We've learned that distributed computing volunteers have begun soliciting (insistantly) some of our institutional participants for contributions of computing resources towards various projects. While one might just chalk this up to zeal, I see this as a problem.

We have had to work hard to convince the institutional participants that their contributions shouldn't expose them to security problems or unwanted attention. These folks' job is to maintain a large collection of computers and they are likely to avoid anything (real or percieved) that makes their job more challenging.

What I wanted to ask is how do others handle these sorts of situations? What is the appropriate etiquette required to tell folks to bug off?

I realize that some will say that 'laissez faire, laissez passer' is the appropriate model for distributed computing, but I feel our project (and presumaby other projects) will loose access to the large banks of resources sitting largely idle in institutions if their managements are beseiged by the DC community.

What do you think/say?

---

I think you will find (for the most part) that larger corporations and such will not and can not run DC projects on their PC's because of policies that prevent/forbid it. It doesn't mean that they shouldn't be asked but do so in a professional manner and maybe even draw up a proposal citing energy usage, what projects you want to run and what the possible benefits are.

It's taken a long time to get these policies in place and to change them almost takes an "act of God". I run BOINC on my lab machines only as the policies there are more lenient. I wouldn't even think... well, actually I would... of running a DC project on all of the client machines. I wouldn't actually do it though.

There are some VP's and such that won't mind the processes running in the background but for the most part, they are technologically challenged individuals that will see it as a waste of time because there isn't a way for them to make themselves look good. Harsh but true.

---

The Clangers Forum

BOINC Wiki

I also think this is a issue. I work for only a minor company with around 25 desktops only running Microsoft Word all day. But I can't convince the IT administration to allow boinc to run on the computers.
I think a "task group" should be established to work with this. The task groups objective should be to verify the different Boinc projects harmlessness. So if a new project pops up - the task group tests the applications and verify they work on different cpu and distro types.
I know one company which official supports the World Community Grid. It is Easymobile. So if it possible to make some kind of promotion effort towards large companies and institutions it would help a lot. But it requires quite some work.

- Peter

---

_

...but I feel our project (and presumaby other projects) will loose access to the large banks of resources sitting largely idle in institutions if their managements are beseiged by the DC community.

What do you think/say?

I agree this would be a tough sell. At the least, dc projects require energy usage, so if any request was made to leave computers on overnight or over the weekends, I know my management would have a real problem with that.

In addition, I think it would be a tough sell to educate people that Intranet security would not be breached, and that dc projects would not slow down computationally intensive tasks.

I guess it depends on the individual company. But I think you are correct, Rosetta@home should probably make a statement that they in no way encourage the usage of computers not owned and/or under the direct control of the participant, and that unauthorized use of other computers is not beneficial to the project (or the participant). Or something like that.

I guess your point is that it would be better for Rosetta@home to approach whatever corporate partners they feel would be appropriate to ask if the partner might donate some resources to the project. I agee that an official, planned approach like this is much better than a scattered, uncoordinated approach. You could make a statement like this, too, to help rein in the well-intentioned zealots!

---

Regards,
Bob P.

I'm thinking that kel meant that the institutional users from the UW campus (Health and Food Services, David Cox, Robetta) were being hit up by members of the DC community to allocate some of the crunching power under their control to other DC projects.

If that's the case, I think think some statement on the front page would be appropriate, and perhaps something added to the profiles of the campus accounts to the effect of "HANDS OFF - Don't even ask us to put our PCs on other DC projects".

I think it's extremely bad form for others to be soliciting them for other projects, and almost as bad if they are being solicited to move to other teams within Rosetta.

One example, (and don't get all huffy that I'm using this as an EXAMPLE) http://www.boincsynergy.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3458

Overt team poaching has been frowned on in the DC community.

---

Proudly Banned from Predictator@Home and now Cosmology@home as well. Added SETI to the list today. Temporary ban only - so need to work harder :)



"You can't fix stupid" (Ron White)

What I wanted to ask is how do others handle these sorts of situations?

Try to fix what’s broke :)

What is the appropriate etiquette required to tell folks to bug off?

That's a good start!
I can see this as a serious problem for many top users in all BOINC projects.
This may deserve an addition to BOINC Rules and Policies page.
Something to effect of personal e-mail solicitation between participants is discouraged.

---

One example, (and don't get all huffy that I'm using this as an EXAMPLE) http://www.boincsynergy.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3458

Overt team poaching has been frowned on in the DC community.

I could of sworn when i read that synergy post yesterday he wasn't in a team =/. We aren't in the habit of poaching crunchers from other teams in the BOINC community.

---

We haven't tried (that I am aware of) to ever poach anyone.

