The computer doesn't exist anymore and it stopped crunching on October 14,2004.

This work unit will never get removed. As long as it is there, I can't delete this host.

The host is 69589.

I also have another one that isn't so old. 148495.


Can I change the cpu type so I can merge it with another host?

---

Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti

>
> The host is 69589.
>

The wu here just needs a re-run of a fix-script to be "re-surrected", but don't expect this to happen before the new database is up. ;)

> I also have another one that isn't so old. 148495.
>

The last wu has just been validated, so should be purged next Sunday or something, or whatever later time the db_purger is run/catches up. :)

> The wu here just needs a re-run of a fix-script to be "re-surrected", but
> don't expect this to happen before the new database is up. ;)

Is that the case with the 10 or so WU's I have open from Jun/Jul/Aug?

If it's a "re-run" that means it's been run already, right? (re-run implies "run again" and they could have been corrected the first run) I doubt the data is still on the server so these can be re-issued, and even if so, they were crunched by 3.x, so I doubt everything will agree!

---

I wish the project would address these old WU's. I'm no longer worried about getting credit for them - just getting them out of the "pipeline". Or maybe a note on the new page about when they will be assimilated.

---

<img src='http://www.boincsynergy.com/images/stats/comb-912.jpg'>

> I wish the project would address these old WU's. I'm no longer worried about
> getting credit for them - just getting them out of the "pipeline". Or maybe a
> note on the new page about when they will be assimilated.
>

I'd be happy if they'd just delete them.. No reason they should stay in the results list, as it seems there's no way they will be considered "valid" now....

---

>
> Is that the case with the 10 or so WU's I have open from Jun/Jul/Aug?
>
> If it's a "re-run" that means it's been run already, right? (re-run implies
> "run again" and they could have been corrected the first run) I doubt the
> data is still on the server so these can be re-issued, and even if so, they
> were crunched by 3.x, so I doubt everything will agree!
>

Back in December, after the validator was fixed so it would increase target_nresult if wasn't a consensus between the results, a fix-script was also implemented and executed. Nearly all the old wu stuck due to no consensus was re-distributed, and some was verified and credit given while others errored-out. No idea on the "success"-rate for this re-distribution, but anyway after some weeks these wu is now out of the system.

But, the fix-script tested for == 3 "success", while some wu had, due to one or more users returning after their deadline, 4 or more "success"-results, meaning these wu wasn't re-distributed along with all the rest.

So yes, atleast for the wu mentioned in this thread, it's just to re-run the fix-script with a small change, to check for > 3 "success", and these wu will be re-distributed. Of course, most of these will probably error-out, but still they should naturally be out of the system a few weeks after "re-surrected".

But, even it's easy to run this script, now is probably not the right time to do this, since appart for increased db-load while running, will also mean all wu "re-surrected" will be tried validated again before re-distributed, and a quick look shows the validator already is backlogged...


There's also another group of wu currently stuck, these will need another fix-script to maybe be re-distributed.
Also, not sure if the db_purger is running or not, but have a couple wu already errored-out that should have been removed...

Are you this pompus in person? These WU's have long since left the DB server.. Be it the original server, or the various attemps to get the Snap box to work! Heck, the syadmins "just pull a tape out of the box" when the splitter need to be fed, so I doubt that the WU's will be back on the server soon!

There's an icecube's chance in the desert that 3.x WU from 6 months back will ever see the light of day!

It seems that either you weren't around or forgot what happened here 6 months back!

That's what's happens when you have "Volenteer Developers" on a project... If only the last volenteer could pass on knowledge......

It's got nothing to do with ==3, >3! It's due to the fact that the DB kept getting HOSED (can you say "Snap Appliance?"), and these WU's won't see more valid results until the cows come home singing Dixie in tutu's!


