Hi.

Although the server_status doesn't show any significant backlog, I'm seeing a darn big "pending" list among my pc's...

Most of the results already have 3 successful results, but no credit is granted...

---

> Hi.
>
> Although the server_status doesn't show any significant backlog, I'm seeing a
> darn big "pending" list among my pc's...
>
> Most of the results already have 3 successful results, but no credit is
> granted...
>

As far as i know it takes 4 results now.

---

<img src="http://www.setisynergy.com/images/stats/comb-556.jpg">

> > Hi.
> >
> > Although the server_status doesn't show any significant backlog, I'm
> seeing a
> > darn big "pending" list among my pc's...
> >
> > Most of the results already have 3 successful results, but no credit is
> > granted...
> >
>
> As far as i know it takes 4 results now.
>
From the Front Page:

December 28, 2004
We have decided to send out 4 copies of each workunit and use a quorum size of 3 for validation. Validation should be quick because a single result in error will not delay reaching a quorum.

A quorum of three is needed, so maybe those three don't "fit" with each other. It could also be a validator backlog.

---

SETI@home classic workunits: 1,985 CPU time: 24,567 hours



Professor Desty Nova
Researching Karma the Hard Way

> From the Front Page:
>
> December 28, 2004
> We have decided to send out 4 copies of each workunit and use a quorum size of
> 3 for validation. Validation should be quick because a single result in error
> will not delay reaching a quorum.
>
> A quorum of three is needed, so maybe those three don't "fit" with each other.
> It could also be a validator backlog.
>

If you looks on the results, if they still show "initial", the validator haven't looked at them yet. If more results is needed, it changes to "Checked, but no consensus yet".

BTW, the wu isn't flagged for validation before got atleast 3 "success"-results, but in seti it's also possible only 2 of the results passes validation. ;)

> > From the Front Page:
> >
> > December 28, 2004
> > We have decided to send out 4 copies of each workunit and use a quorum
> size of
> > 3 for validation. Validation should be quick because a single result in
> error
> > will not delay reaching a quorum.
> >
> > A quorum of three is needed, so maybe those three don't "fit" with each
> other.
> > It could also be a validator backlog.
> >
>
> If you looks on the results, if they still show "initial", the validator
> haven't looked at them yet. If more results is needed, it changes to "Checked,
> but no consensus yet".
>
> BTW, the wu isn't flagged for validation before got atleast 3
> "success"-results, but in seti it's also possible only 2 of the results passes
> validation. ;)
>

I'm wondering about some of the very old results that seem to have slipped through the cracks. Looking at my account, there are still a few workunits from last July and August that have not been credited for one reason or another. Will they eventually get taken care of automatically, or were they accidentally skipped when the validator had a fart?

---

You will be assimilated...bunghole!

Correct borg,

I've got one or two from August myself.

I think these would have to be jumpstarted by some one-time database script.

>
> I'm wondering about some of the very old results that seem to have slipped
> through the cracks. Looking at my account, there are still a few workunits
> from last July and August that have not been credited for one reason or
> another. Will they eventually get taken care of automatically, or were they
> accidentally skipped when the validator had a fart?
>

Yes, a small oversight means any wu with 4 or more "success"-results but no consensus wasn't catched start December when this fix-script was run, so needs to be re-run. There's also another group of wu currently "stuck", these also needs a fix-script to be "re-started" again, but wouldn't expect these db-fixes to happen before new database is up and running. ;)

> >
> > I'm wondering about some of the very old results that seem to have
> slipped
> > through the cracks. Looking at my account, there are still a few
> workunits
> > from last July and August that have not been credited for one reason or
> > another. Will they eventually get taken care of automatically, or were
> they
> > accidentally skipped when the validator had a fart?
> >
>
> Yes, a small oversight means any wu with 4 or more "success"-results but no
> consensus wasn't catched start December when this fix-script was run, so needs
> to be re-run. There's also another group of wu currently "stuck", these also
> needs a fix-script to be "re-started" again, but wouldn't expect these
> db-fixes to happen before new database is up and running. ;)
>
>

Yeah it's nothing critical, I was just wondering. :) Would it be possible to create an automatic script that runs once or twice a month just to catch stuff like this?

---

You will be assimilated...bunghole!