Moved from Cafe - Never having used the forums before I hadn't noticed that Cafe was just for wibble.

Since moving to BOINC several days ago (reinstall of XP on main machine) I've had horrendous connectivity issues and up until last night the software had only managed two work units since the problems with connectivity meant it couldn't download or upload. I didn't notice problem like this on Classic, largely it just worked. Maybe its because BOINC has a more robust reporting system and the simplicity of Classic hid the problems from me but I can't recall so much grief communicating with the servers in the past. Maybe my timing in switching is particularly bad.

But shouldn't you ditch Cogent? They do seem to be the root of the problem. Any connectivity provider that causes a large part of Europe to de-peer has to be doing something seriously wrong. At the very least shouldn't there be a second back-up supplier?

I know funding is an issue but IME there are good reasons that the lowest possible tender should not be accepted without a quality guarantee.

---

<blockquote>Moved from Cafe - Never having used the forums before I hadn't noticed that Cafe was just for wibble.

Since moving to BOINC several days ago (reinstall of XP on main machine) I've had horrendous connectivity issues and up until last night the software had only managed two work units since the problems with connectivity meant it couldn't download or upload. I didn't notice problem like this on Classic, largely it just worked. Maybe its because BOINC has a more robust reporting system and the simplicity of Classic hid the problems from me but I can't recall so much grief communicating with the servers in the past. Maybe my timing in switching is particularly bad.

But shouldn't you ditch Cogent? They do seem to be the root of the problem. Any connectivity provider that causes a large part of Europe to de-peer has to be doing something seriously wrong. At the very least shouldn't there be a second back-up supplier?

I know funding is an issue but IME there are good reasons that the lowest possible tender should not be accepted without a quality guarantee.
</blockquote>

Hi Tim, Congratulations on escaping Cafe.
(Out of the frying-pan into the fire as they say)

I don't believe this is a case of saving 5% or 10% - Cogents rates are believed to be significantly cheaper than others - to a degree that they really cannot be ignored, especially as BOINC/SETI is a non-commercial non-time-critical operation.

Besides, we don't know what SLA (Service Level Agreement) Berekely has with Cogent. Abysmal as we see the service, it may be entirely in-line with the agreement.

---

If we put this in a little more perspecitve, we should really not have anything to complain about.

This is voluntary. No one is forcing you to work on this.
The work gets done. So it takes 2 days, or 2 weeks longer. Nothing was lost.
There are other projects to take your CPU time, if you really want your processor running 24/7 at 100%. Seti nor Boinc is a loaner.

I am happy I can help. I have worked in the Systems Administration position before, and know how everybody wants things yesterday. If you car breaks down, it sometimes takes days to fix. Not everything is cut and dry. Sometimes there are hidden issues that take 2-3 times to fix to find.

So, patience is something we all should learn.

Cogent is giving a 100M connection probably at bearly cost. You go try and buy the connection they have connected with Berkeley. You will never find the price they got it for.

Smile, and let's all be glad we are able to do what we are able to do!

---

My movie https://vimeo.com/manage/videos/502242

Pooh Bear you are right of course. The bit I don't understand is how Cogent can expose their reputation in this way...to thousands of users. If I were doing something high profile...I would want it to make work.

---

<blockquote>Pooh Bear you are right of course. The bit I don't understand is how Cogent can expose their reputation in this way...to thousands of users. If I were doing something high profile...I would want to make work.</blockquote>
I agree completely. As someone who buys connectivity, I'll remember all the outages, and I'll remember the de-peering.

But Pooh Bear's comments are also incredibly relevant: volunteer project, work gets done, and if you cache work, your computer will likely never stop crunching.

---

<blockquote><blockquote>Pooh Bear you are right of course. The bit I don't understand is how Cogent can expose their reputation in this way...to thousands of users. If I were doing something high profile...I would want to make work.</blockquote>
I agree completely. As someone who buys connectivity, I'll remember all the outages, and I'll remember the de-peering.

But Pooh Bear's comments are also incredibly relevant: volunteer project, work gets done, and if you cache work, your computer will likely never stop crunching.</blockquote>

Yeah agreed the project doesn't suffer as we have cached the work. But the criticism is manifest nevertheless and reputations take a dive. Oh well I'm sure they think these things through.

