standards are based on the British ones.

      The main exception I can think of offhand is the phone sockets, the British ones use a BT socket, while the Irish ones use a RJ11 socket.

      In the past this has caused a wee bit of consternation, as many retailers that service both the UK and Ireland sold phones with BT sockets in Ireland, leading to many WTFs as people tried to connect them :-)

      --
      Independence? That's middle-class blasphemy. We are all dependent on one another, every soul of us on earth. G.B Shaw
    19. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by Phisbut · · Score: 1

      What's the actual difference in energy costs, though? Not saying you're stupid or selfish for not donating, just interested in the real figures, if you've got any.

      My computer, sporting a Intel Core 2 Extreme QX6850 (4 core), is plugged into a UPS that displays the current load. Between idle CPU and 100% usage by BOINC, there is a 75W difference. So for me, the cost is more or less the same as leaving a light bulb lit up all day long.

      0.075kW * 24h/day = 1.8kWh/day
      1.8kWh/day * 365days/year = 657kWh per year
      Depending on your electricity cost, the price can vary. Over here, it amounts to about $50 a year.

      YMMV depending on your CPU and electricity cost.

      --
      After 3 days without programming, life becomes meaningless
      - The Tao of Programming
    20. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Also setting your backlight lower during the screensaver would help too.

      Or turning your screen off (or "power saving mode") instead of going to screensaver. Screensavers also don't make a ton of sense in the modern world. Burn-in is much less of a problem on modern monitors, and computers can power down the screen instead of going to screensaver.

      In truth, I still use a screensaver as a sort of warning system. The screensaver comes on 3 minutes before the computer sleeps, so if I want to keep it from sleeping, I have a couple minutes to stop it. But if you're using some kind of cool 3D screensaver, I'd guess that it might use more power to display it than to just keep showing your desktop.

    21. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by mi · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      American chocolate is rubbish.

      Uhm... Nothing like an off-the-cuff bashing of something American to score points...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    22. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by ozbird · · Score: 1

      Actually, no-one other than the British do, AFAIK.

      Australia has switched wall outlets; New Zealand shares the same plug/socket format, so they probably do too. It might have something to do with having 240V mains power (vs. 110V) and/or more stringent safety regulations e.g. we have earth pins on all outlets too.

    23. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by Bede+EW · · Score: 1

      Australian sockets do...

    24. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 1

      not as simple a charitable proposition as it sounds.
      Would the fact that it's costing you more money than you thought make it more charitable?

      --
      500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
    25. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by somersault · · Score: 1

      Presumably it was just idling when you left it on overnight though - what would the costs be if it was run flat out all the time? I leave my PS3 running folding@home all the time, I'm not too fussed about the extra cost - have done over 100 units now after having it for just over a month. If it were in my bedroom rather than the living room then I'd probably switch it off in the evenings because of the fan noise (it's not bad, but it's not silent either).

      --
      which is totally what she said
    26. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has nothing to do with the 240V mains. Finland has them too, but no britain-style sockets for us.

    27. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This project is based on Condor (as mentioned in the summary). There are some numbers here http://www.bo.infn.it/calcolo/CondorWeek2006/Osborne-Cardiff.ppt
      on the total cost of having Condor running jobs during idle cycles. See section "Full Economic Costing." The figure was less than one penny per CPU hour.

    28. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by Beltonius · · Score: 1

      Even if it's true? A summer in Germany spoiled me on both American bread and chocolate. It's a good thing I wasn't drinking at the time or I don't know how I would've dealt with a lot of American beer either.

    29. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      I think you meant to say that "I personally didn't have the slightest notion of this concept before I went to England". In all the places I've lived, there were several receptacles that were controlled by wall switches. Considering that I've lived in six different states, I'd say that's a fairly reasonable sample size for one person.

    30. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by Nursie · · Score: 1

      Weel, that would depend if it's just the money or the associated energy use and atmospheric pollution that's on your mind.

    31. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by compro01 · · Score: 1

      to provide some numbers:

      According to my UPS, my computer (3.0ghz core2 duo E6850, 2GB ram, 8800GTS 640MB, 500GB hard drive, including modem and switch) consumes about 180W at idle (monitor/speakers/etc. off, torrents running). Running FaH (same as before, including torrents, but with FaH running on both cores), it sits at about 220W. Powered off, it registers at 5W. Running flat-out, it registers about 350W.

      Assuming it's running flat out 8 hours a day, that leaves 16 hours of off, idle, or FaH each day.

      Price of electricity here is 6.5 cents per KWhr, so that gives us this for the basic monthly cost:

      8*0.35=2.8KWhr = 18.2 cents per day or $5.46 monthly

      Now for the other 16 hours a day :

      off : 16*0.005=0.08KWHR = 0.5 cents per day or $0.15 monthly
      idle : 16*0.18=2.88KWhr = 18.7 cents per day or $5.61 monthly
      FaH : 16*0.22=3.52KWhr = 22.9 cents per day or $6.87 monthly

      total costs :

      off : $5.61/month
      idle : $11.07/month
      FaH : $12.33/month

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    32. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by Angostura · · Score: 1

      English and American chocolate is very different for historical reasons.