In fact, I think i remember it coming up in the past and it was generally agreed to be a bad idea (among BS anyway). Ok, we would all love to have this number of computers crunching for us but that doesn't mean we are going to start spamming the user to get him to change team!

cheers,

Paul.

---

Wanna visit BOINC Synergy team site? Click below!

Join BOINC Synergy Team

I'm a system administrator for a small company, with about 250 systems running windows. I took over the job this year, after running the Technical Department for the same company.

I tried to convince the former system administrator to install SETI and later BOINC, but he wouldn’t. He claimed it was setting the door open for viruses.

When working at the Technical Department, I was responsible for implementing the Windows Preinstallation server and applications. I made a tool that ran SETI on every newly installed system, without actually installing the application (customers wouldn’t like that). This resulted in huge amounts of WU’s crunched. Unfortunately, when the switch came to BOINC, the system administrator wouldn’t open up the URL’s for BOINC or the projects, so I was forced to resign it. A new problem was found: SETI consumed too much bandwidth which the company doesn’t want to pay for.

At the moment, as being the system administrator, I made it possible to run several BOINC projects on the newly installed machines, but not on the machines running in the company itself. I also limited the number of active clients to 8.

Companies may have the following problems with BOINC:
- They do not trust the security of BOINC or the related projects
- Too much bandwidth is used
- Systems running 24/7 cost too much energy, and even a system running only during production hours costs more with BOINC running
- Some parts of the computer may have a shorter lifespan

---

I am not sure anyone has really answered the question asked.

First and foremost it should be in the rules and policies page. Donations of equipment and CPU time on, or in, installations are only for approved applications and No means NO. Ask once and that is all. I try to make that clear in the Wiki, but it may have gotten "lost" in the prose ...

If you can identify the individuals, an e-mail to the offender is next. No means No ...

In all seriousness, this would be MOST effective if the e-mail was from all, or almost all projects (Paul's opinion). Though UCB does not want to recognize that they HAVE created a new community ... BOINC is very much a community. And as such, should, when appropriate, speak with one voice.

Next? Suspend the account ...

This is a case where one "bad" apple can mess it up for the rest of us ...

I could also make an argument that the sign up acknolegement message should also state this ...

Even if you cannot get the rest of the projects to sign up, well, all of the above CAN be done just by Rosetta@Home ... but it would be MUCH more effective if a part of ALL projects policy ...

---

[quote]I am not sure anyone has really answered the question asked.

First and foremost it should be in the rules and policies page. Donations of equipment and CPU time on, or in, installations are only for approved applications and No means NO. Ask once and that is all. I try to make that clear in the Wiki, but it may have gotten "lost" in the prose ...(snip)




and add it to the homepage, as well, for emphasis.

- Some parts of the computer may have a shorter lifespan

I use the theory that if you keep computer components roughly the same temperature they will last longer. Some of my systems have been up for five years at 100% with no hardware failures. I only bring them down twice a year for a complete cleaning.

---

i agree with you considering you have not the cheapest components... take a hdd, in theory it is best if it just runs (most server hdds die when trying to spin them up again after they run for years and then were taken offline and cooled down, not while they run - at least that is my sysadmin experience), but some ide serie hdd's sure do not survive 24/7 usage "by design".

---

--
Florian
www.domplatz1.de

Hello,
It is Sad that Polotics have to be involved in Crunching Numbers and Points.
These Experiments are for the betterment of Mankind.We donate our P.C. power
to Help{Volunteer}.
We should Just Crunch.Hey,its Washington{politics} Dohh!
This is sad folks.Bickering and backhanded "Accusations".I joined B.S.
because someone from the Team helped me through changing to 4.45.So I
Joined,because they care.Points are nothing.Saving Lives and Helping Mother
Nature is why I crunch.
Cammon then
Happy Crunching
Doug Worrall

---

In addition to Paul Buck's post:

Easy forum keeping 101:

• Allow for one member recruiting thread only in your Cafe. Blank the rest.
  
• Tell everyone else they should ask for it in that thread.
  
• Tell them specifically that they cannot demand anything or be banned.
  
• If a team becomes overly demanding in one of your forums, tell them to lay it off, or they get banned as a whole from the forums.
  
• Display a link to your FAQ & Forum Rules in your sig for every post you make (!)
  

(!) This may need an edit in the forums software, where Admins and Moderators signatures are always visible, against people's preferences.

---

Agree with Ageless

---

- Some parts of the computer may have a shorter lifespan

I use the theory that if you keep computer components roughly the same temperature they will last longer. Some of my systems have been up for five years at 100% with no hardware failures. I only bring them down twice a year for a complete cleaning.

It's not my view, it's the view of the management.

---