I am truly disappointed to find so little new functionality in Boinc. Despite all these years' experience, hardly anything is added for larger environments.
What is needed is:

1: The ability to assign one boinc_cli.exe/host as a LAN distribution node.
2: The ability to assign all other boinc_cli.exe/hosts as a LAN client to this one.
3: The #1 then assigns WUs for all its clients and connects to internet and up-/downloads WUs. This node also has all stats for its clients/WUs, etc.

This is a rather fundamental and basic functionality in distributed computing, and I am really astonished to see that this is not implemented!!

Morten Ross

You can thank the cheaters in S@H1 for this. BOINC requires that the host that is assigned the WU actually crunch and return the result for that WU. It is possible to write a setiqueue, but it will be much more difficult. 4.0 will have remote control, so that a central console can controll all of your hosts.

> You can thank the cheaters in S@H1 for this. BOINC requires that the host
> that is assigned the WU actually crunch and return the result for that WU. It
> is possible to write a setiqueue, but it will be much more difficult. 4.0
> will have remote control, so that a central console can controll all of your
> hosts.
> <a> href="http://www.boinc.dk/index.php?page=user_statistics&userid=9915">
>
>

Hi John,

I understand the need to make it cheatsafe, but any boinc client could place an order to the boinc gateway which in turn forwards these orders to Seti.. Very easy. The MAC-address should be used as as a unique ID. Thus ensuring that ONLY the computer that placed the order is receiving it. This is really still very simple. I have not seen any reason that what you have mentioned should be reason enough for this dismal client-server funtionality. It's like NOTHING has been learned from the problems and challenges being shared by the millions of chrunchers the last years.

I refuse to believe that S@H is the ONLY system in the world with such problems that it cannot utilize techniques the are good enough for banks, insurance, governments, etc. De-facto standards are easy to implement, just because they are well known and have a huge user base. Why does Seti omit this?

The current 3.20 beta (I refuse to see it otherwise) has increased the administraticve overhead many times. Thus demanding more time I do not have. I will continue with S@H1 as long as it is up. IF Boinc is adequate then I will convert - otherwise I will no longer participate.

I would very much like to discuss this with representatives of the development team, as this is a rather pressing mater. Could you forward this to them? My e-mail address is morten at ross dot no.

Morten Ross

Isn't there a rule in these forums about obscene language and vulgarity?

---

Isn't there a rule in these forums about obscene language and vulgarity?

Yeah, just reply to such a post, but instead of replying to it, find it in the list under the reply window and press the red X. Then tell how, what, why.

---