      Historically, making milk chocolate was beset by one problem: getting fresh milk to the plant. Before refrigeration and railways it was nigh on impossible. The two countries had different approaches: in the UK sugar was added to the milk as a preservative, in the U.S, the milk was essentially allowed to sour.

      By the time refrigeration arrived, the nations' tastes were set. The U.S continues to make much of its chocolate with soured milk, while the UK has very sweet milk chocolate.

      So when as an Englander I first tasted a Hershey bar the overwhelming impression was of off-milk or vomit. This was, ummm... offputting.

      But it is just what people are used to.

    33. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come to think of it, you're right, I haven't noticed power switches on power sockets whenever I've been in the US (quite a lot over the years). And I've lived here since I was born 20 years ago, and every house I've lived in since I learned what a power socket was has had switches. Not necessarily on all of them, but they've all had them.

      For example, in my room at the apartment I live in now, there are four outlet locations. One of those locations is controlled by the switch next to the door. It's also the one my wireless router and desktop are plugged into, so after the second time I accidentally cut power to them by trying to switch on the light as I came into the room, I taped it in position.
    34. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by Tyr_7BE · · Score: 1

      It depends on the machine. I measured my old (7 years old or so) Dell with a kill a watt the other day, and with the machine idle it was pulling in 80W. The monitor was another 50W. This is doing nothing, the computer just sitting there and looking at you waiting for instructions. That's about the same as keeping a very bright incandescent lightbulb on 24/7. Then again, this is technology from 7 years ago with a 15" CRT monitor, so YMMV with a newer machine.

      I did the same test with my 3 year old iBook. Sitting idle it drew 50W or so, but when I put it to sleep the consumption went down to 2W. So it is worth it to suspend your machines when you're not around.

    35. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by Blkdeath · · Score: 1

      Actually, no-one other than the British do, AFAIK. Haven't seen a switch in a socket in Portugal, Spain, France, Germany, Italy or the US. Maybe Ireland?

      New Zealand does (Thanks, Discovery Channel!)

      --
      BD Phone Home!

      Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.

    36. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by Tranzistors · · Score: 1

      Applications can take all CPU time and still work in power-save mode, trackerd did just that. If nightlife programmers did their job, only additional cost would be extra spinning of disk (if it would stop otherwise) and extra work of NIC.

    37. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Don't see it as free, see it as a really easy way to give some money that you know will go into CPU cycles quickly and efficiently.

      And to donate your company's money as well ;-) In that case, you are better off switching your computer off and sending the organization a check for whatever it would cost to run your computer at max load 24/7. Not only will you give them a much more useful work for the dollar (if the million nodes they wanted instead just have them just one dollar, they could easily buy a supercomputer), it will also save the environment by not using electricity by a million inefficient home desktop machines.
      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    38. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      You mean, write the check, put it in a letter and put a stamp on it ? Of course one million people will not donate one dollar to this project, but they will more easily give 2$ in electricity money.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    39. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Energy consumption hardly rises if you're Doing It Right[tm].

      Distributed computing projects should use your *spare* CPU cycles. This means two things:

      - Your computing client should not cause the processor's speedstep or PowerNow feature to turn the clock frequency up. In order to achieve that, configure your powernowd so that it does not consider processes running at lowest ("nicest") priority.

      - You should not leave your machine running any longer than you usually would just because you now are participating in such a project.

      I've been doing measurements on a Pentium-M-based desktop system. My machine consumes around 70 Watts when idle, with the clock frequency down to 800 MHz. When I run BOINC, the power consumption goes up to around 74 Watts. If I tell powernowd not to ignore niced processes, the machine will switch up to its nominal 2,1 GHz and power consumption exceeds 100 Watts.

      This, of course, means that I can let BOINC do a fair amount of work while I read mails or browse Slashdot, but I will never get any good scores on BOINC's internal rankings. However, if you want to go into distributed computing just in order to move your crunching farm up in those lists, then, well, just forget about energy efficiency.

    40. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On a recent electric bill I had, electricity cost about 10 cents per kilowatt-hour. At this rate, the cost of drawing one watt continuously for a year is about 88 cents:
      0.10 $/kW-h * .001 kW/W * 24 h/day * 365 days/year = 0.876 $/watt-year

      According to my kill-a-watt meter, my quad-core desktop draws about 60 watts idle, about 140 watts at maximum CPU load, and about 3 watts in sleep mode.

      As a rough estimate, suppose that for half of each day I could either put it to sleep or run SETI or this Nightlife thing. That's approximately a 140 watt difference for 12 hours of each day, and that works out to be about $61 per year. It's not huge, but it's not a trivial amount of money either -- and if you have multiple computers, or especially power-hungry ones, it can really add up.