---

<blockquote>But Pooh Bear's comments are also incredibly relevant: volunteer project, work gets done, and if you cache work, your computer will likely never stop crunching.</blockquote>

... and if it DID stop crunching, would it REALLY be so traumatic if folks had to (God forbid) shut their computers off for a day or two? I'm not trying to be disrespectful to anyone... I just can't fathom some of the reactions I've seen here. People actually thought it was a good idea to call up Cogent on SETI's behalf? LOL. Are credits really that important that we can't bear the thought of going a day without crunching?

Unless I'm mistaken, this is supposed to be a fun project that does some cool science that we donate spare CPU cycles to. I think it's great that so many folks enjoy the competitive aspect of it, but that's not Berkeley's problem. Their only concern is in seeing that the science gets done, and we've certainly not lost any science because of the outages. The only 'problems' we see during an outage are the ones we create ourselves. If something goes haywire on a friday and the guys in Berkeley are off for the weekend, what would it really hurt if we were all out of work units for a few days?

Anyway... Happy Crunching :)

Dig

---

oops... clicked the wrong button and double posted. :)

---

Unless I'm mistaken, this is supposed to be a fun project that does some cool science that we donate spare CPU cycles to. I think it's great that so many folks enjoy the competitive aspect of it, but it's not SETI's job to feed that. Their job is to insure that the science gets done, and we've certainly not lost any science because of the outages. The only 'problems' we see during an outage are the ones we create ourselves.

Happy Crunching,

Dig</blockquote>

I agree with Digger and Pooh Bear, Unlike some of the crunchers here
I have fun doing it, and Guess What I actully crunch other Projects
and I am never with out work!

Pretty Novel Idea that BOINC.....



EDIT: BTW See the other threas in Cafe "So what's the point?"

---

<blockquote>But Pooh Bear's comments are also incredibly relevant: volunteer project, work gets done, and if you cache work, your computer will likely never stop crunching.</blockquote>

Very true.

<blockquote>... and if it DID stop crunching, would it REALLY be so traumatic if folks had to (God forbid) shut their computers off for a day or two? I'm not trying to be disrespectful to anyone... I just can't fathom some of the reactions I've seen here. People actually thought it was a good idea to call up Cogent on SETI's behalf? LOL. Are credits really that important that we can't bear the thought of going a day without crunching?</blockquote>

Well, it is important to some of us. Good or bad, it can be part of the person's identity. And with that, the participation tips over the edge and becomes as important as the air we breathe. Obviously, I cannot speak for all of the people, nor do I know all of the reasons; but, just as obviously, it is that important to some.

<blockquote>Unless I'm mistaken, this is supposed to be a fun project that does some cool science that we donate spare CPU cycles to. I think it's great that so many folks enjoy the competitive aspect of it, but that's not Berkeley's problem. Their only concern is in seeing that the science gets done, and we've certainly not lost any science because of the outages. The only 'problems' we see during an outage are the ones we create ourselves. If something goes haywire on a friday and the guys in Berkeley are off for the weekend, what would it really hurt if we were all out of work units for a few days?
</blockquote>
It is a little like people being involved as a fan of a particular sports franchise. Why does it matter to some living in San Francisco that the 49s win the Super Bowl? Yes the projects are supposed to be using only spare CPU cycles by intent. But, what if I want to do more than that?

Anyway, as Ned Ludd said elsewhen, that is why I participate in more than one project. Of course, it is interesting that in this last week that SETI@Home has had connectivity problems, CPDN has a disk space crisis and has been off-line a couple times, LHC@Home had a database crash, etc.

Gremlins abound.

---

<blockquote>Yes the projects are supposed to be using only spare CPU cycles by intent. But, what if I want to do more than that?</blockquote>

Well that's certainly everyone's choice, and it benefits the project as well... but at the same time, those folks who create a higher demand for workunits shouldn't complain when those needs aren't met. My point wasn't that people shouldn't farm if they want to, in fact I think that looks like a lot of fun actually and if I had the resources I'd probably do the same. My point is simply that they shouldn't complain about wasted CPU cycles that they created for themselves.

Anyway, no use beating a dead horse. It's all just going to be said all over again during the next outage, only with a few new players. I just couldn't believe the reactions of some folks.

