no updating of credits ?

Author	Message
Trevor Jansen Send message Joined: 29 May 99 Posts: 6 Credit: 1,704,511 RAC: 0	Message 129857 - Posted: 29 Jun 2005, 13:02:19 UTC guess its now the third day no update of the total credits, while the boinc clients on my systems are still working whats wrong ID: 129857 ·

Astro Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 16 Apr 02 Posts: 8026 Credit: 600,015 RAC: 0	Message 129859 - Posted: 29 Jun 2005, 13:14:19 UTC Don't come here often do you. Most the recent threads are about the validators being off line since the weekend. NO validators, no credit, You'll get them when they get it fixed. tony ID: 129859 ·

John Cropper Send message Joined: 3 May 00 Posts: 444 Credit: 416,933 RAC: 0	Message 129863 - Posted: 29 Jun 2005, 13:20:50 UTC - in response to Message 129857. guess its now the third day no update of the total credits, while the boinc clients on my systems are still working whats wrong Try bookmarking http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/sah_status.html This will give you some idea as to the SETI cluster's status. Anything not green usually is not a good thing (especially if ALL the units performing the same task are not green). Stewie: So, is there any tread left on the tires? Or at this point would it be like throwing a hot dog down a hallway? Fox Sunday (US) at 9PM ET/PT ID: 129863 ·

John McLeod VII Volunteer developer Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 15 Jul 99 Posts: 24806 Credit: 790,712 RAC: 0	Message 129872 - Posted: 29 Jun 2005, 13:58:38 UTC Please check this thread. BOINC WIKI ID: 129872 ·

BaldBeaver Send message Joined: 7 Jul 04 Posts: 1 Credit: 414,855 RAC: 0	Message 129902 - Posted: 29 Jun 2005, 14:59:33 UTC Man the backlog once it comes back up is goin gto be fantasticO... ID: 129902 ·

Divide Overflow Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 365 Credit: 131,684 RAC: 0	Message 129918 - Posted: 29 Jun 2005, 15:38:03 UTC The relatively new validator server hardware can rip through a backlog pretty quickly. I wouldn't be worried about it. ID: 129918 ·

Scribe Send message Joined: 4 Nov 00 Posts: 137 Credit: 35,235 RAC: 0	Message 129919 - Posted: 29 Jun 2005, 15:41:29 UTC Why oh why must we have duplicate threads on the same subject. I wish peeps would look before posting!!!!!!!!!!!! Can someone please close this damn thing so we do not have to wade thro' many threads to try and get the latest info, please. ID: 129919 ·

Hajduk Send message Joined: 30 Oct 04 Posts: 3 Credit: 75,595 RAC: 0	Message 129925 - Posted: 29 Jun 2005, 15:55:36 UTC - in response to Message 129919. Why oh why must we have duplicate threads on the same subject. I wish peeps would look before posting!!!!!!!!!!!! Can someone please close this damn thing so we do not have to wade thro' many threads to try and get the latest info, please. Just publicate the proper info on the main page and then you will not have to complain about the duplicated threads ... most of the people here do not have time enough to search the info .... they need just to regitser the progress and let the work continue .... the less progress registered - less work done!!! ID: 129925 ·

Pooh Bear 27 Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 14 Jul 03 Posts: 3224 Credit: 4,603,826 RAC: 0	Message 129929 - Posted: 29 Jun 2005, 16:16:41 UTC - in response to Message 129902. Man the backlog once it comes back up is goin gto be fantasticO... This is partially why RAC is broke. Your RAC is not factored on YOUR work, it's factored on Validators, and other people's work. So if a ton of your WU are all verified simutaneously, because someone else finally finished their work... Just a thought on RAC, and why it's not a true factor of what is really happening. My movie https://vimeo.com/manage/videos/502242 ID: 129929 ·

BarryAZ Send message Joined: 1 Apr 01 Posts: 2580 Credit: 16,982,517 RAC: 0	Message 129936 - Posted: 29 Jun 2005, 16:29:16 UTC - in response to Message 129918. The relatively new validator server hardware can rip through a backlog pretty quickly. I wouldn't be worried about it. Only when 1) the Berkeley folks decide fixing it is of high enough value (currently it is a low priority item for Berkeley) and 2) once they do decide to take a look at it they are able to fix it. Currently, the validators are offline indefinitely -- since until it is considered a 'priority item' nothing is going to be done to resolve this as there are other things considered to be higher on the 'fix it' list. (Matt indicated this was the current status yesterday regarding the validator code -- note, I'm not flaming Matt here - I realize that it isn't his task (validator code) and that we (participants) are not informed as to the road map regarding SETI BOINC or where the validator problem sits on that road map. ID: 129936 ·

MikeSW17 Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 1603 Credit: 2,700,523 RAC: 0	Message 130001 - Posted: 29 Jun 2005, 22:48:21 UTC - in response to Message 129936. Last modified: 29 Jun 2005, 22:49:24 UTC The relatively new validator server hardware can rip through a backlog pretty quickly. I wouldn't be worried about it. Only when 1) the Berkeley folks decide fixing it is of high enough value (currently it is a low priority item for Berkeley) and 2) once they do decide to take a look at it they are able to fix it. Currently, the validators are offline indefinitely -- since until it is considered a 'priority item' nothing is going to be done to resolve this as there are other things considered to be higher on the 'fix it' list. (Matt indicated this was the current status yesterday regarding the validator code -- note, I'm not flaming Matt here - I realize that it isn't his task (validator code) and that we (participants) are not informed as to the road map regarding SETI BOINC or where the validator problem sits on that road map. So things are exactly as they should be then. We know there is a fault, we know that they know there is a fault. They know how trivial/serious the fault is, we don't know. Not only don't we know the details of the fault, it is utterly irelevant that we should, it is not our problem or our responsibility. We have been told it is not a data-loss situation, so everything is fine. ID: 130001 ·

C Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 240 Credit: 7,716,977 RAC: 0	Message 130009 - Posted: 29 Jun 2005, 23:04:50 UTC - in response to Message 130001. ... So things are exactly as they should be then. We know there is a fault, we know that they know there is a fault. They know how trivial/serious the fault is, we don't know. Not only don't we know the details of the fault, it is utterly irelevant that we should, it is not our problem or our responsibility. We have been told it is not a data-loss situation, so everything is fine. Geez - I just hate it when someone has to get all logical and rational :) :) C Join Team MacNN ID: 130009 ·

©2024 University of California

SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.