    41. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by Samster33 · · Score: 1

      My apartment (in Canada) had an outlet (power socket?) that was controlled by a switch. The switch wasn't located on the actual outlet though, it was on the wall like a light switch. The idea was to plug a lamp into the outlet for use as primary lighting for the room. That doesn't seem to be common practice here though. I see it done more at camps and older style housing...

    42. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the +1 for using an American using a British slang term!

    43. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by hab136 · · Score: 1

      It's common on new construction in the US to have one light switch per room tied to an outlet. It's not common to have every outlet be switched.

    44. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by swillden · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You can go for a happy medium. Configure your system to keep the processors scaled back to minimum clock speed and then use the idle cycles. The power consumption will go up as compared to a completely idle system, but not very much, and you'll still have a lot of cycles to donate. Also, your machine should be able to sustain that load without speeding up the fans.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    45. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by Admiral_Grinder · · Score: 1

      I would love to link to it but I can't seem to find them online. However, I have saw in Lowe's and Fry's 3-prong pass through plug that is wired to a switch. Mostly been sold as a Christmas lights thing where you plug it into the socket, then you plug the lights in it's socket. Much like the old Christmas lights that didn't have those end to end plugs. Well it then had a 3~6ft cord with a switch on the end. Allows you to have stuff plugged in a hard to reach place yet have a easy to locate switch.

    46. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by Matt+Perry · · Score: 1

      Err, blackle is nonsense in the modern world, IMHO.
      Maybe so, but they did cite their source, which is a paper from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory that supports their claim. See pages 15 through 19 of the paper.
      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    47. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by UncleTogie · · Score: 1

      As a US military brat, I've got to agree. US chocolate is the pits. Luckily, the local supermarket now carries the Milka brand I got hooked on when I was in Germany...

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    48. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      I just tried your idea. Forcing the system down to 1GHz from 2.5Gz causes it to use 13 additional watts instead of 63 extra watts while under load. The frames-per-second performance scaled with the clock speed at 40%, while the power increment was only 20% as much as full speed. So on this test low speed was twice as "efficient" at producing results per additional watt. (Of course, that assumes the system was going to be left turned on anyway. If not, it looks like full speed would get through a given number crunching workload with the lowest overall energy usage.)

    49. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is especially true with LCD screens. The backlight only has a limited life. If you use a screen saver the backlight is on and not being saved. I have the OS shut off the screen ("power saving") fairly quickly. Of course, even with CRTs black and later low power modes are better at saving than screen savers, which are just toys.

    50. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by SpydeZ · · Score: 1

      Those are intended for floor lamps, though. And there's usually only half of a socket devoted to switched power (out of the 4-8 in a room).

      Plus those are usually on the lighting circuit, which may (or may not) be pretty close to capacity already. So it might not be able to handle the load of an entertainment center (or whatever) plugged in via a power strip...

      Anyways, just an ex-electrician rambling... :)

    51. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      So, $5 a month to help understand proteins better? It may be tax deductible if you really work at it, but it's still charity I can get behind

    52. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by drew · · Score: 1

      It depends where you live. In most American houses built since at least the late 70's or so, you'll typically find at least one switched outlet in each room, because when building houses went from being a one at a time custom thing to a neighborhood at a time thing, developers decided that they didn't want to have to choose light fixtures for each house, and would rather save the time and money by having the light switches control an outlet that the eventual homeowner could plug whatever kind of light they wanted into.

      Of course, they aren't on every outlet, and many Americans don't consider these switched outlets to be a feature, seeing as they are primarily associated with apartments and cookie cutter homes. I know in my house we've gradually been replacing them with hardwired fixtures as we do our various home improvement projects. But I'd be very surprised if the majority of Americans aren't at least vaguely familiar with the concept of switched outlets. At the very least, pretty much anyone that lives in a large apartment complex, condo, townhouse, or single family house in a (relatively) recently developed neighborhood certainly would be.

      Oh, and I think you meant to say that American milk chocolate is rubbish. There are American companies that make perfectly good dark chocolate (assuming it's real dark chocolate that they are actually willing to put a %cocoa on the label. I hardly consider anything Hershey makes to be "dark".)

      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
    53. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by swillden · · Score: 1

      I just tried your idea. Forcing the system down to 1GHz from 2.5Gz causes it to use 13 additional watts instead of 63 extra watts while under load. The frames-per-second performance scaled with the clock speed at 40%, while the power increment was only 20% as much as full speed.

      That's about what I expected. What did you notice with regard to noise? I'd expect that your fans stayed at low speed, with no additional noise (based on what my machine, also an Athlon 64 X2 4800+, does).

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    54. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by CCFreak2K · · Score: 1

      That's why I run it on my shell server out in some datacenter instead. We pay the same no matter how much/little we use of ANYTHING on the server, so we might as well make use of it.

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
    55. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by xaxa · · Score: 1

      In the UK (almost) every socket has a switch on the same plastic panel. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Uk_13a_double_socket.jpg
      It's possible to get sockets without the switch, but they're much less common (in a house you might find them in the kitchen behind fridges etc).