Have fun,

Dig

---

<blockquote>
Well that's certainly everyone's choice, and it benefits the project as well... but at the same time, those folks who create a higher demand for workunits shouldn't complain when those needs aren't met. My point wasn't that people shouldn't farm if they want to, in fact I think that looks like a lot of fun actually and if I had the resources I'd probably do the same. My point is simply that they shouldn't complain about wasted CPU cycles that they created for themselves.
</blockquote>

Agreed.

<blockquote>
Anyway, no use beating a dead horse. It's all just going to be said all over again during the next outage, only with a few new players. I just couldn't believe the reactions of some folks.

Have fun,

Dig</blockquote>

Yes, we seem to have the same debates over and over, with just a change in the names. I think that we are getting close to the "Cobblestone stink!" and "I want my 'Classic' credit system back because BOINC is only used for SETI@Home" debate again ... :)

---

<blockquote>... I think that we are getting close to the "Cobblestone stink!" and "I want my 'Classic' credit system back because BOINC is only used for SETI@Home" debate again ... :)</blockquote>
Cobblers to you too! (;-P)

I think an easy way out for the s@h site is to keep with the Cobblestones for crediting the donated compute resources. Then also, include a conversion counter to estimate the credit value in 'Classic WUs'.

The one penalty for this is in perpetuating lingering sentimentality!

Happy crunchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

<blockquote><blockquote>
Well that's certainly everyone's choice, and it benefits the project as well... but at the same time, those folks who create a higher demand for workunits shouldn't complain when those needs aren't met. My point wasn't that people shouldn't farm if they want to, in fact I think that looks like a lot of fun actually and if I had the resources I'd probably do the same. My point is simply that they shouldn't complain about wasted CPU cycles that they created for themselves.
</blockquote>

Agreed.

<blockquote>
Anyway, no use beating a dead horse. It's all just going to be said all over again during the next outage, only with a few new players. I just couldn't believe the reactions of some folks.

Have fun,

Dig</blockquote>

Yes, we seem to have the same debates over and over, with just a change in the names. I think that we are getting close to the "Cobblestone stink!" and "I want my 'Classic' credit system back because BOINC is only used for SETI@Home" debate again ... :)</blockquote>

Maybe there is a REASON this debate keeps happening. Perhaps the project folks should try listening to the user base for a change.

---

<blockquote>
Maybe there is a REASON this debate keeps happening. Perhaps the project folks should try listening to the user base for a change.
</blockquote>
Actually, they did listen to us. That is how we got here. The problem is that we are now, seemingly, changing our collective mind. :)

With the scope of the project, for good or ill - and I think for the good, changes in direction are not always easy.

It is easy to say "Change the credit system because it stinks." It is way harder to devise one that eliminates the problems in the current system without creating additional problems.

I have been writing about and thinking about the deficiencies in the current system for over a year, along with many of the others who have been doing BOINC since early Beta testing. And we have, so far, been unable to come up with anything that is truly better. Some different systems have been proposed but did not demonstrate that they were significantly better or had fewer drawbacks.

Though, I do have to say, that I do have a glimmer of an idea but I need a mathematician to know for sure ...

---

<blockquote>Maybe there is a REASON this debate keeps happening. Perhaps the project folks should try listening to the user base for a change.
</blockquote>
How about the user-base listening to the developers for once? Ever since Boinc was in beta, there have been isolated incidents of people trying to set things to their way of liking.

Are you using Windows 3.0 or Windows XP? Did you tell Microsoft to keep the old Windows as it runs fine for you?
Are you driving a 1908 Model T-Ford or 2004/5 model Taurus? Did you tell Ford they shouldn't get rid of the T-Ford as it runs fine for you?
Are you using the IBM 5150 or a much faster self built contraption with loads of abbreviations and acronyms? Did you tell IBM to stay with the 5150 as you can still play Pong on it?

Why are "people" so for something totally new when it is everything else in their lives, but for when it comes to Seti? Don't you want Seti to progress into the 21st Century? Or is it that you can't live without your accumulated 10,000+ credits you have done for them?

---

<blockquote><blockquote>Maybe there is a REASON this debate keeps happening. Perhaps the project folks should try listening to the user base for a change.
</blockquote>
How about the user-base listening to the developers for once? Ever since Boinc was in beta, there have been isolated incidents of people trying to set things to their way of liking.

