|
|
发表于 2006-3-17 08:27:20
|
显示全部楼层
看到后面Ben Owen的一篇回复：
I normally hang out on the Science board, but this is an important question.
For one thing, if it takes us 200 days to analyze every 600 hours of data, we are running a factor of 8 too slow to keep up with the data. Or you can flip it and say we can only analyze 1/8 of the data.
This directly affects our science goal. You could view it as reducing the range to which we could see a nearby neutron star which is invisible but emitting gravitational waves. It's hard to quantify in an easily explainable way since a lot of factors come in, like how much data we analyze, whether 600 hours comes in 60x10-hour chunks or 20x30-hour chunks (the latter is better), what frequency band and frequency changes we can look at, what age object we can look at. For that matter, we haven't even properly quantified it at the technical journal article level, though we're working on it.
But it is a qualitatively true statement that we are computationally limited. There is a limit on the range of the search set by the operation of the instrument - its noise spectrum, duty cycle, noise statistics - which would exist even if we had all the computing power in the world, and we are nowhere near that limit. But every CPU donating cycles gets us closer.
And it is also a true statement that we very much appreciate every CPU cycle you can spare. When I was a grad student, the all-sky pulsar search was considered absolutely hopeless. Now we are actually doing it, at some non-ridiculous fraction of the instrumental limit, and it would not be happening without you.
Thank you very much,
Ben
看来目前这个项目是比较缺计算力的，我准备少算一些其它的项目全力支援Einstein@home了：） |
|
发表于 2006-3-16 22:48:58