      "Stand-alone" switches (by doors etc) only ever control wired-in lights. The first time I visited a house in the USA I was confused about how I turned off the TV when I walked into a room and hit the switch by the door. That's not possible in the UK. I can see the American system can be useful though.

    56. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by xaxa · · Score: 1

      The grandparent should have included a picture:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Uk_13a_double_socket.jpg

      Now you know what we're talking about :-). All UK sockets are like that (and some other countries).

    57. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      England has garbage as well:

      Cricket anyone?

    58. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by milsoRgen · · Score: 1

      hell my machine still has just CD-RW, but it has floppy drive) I love that, "but it has floppy drive" part.
      --
      I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask where they're goin' and hook up with 'em later.
    59. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by milsoRgen · · Score: 1

      Yes but what is your video card? I have a ATI x1800 XT that runs hot even when idle, I've often wondered how much it has increased idle consumption.

      --
      I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask where they're goin' and hook up with 'em later.
    60. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      add the aircon cost of removing those watts (which will eventually be converted to heat.) from your room. then, the cost would be higher than your first estimate.

    61. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      It stayed quiet. The fans only seem to have a few discreet settings, and they didn't step up for that amount of power.

    62. Re:It's not the idle capacity I'm worried about by drew · · Score: 1

      I figured the implementation was different than what I was describing, but my point remains that, unlike the GGP, most Americans shouldn't be that utterly confused by the concept of turning off an outlet.

      I hadn't the slightest idea what a UK power outlet looked like until just now, but I've been seeing / hearing people use the phrase "switching things off at the outlet" or similar for probably two years now, and I don't think I was ever once confused as to what they meant when they said it. So saying that Americans "don't have the slightest notion of this concept" seems a bit much to me.

      --
      If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
  3. Why Fedora? by sysusr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If they settled for Windows, the sheer volume of available machines would far outweight any (probably minor to begin with) advantages to using Linux.

    --
    \x72\x6D\x20\x2D\x72\x66
    1. Re:Why Fedora? by sysusr · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I'm an idiot. Please ignore me while I sit in the corner and watch...

      --
      \x72\x6D\x20\x2D\x72\x66
  4. It's a bit nebulous by Silver+Sloth · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Err... I've read TFA and all I can see is that some guy would like to use spare Fedora cpu cycles for some sort of project but he doesn't know what and he's not really sure how. My immediate response is come back when you've got something concrete.

    --
    init 11 - for when you need that edge.
    1. Re:It's a bit nebulous by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Err... I've read TFA and all I can see is that some guy would like to use spare Fedora cpu cycles for some sort of project but he doesn't know what and he's not really sure how. My immediate response is come back when you've got something concrete
      Hmph. Sounds just like a PHB when they propose a new development project. "Well, see, we want to use [ SAP | Lotus Notes | Teamcenter | other complex technology here ], but we're not really sure how we'd use it. For fsck's sake, if you don't already know HOW you would use something, you probably DON'T NEED IT!
    2. Re:It's a bit nebulous by grizdog · · Score: 1

      Yes... I'm sure he has nothing nefarious in mind, but if he did and you signed up and gave him access to your machine, you would only have yourself to blame.

    3. Re:It's a bit nebulous by Blkdeath · · Score: 1

      Hmph. Sounds just like a PHB when they propose a new development project. "Well, see, we want to use [ SAP | Lotus Notes | Teamcenter | other complex technology here ], but we're not really sure how we'd use it.

      For fsck's sake, if you don't already know HOW you would use something, you probably DON'T NEED IT!

      As the old addage goes; when the only tool you have is a hammer suddenly every problem looks like a nail.

      --
      BD Phone Home!

      Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.

    4. Re:It's a bit nebulous by ronaldb64 · · Score: 1

      In other news, a new botnet was discovered. It consists of close to a million computers, all of them running Red Hat Fedora.
      The new botnet for Linux is seen as proof that Linux is threatening the monopoly of Windows in more than one area.

      --
      There's no place like 127.0.0.1
    5. Re:It's a bit nebulous by dead_one · · Score: 1

      What he's offering (it seems) is the infrastructure, the projects themselves should come from others. I'm a mathematician myself and often have calculations that are large enough to be impractical on a single machine, but not epic enough in scale to attempt setting up my own scheme like distributed.net or folding@home, if I even knew how. Fortunately I already have access to a cluster that I can throw such jobs at, but based on a conference I was at just last week, there are plenty of researchers who don't.

      Although whilst there I also learnt of BOINC (and plans to use it for a crypto challenge), so we'll have to see if Nightlife offers any advantages - largely depends on how many machines it makes available, of course!

  5. I have a better name ... by Lazy+Jones · · Score: 4, Insightful

    how about calling it "red computing" to remind people of how much energy it'll cost them. On modern computers, you have roughly 20-100W difference between idle/working CPUs.