> >
> > Is that the case with the 10 or so WU's I have open from Jun/Jul/Aug?
> >
> > If it's a "re-run" that means it's been run already, right? (re-run
> implies
> > "run again" and they could have been corrected the first run) I doubt
> the
> > data is still on the server so these can be re-issued, and even if so,
> they
> > were crunched by 3.x, so I doubt everything will agree!
> >
>
> Back in December, after the validator was fixed so it would increase
> target_nresult if wasn't a consensus between the results, a fix-script was
> also implemented and executed. Nearly all the old wu stuck due to no consensus
> was re-distributed, and some was verified and credit given while others
> errored-out. No idea on the "success"-rate for this re-distribution, but
> anyway after some weeks these wu is now out of the system.
>
> But, the fix-script tested for == 3 "success", while some wu had, due to one
> or more users returning after their deadline, 4 or more "success"-results,
> meaning these wu wasn't re-distributed along with all the rest.
>
> So yes, atleast for the wu mentioned in this thread, it's just to re-run the
> fix-script with a small change, to check for > 3 "success", and these wu
> will be re-distributed. Of course, most of these will probably error-out, but
> still they should naturally be out of the system a few weeks after
> "re-surrected".
>
> But, even it's easy to run this script, now is probably not the right time to
> do this, since appart for increased db-load while running, will also mean all
> wu "re-surrected" will be tried validated again before re-distributed, and a
> quick look shows the validator already is backlogged...
>
>

---

> Are you this pompous in person? These WU's have long since left the DB
> server.. Be it the original server, or the various attemps to get the Snap
> box to work! Heck, the syadmins "just pull a tape out of the box" when the
> splitter need to be fed, so I doubt that the WU's will be back on the server
> soon!
>
> There's an icecube's chance in the desert that 3.x WU from 6 months back will
> ever see the light of day!
>
> It seems that either you weren't around or forgot what happened here 6 months
> back!
>
> That's what's happens when you have "Volunteer Developers" on a project... If
> only the last volunteer could pass on knowledge......
>
> It's got nothing to do with ==3, >3! It's due to the fact that the DB kept
> getting HOSED (can you say "Snap Appliance?"), and these WU's won't see more
> valid results until the cows come home singing Dixie in tutu's!
>
>
> > >
> > > Is that the case with the 10 or so WU's I have open from
> Jun/Jul/Aug?
> > >
> > > If it's a "re-run" that means it's been run already, right? (re-run
> > implies
> > > "run again" and they could have been corrected the first run) I
> doubt
> > the
> > > data is still on the server so these can be re-issued, and even if
> so,
> > they
> > > were crunched by 3.x, so I doubt everything will agree!
> > >
> >
> > Back in December, after the validator was fixed so it would increase
> > target_nresult if wasn't a consensus between the results, a fix-script
> was
> > also implemented and executed. Nearly all the old wu stuck due to no
> consensus
> > was re-distributed, and some was verified and credit given while others
> > errored-out. No idea on the "success"-rate for this re-distribution, but
> > anyway after some weeks these wu is now out of the system.
> >
> > But, the fix-script tested for == 3 "success", while some wu had, due to
> one
> > or more users returning after their deadline, 4 or more
> "success"-results,
> > meaning these wu wasn't re-distributed along with all the rest.
> >
> > So yes, atleast for the wu mentioned in this thread, it's just to re-run
> the
> > fix-script with a small change, to check for > 3 "success", and these
> wu
> > will be re-distributed. Of course, most of these will probably error-out,
> but
> > still they should naturally be out of the system a few weeks after
> > "resurrected".
> >
> > But, even it's easy to run this script, now is probably not the right
> time to
> > do this, since apart for increased db-load while running, will also mean
> all
> > wu "resurrected" will be tried validated again before re-distributed,
> and a
> > quick look shows the validator already is backlogged...
> >
> >
>

I was not going to say anything but then I noticed you spell VOLUNTEER and POMPOUS in-correctly and I know you, MR. Pompous never make mistakes..Not to worry I corrected the spelling,,, Kisses Me

---

Semper Eadem
So long Paul, it has been a hell of a ride.

Park your ego's, fire up the computers, Science YES, Credits No.

Yes... but was a full-quote needed?

---

> Are you this pompus in person?

Woody, Woody....

Please don't start stirring up the developers again... We do not need another episode..


Thank you.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

AZWoody-

I think everybody here would appreciate it if you would refrain from such out-of-line insults. Your comments were uncalled for and quite unprofessional. Please try and show others the same respect they show you.

There's no need to start calling people names. Try and remember, there are consequences for not acting civilly.

---

Rob