Are you using Windows 3.0 or Windows XP? Did you tell Microsoft to keep the old Windows as it runs fine for you?
Are you driving a 1908 Model T-Ford or 2004/5 model Taurus? Did you tell Ford they shouldn't get rid of the T-Ford as it runs fine for you?
Are you using the IBM 5150 or a much faster self built contraption with loads of abbreviations and acronyms? Did you tell IBM to stay with the 5150 as you can still play Pong on it?

Why are "people" so for something totally new when it is everything else in their lives, but for when it comes to Seti? Don't you want Seti to progress into the 21st Century? Or is it that you can't live without your accumulated 10,000+ credits you have done for them? </blockquote>

I'll bet every one of the companies in your metaphor runs focus groups and listens to what the consumers want in their new products. No one would dare bring a product to market and expect it to succeed if the prospective buyers don't like it. Or, if it does make it to market with an obnoxious or absurd feature, it is prompty fixed as sales start to plummet. Or, if it's broken, they get to fix it on their $$ on recalls.


(None of this obviously applies to the monoply O.S.)

---

<blockquote>Maybe there is a REASON this debate keeps happening. Perhaps the project folks should try listening to the user base for a change.</blockquote>

In my brief time here....as a noisey cruncher....as someone who gets some things right but some things wrong.....as an ex classic user......as a reader of threads...as a user of forums........Why do we keep talking about this. Perceptions. Someone's perceptions are their reality. So, in the context is differing perceptions then not all answers will satisfy all people all of the time.

The main issues raised revolve around the set of typical comments below.....sure there are other problems like version whatever wont run for me.......but the consitent strands of critcism and remark come from:

Firstly new people come to the project find it a little hard to understand....because its different perhaps.....its more complicated for sure. My PA used to say to me "oooh I see you have the same screensaver as me" .........and that was the truth. Asking her what it was all about she said I dont really know its just a screen saver. So we have a leap from screensaver to distributed multi project open source networked etc etc system. There's a gap there for sure....in peoples' understanding.....and the abilty to understand! Ignorance breeds contempt they say.

Secondly even the classic people who know something of the science come to the project "expecting" it to be an upgraded classic when actually is quite different to that. Why introduce complexity when simplicity will do....this is a regular quote.

Thirdly people liked the old screen saver and the new one(s) aint so good....they say...I know not as I dont use screen savers. You see some folk really were just looking for decent screen saver.

Fourthly it takes a few days /a week / two weeks for results to get credited and folks think its bust or kaput and they get up tight....its new...it should work....its tested aint it.....fair expectation I guess...but they CANT SEE IT WORKING. They are only told so....and they send results...and get nothing back......all this in the crucial first few days when they are keen and eager to see if ole ET has been found. They get disappointed....and they hit the forums and hit on the team etc etc

Fifthly connection problems have cursed us recently just as the seti team encouraged classic users to come over.... and they got frustrated and I think we lost hundreds perhaps thousands of them as a consequence.

Sixthly they don't feel listened to.

Seventhly they feel you guys were listened to....now at their expense.

So....given the above all debates about it works no it doesn't.....it sucks no it doesn't......i can connect well I can't....credits don't work yes they do.....credits are not fair yes they are etc etc will carry on for as long as there are newcomers.

I think its a case of just getting used to it tbh as I doubt it will ever stop.

---

<blockquote><blockquote>
Maybe there is a REASON this debate keeps happening. Perhaps the project folks should try listening to the user base for a change.
</blockquote>
Actually, they did listen to us. That is how we got here. The problem is that we are now, seemingly, changing our collective mind. :)</blockquote>

This time you were the faster one ;) Yup, they listened - they listened even before boinc alpha ;)

---

<blockquote>This time you were the faster one ;) Yup, they listened - they listened even before boinc alpha ;)</blockquote>

That is what I meant, but you are right I was not clear. In my old "Classic" days I remember the biggest complaint was the lack of a Buffer for work. There were several good 3rd party tools, but, it should have been in the basic system ...

In BOINC, yep, they listened. We have a buffer. And people working on it to make it function better under real-world conditions (Thanks John!).

---