    --
    "I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
    1. Re:I have a better name ... by Ngarrang · · Score: 1

      If we would just build more power plants, this wouldn't be a problem. I need more power for my cluster, anywho. And, if I ever complete my cluster powered by 1000 Mini-ITX boards, watch out world!

      Bwuhahahahahahaha!

      (This message has been brought to by Pave The Planet.)

      --
      Bearded Dragon
    2. Re:I have a better name ... by Lazy+Jones · · Score: 1

      That's the right way really... build more power plants (preferably solar power plants), then if there is spare energy at peak production times, we may use it to trigger some grid computing by otherwise idle processors. Nothing wasted that way...

      --
      "I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
    3. Re:I have a better name ... by CCFreak2K · · Score: 1

      According to my color wheel, the opposite of green (lime green, anyway) is magenta. Let's call it magenta computing.

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
  6. Bot nets not good enugh? by brewstate · · Score: 1

    So the windows zombies aren't good enough. You gotta ask Linux users huh...

    1. Re:Bot nets not good enugh? by hostyle · · Score: 1

      The worlds greatest Linux botnet, coming to a Fedora install near you soon!

      --
      Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.
  7. mount fsck fsck ... by corporal_clegg · · Score: 1

    so uh it is a Fedora-based computer-dating service designed to to use spare Fedora cycles to match *nix nerds with potential mates?

    --


    public void karmaWhore(String url){addSlashdotComment(fetchContent(url));}
    1. Re:mount fsck fsck ... by simong · · Score: 1

      There isn't the computing power in the world for that...

    2. Re:mount fsck fsck ... by UncleTogie · · Score: 1

      There isn't the computing power in the world for that...

      Sure there is... and it's at Craigslist, of all places...

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
  8. Already done by others by pwilli · · Score: 4, Informative

    BOINC

    is a client that allows you to choose out of many projects like Folding@home or SETI. The client also runs on Windows, Linux and MacOS without problems.
    There are many configuration options available to control the amount of CPU-power, cores, hard-disk space, RAM, the times it runs, how it should behave is someone else is using the system, etc. and the best is, anybody could set up a project that uses the client (although you'll probably have ahard time getting people to choose your project if it isn't something very interesting).

    Check it out!

    1. Re:Already done by others by CycoChuck · · Score: 1

      The BONIC client is a load of garbage. I use to do SETI until they switched to BONIC. The stupid client doesn't let go of clock cycles like the old SETI client did. Also, it was impossible for me to ever download a job when I was still stuck on dial-up.

      But the final straw for me was that the BONIC client for Linux required (at the time of the switch) X to run. That killed my interest in the SETI project due to the fact that I could no longer use my cluster server built out of old PCs on SETI.

      --
      Windows is as solid as quicksand.
  9. Isn't just this Boinc? by nweaver · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Seti-at-home crowd, long ago, realized that it was more than Seti@home, thus created BOINC. So whats new here?

    --
    Test your net with Netalyzr
    1. Re:Isn't just this Boinc? by CycoChuck · · Score: 1

      BONIC is like Windows, a good idea all messed up by people who don't know how to program.

      --
      Windows is as solid as quicksand.
  10. Has he not heard of Boinc? by Bazman · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://boinc.berkeley.edu/

      "Use the idle time on your computer (Windows, Mac, or Linux) to cure diseases, study global warming, discover pulsars, and do many other types of scientific research. It's safe, secure, and easy"

      And you can do it NOW. With almost ANY computer.

    He's either not done his research or he's an idiot.

    1. Re:Has he not heard of Boinc? by cool_arrow · · Score: 1

      Maybe he can make BOINC easy to install on a linux system. Seems like you have to read docs to get "folding" or "seti" running now - many wont do that.

    2. Re:Has he not heard of Boinc? by Bazman · · Score: 1

      As easy as 'apt-get install boinc'? Or you can click things in synaptic. Ubuntu ftw again.

    3. Re:Has he not heard of Boinc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually you are since you didn't even read the article. Moron.

    4. Re:Has he not heard of Boinc? by akozakie · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Another useless fragmentation of effort. Where's the idea of "the Grid"? A single entity, like the Internet, where you can put your computations and get a lot of cycles, and if people actually find your research interesting - well, you get more cycles[*] than supercomputers can give you. Look at the numbers for BOINC or folding@home - for quite some time now they are consistently getting more FLOPS than TOP500 #1 supercomputer at the time.

      [*] If that is all you need. Supercomputers still are way better if your problem doesn't split nicely into portions - grids are more or less useless in this case.

      I completely understand why folding@home didn't join BOINC - they have specialized GPU and PS3-based clients. They are less popular than PC(Win+Mac/x86+Mac/PowerPC+Linux), but boy are they worth it! There is 5 times as many f@h PC clients than PS3, but the PS3s give almost 80% of TFLOPS. The GPU clients are rare, but they give even more power per client than PS3.

      So, by being specialized, folding@home gets loads of computing power (slowly getting to 2 PFLOPS!) that BOINC couldn't really get at. But what exactly is this Nightlife for? Fedora-specific grid? Geez... Just make a team in BOINC, help make BOINC better, if you like. Don't fragment the grid!

    5. Re:Has he not heard of Boinc? by Wormholio · · Score: 1

      And there is now a BOINC package in newer releases of Fedora.

      BOINC works on any Linux, and Mac, and Windows, so the computing power of a cluster is potentially much more than a Fedora-only project.

      --
      "Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire." -- William Butler Yeats
    6. Re:Has he not heard of Boinc? by Blkdeath · · Score: 1

      And there is now a BOINC package in newer releases of Fedora.

      Fantastic!

      Now, I've just got a couple glitches to work out in my Fedora 9 installation;

      1. Video drivers
      2. Wireless LAN
      3. Getting KDE to function and allow access to all the Fedora software utilities properly
      4. Allowing me to use groupinstall/groupremove for KDE/Gnome without mucking up my entire graphical environment
      5. Providing me a KDE utility to graphically change video settings would be spectacular
      6. Fixing the GNOME graphic settings utility to allow for advanced changes like video timings, output selection, etc. would be a real boon as well
      7. Convincing the package manager to look at the DVD instead of the Internet every time I ask it to install another package

      On the plus side; since my Fedora installation is all but useless, I might as well donate some spare CPU cycles to something. I've got lots of them; I can't use the computer to save my life

      --
      BD Phone Home!

      Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.

    7. Re:Has he not heard of Boinc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From my reading of it, BOINC is for very loosely coupled code -- it can be hours or days before you get results back. Condor (the basis of this software) works for more closely coupled code. While it may have changed, it is hard to code for BOINC projects and it is much easier with Condor.

    8. Re:Has he not heard of Boinc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So? He's reinvented the wheel. I know how upstart programmers love to whine about not reinventing the wheel, but if not for men like him, we'd all - ALL - be using Windows.

      We also wouldn't have fifteen different e-mail clients, several desktop environments, and ten thousand text editors to choose from on Leenucks.

      Choice is good. Lack of choice - IE, monopoly - is bad. This is Slashdot, for all love, am I hearing complaints about someone providing choice? Or is choice only good when it's between Microsoft and something else?

    9. Re:Has he not heard of Boinc? by Bob+Loblaw · · Score: 1

      From reading the linked articles, it seems the main difference is the way work is managed.

      With BONIC, clients redundantly get sent out chunks of work that get send out again if they expire without some response. So this can lead to really large and unpredictable lag times between work scheduling and work completion. Which is great for some tasks but not so great for others.

      With Condor, from the Condor website under the clearly indicated link "What is Condor?", "Should Condor detect that a machine is no longer available (such as a key press detected), in many circumstances Condor is able to transparently produce a checkpoint and migrate a job to a different machine which would otherwise be idle." So this means that work units are done with some consistent timing at the expense of increased complexity.

      This represents a pretty large difference in how the two systems operate. So before calling someone else an idiot for not doing their research, you should at least do your own or fall under the same label by your own criteria.

    10. Re:Has he not heard of Boinc? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Providing me a KDE utility to graphically change video settings would be spectacular Fedora doesn't do that? Really?

      On Ubuntu, I just go to System Settings, Monitor & Display, and drag the slider. Granted, System Settings isn't in KDE3 by default -- but it's just an OSX-like frontend to all the KDE control modules. There is an older frontend that you should have somewhere.
      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    11. Re:Has he not heard of Boinc? by CycoChuck · · Score: 1

      Maybe he just doesn't like the fact that the BONIC client is a giant pain in the butt.

      --
      Windows is as solid as quicksand.
  11. Mac users can do something like this already... by Dekortage · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Since Mac OS 10.4 and later come with Xgrid already installed, it's very easy for your spare processor cycles to be donated to science. A few clicks in your System Preferences, and you're done.

    --
    $nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
  12. World Community Grid by Luyseyal · · Score: 4, Informative

    Personally, I prefer World Community Grid. I've been a member of the Slashdot team there since 2005 sometime.

    -l

    --
    Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
    1. Re:World Community Grid by tolgyesi · · Score: 1

      I checked it out. Cound not find info about system requirements (platforms), just marketing blurb. Must register and agree to a software license before knowing anything, including posting to their forum.

    2. Re:World Community Grid by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      Cound not find info about system requirements (platforms) Boinc is the current client, requirements are here.
      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    3. Re:World Community Grid by Luyseyal · · Score: 1

      I run it on Linux, though there is Mac and Windows support as well. It's just a BOINC process. I use the Debian packages and added the WCG project and voila, I'm crunching numbers for science and humanity.

      There are some folks who argue saving the energy is better (if you can't afford it, I agree!). However, I think it would have been worse for these projects to have never existed and/or to have built their own massive server farms. Spreading the energy burden around the world sounds to me like a better proposition than, say, building another coal plant to supply their growing farms.

      I have wind power. Natch.
      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
    4. Re:World Community Grid by Secret+Rabbit · · Score: 1

      It is assumed that you know that you run it through BOINC. Though that topic is in the "Getting Started" section in Help:

      http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/help/viewTopic.do?shortName=start

      Also, all the projects available is right on there front-page.

      Can't know anything without registering, eh?

  13. In 3..2..1 by jav1231 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I love Nightlife...I love to boogie.

    1. Re:In 3..2..1 by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      I love Nightlife...I love to boogie. boogie woogie?
      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    2. Re:In 3..2..1 by jav1231 · · Score: 1

      Offtopic!? :( Tough crowd.

      Alicia Bridges?

      "So I Married An Axe Murderer?

  14. Che Fedora! by WheresMyDingo · · Score: 3, Funny

    Greedy capitalists, share your idle cycles! Power to the people!

  15. Re:LCD/TFT Screens Don't Work That Way by FurtiveGlancer · · Score: 1

    Fpanels turn off the backlight after a period of inactivity, typically 15 minutes. They must to earn an energy star symbol.

    --
    Invenio via vel creo
  16. Actual energy costs by jgoemat · · Score: 1

    What's the actual difference in energy costs, though? Not saying you're stupid or selfish for not donating, just interested in the real figures, if you've got any. I throw my system into hibernation most nights, and try to turn off the monitor at least when I go away for a couple hours during the day. What have you found your general savings to be?

    A modern dual core processor can use about an extra 100 watts of energy when processing than when idle. This is from using a watt meter on a few computers of mine and checking it out. Shutting down or hibernating will save you 200-300 watts total I'm guessing. Personally I have a couple of services running on my computer all the time so I can't shut it down completely, plus I like being able to just turn on the monitor and start working/gaming/surfing. So if you are going to leave your computer running you can save 1 kilowatt-hour every ten hours just from the extra power pulled to do the processing versus having the CPU usage low. Prices vary, but if your CPU usage totals an extra 20 hours per day then that's an extra 2 kilowatt-hours per day or about 20 cents, totalling up to $75 or more a year in electricity bills. That also increases carbon emissions if your electricity comes from fossil fuels.

  17. Real numbers by BLKMGK · · Score: 2, Informative

    I use the newer 80+ rated PSUs and I don't oversize them like so many others do. My desktop machine AND a server that also has an 80+ PSU in it (and 10HDDs) together use just about 300Watts as measured by my Kill-a-Watt device. That's not an insignificant amount but that was also with all of my drives spun up - normally drives not in use goto sleep (unRAID).

    The PSU ratings of those two machines together are probably somewhere right around a kilowatt and yet I use a fraction of that at full chat. My desktop has a 45nm C2D (E8400) clocked to 3.8Ghz, an 8800GTS (die shrunk too), a single HDD, multiple cooling fans.

    My point is that just because a PSU is rated for something doesn't mean it's going to be using that even when you have fairly thirsty components onboard - using the rating is a bit misleading as it's a maximum output. The fact that I use highly efficient supplies helps a great deal, they don't cost much more. My power bill isn't insignificant mind you but these aren't the only two computers I run either :-)

    --
    Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
  18. Re:Switched Outlets For a Switch by FurtiveGlancer · · Score: 1

    Allow me to add Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Italy and Germany to the list of places where switched outlets are used. I've seen the switches primarily on high current outlets for major appliances, such as washers and dryers.

    I'd postulate that the switch at EVERY outlet in the UK may be related to WW II air raids and blackouts.
    --
    Invenio via vel creo
  19. Wasted cycles... by killmofasta · · Score: 1

    Most distrubuted applications claim to use wasted cycles...BUT...

    I have yet to see SETI@HOME actually have a 'event' worth the trillions of cycles wasted on it. ( Stewert YOU MAKE BAD PASTA! :P)

    Folding@home is sure to make someone else very rich from their drug patent. Your doing someone elses research.

    GIMPS and OGR are worthwhile because you cannot patent either primes, or goluomb rulers...You can? OK I Patent 2,3 and 11!

    1. Re:Wasted cycles... by DCstewieG · · Score: 1

      Folding@home is sure to make someone else very rich from their drug patent. Your doing someone elses research. I don't know about you, but if someone gets very rich creating a treatment for Alzheimer's or the like that I may get one day, I'm okay with that.
  20. Onother grip project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CPU Share might also be interesting, as it is a CPU market place were you can sell your idle resources for real money.

  21. BOINC != grid computing....Condor is by Danathar · · Score: 1

    To all you people saying "why don't you just use BOINC"

    Why indeed? Why not use BOTH. (As Condor can be configured to use BOINC when it's idle)

    With BOINC data is PULLED from them to you when YOU request it. In grid computing with Condor data is PUSHED to you.

    Big difference.

  22. Not responsible computing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In a world of ever increasing fuel prices this "social" computing need is an obscene waste of electricity. Please, contribute to higher fuel prices by letting some social darwin correlate dumb things that don't belong together.

    1. Re:Not responsible computing by Rams�s+Morales · · Score: 1

      Did you send this message from a cave, using no electricity?

  23. Energy costs by arnott · · Score: 0

    Here is the heat and energy considerations for running boinc. Boinc is a middleware for projects like seti@home and folding@home. According to that study the difference is roughly $3/month between idle and active computer usage.

    1. Re:Energy costs by Nursie · · Score: 1

      And how about compared to turning it off when you're not using it?

      "Under these assumptions, running BOINC costs about $3/month more than leaving your computer on but idle, and about $8.80/month more than leaving it off all the time.

      There may also be an environmental cost. If your electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels, the extra electricity usage produces greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. If this is the case, we recommend that you not leave your computer on just to run BOINC, or that you reduce your overall energy use to compensate. "

  24. Re:Switched Outlets For a Switch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd postulate that the switch at EVERY outlet in the UK may be related to WW II air raids and blackouts.

    AFAIK the current switched square pin UK outlets date from well after WWII (late 1960's? early 70's?). Until then there were two types of round pin outlets (big and small, probably 3 and 5 amp?) and some of these did not have switches. My parents were still using a small round pin unswitched outlet to run an electric clock until a few years ago, and I guess there are still a few old houses using these (although you'd probably have to replace them if you wanted a mortgage on such a house).

    Also, not *all* current square pin outlets have switches. Although rare, I've come across a few (I think my Grandmother's council flat had all unswitched outlets, probably to save a few pennies).

  25. It's not the chocolate I'm worried about by mi · · Score: 1

    English and American chocolate is very different for historical reasons.

    My point was not the differences in chocolate, it was the declaration of all American foo as "rubbish" and the subsequent high moderation...

    So when as an Englander I first tasted a Hershey bar the overwhelming impression was of off-milk or vomit.

    Come to think of it, I have a very vague recollection of how vomit tastes like... Always having it fresh in memory must be an English thing ;-) Sorry, could not resist.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  26. Spare cycles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spare cpu cycles are best used for spam. At some point even spam might achieve results....

  27. Rosetta@home, not Folding@home by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

    a client that allows you to choose out of many projects like Folding@home .
    Rosetta@Home, a protein folding program which has active updates from David Baker, the head of the group, runs on BOINC; Folding@Home doesn't. One benefit of BOINC is that you can run it on your system and when Rosetta@Home doesn't have more work for you to do, you can have BOINC switch over to any of a number of other projects you've attached to.
  28. Re:Wasted cycles... and an event! by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

    I have yet to see SETI@HOME actually have a 'event' worth the trillions of cycles wasted on it.

    SETI@Home was a prominent beacon for grid computing for the masses, which spawned BOINC, which is being used to simplify distribution and management of other 'useful' grid computing projects such as protein folding and climate change prediction cores. Significant enough event, IMHO.

  29. JG Wentworth?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want my spare CPU Cycles, and I want them /NOW/!

  30. SETI@home != SETI by TeknoHog · · Score: 0
    SETI@home is to SETI what
    • distributed.net is to cryptography
    • Folding@home is to biochemistry

    And so on. It's a very specific project in a vast field of science, so please don't generalize.

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  31. my spare cycles? by drew · · Score: 1

    I prefer Electric Sheep.

    --
    If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
  32. rough estimate ... by Lazy+Jones · · Score: 1
    Wikpedia: Microwulf, a low cost desktop Beowulf cluster of 4 dual core Athlon 64 x2 3800+ computers, runs at 58 MFLOPS/Watt.

    BOINC does about 1200 TFLOPS (= 1,200,000,000 MFLOPS) atm.

    => BOINC probably burns around 20MW (assuming that the power used is directly proportional to the CPU time used even if it isn't 100%, which is wrong but an upper bound and probably not very far off).

    1 KWh electricity = 0.43Kg CO2

    => BOINC generates 8.6 tons CO2 per hour or about 3100 tons/year (correct me if I'm wrong, I might be a few orders of magnitude off). That isn't very much compared to the 6b tons emitted by the USA anually, but still a waste...

    --
    "I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
  33. Why not use BOINC? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looking at the Nightlife forums, the prevailing comment there is that this is a less sophisticated form of BOINC.

    So the only reason to run Nightlife is if you want to re-invent BOINC for some reason...?

  34. Climate Prediction is Rubbish! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With the current state of knowledge about atmosphere dynamics, climate prediction models are just guesses (usually refined to give a predicted answer which will please the grant provider)

    Remember the big BBC study, which was invalidated before it had finished? Climate Science is best characterised as misleading green propaganda, and is frequently fraudulent. Hockey Stick, anyone.

    I would not let my PC be associated with this!

  35. BOINC - a whole infrastructure by DrYak · · Score: 1

    I am all for open source, but there are some better places to donate some spare cpu cycles And they are thing like BOINC which are complete opensource infrastructure for distributed computing, which are cross platform and feature lots of project you can pick from to contribute your spare time (among other, the original SETI, but also dozens of bio-medically related ones which will also have a similarly more close impact for humans as folding at home is).
    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]