Does BOINC/SETI have any system of informing people like this guy http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/show_host_detail.php?hostid=22724 that their computer is not working. His early WUs seem alright but then they goe haywire.

---

.


A person who makes no mistakes, creates nothing.

Other than the user checking his results, no. They probably should implement something like this. I would think it would help correct some problems and maybe even lower the work load on the servers a bit. Maybe on the projects page list a percentage of WU valid. Anything under a certain percent would be signs of problems.

Jim

Does BOINC/SETI have any system of informing people like this guy http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/show_host_detail.php?hostid=22724 that their computer is not working. His early WUs seem alright but then they goe haywire.

---

Other than the user checking his results, no. They probably should implement something like this. I would think it would help correct some problems and maybe even lower the work load on the servers a bit. Maybe on the projects page list a percentage of WU valid. Anything under a certain percent would be signs of problems.

If you send back only crap, your max. daily WU-rate goes down from 100 to 1. So one indication would be a cold puter ;)

So in the long run, no much harm will be done.

---

Gruesse vom Saenger

For questions about Boinc look in the BOINC-Wiki

You have a valid point in that respect. I still think it would be a good idea for users to be notified if one of their machines starts producing erroneous results consistantly. Perhaps via email?

Jim

Other than the user checking his results, no. They probably should implement something like this. I would think it would help correct some problems and maybe even lower the work load on the servers a bit. Maybe on the projects page list a percentage of WU valid. Anything under a certain percent would be signs of problems.

If you send back only crap, your max. daily WU-rate goes down from 100 to 1. So one indication would be a cold puter ;)

So in the long run, no much harm will be done.

---

I only wondered as he seems to be wasting his and everybodie elses time. In this there is no real harm done, but I have had another instance where a computer as claiming 0 or small credit and being awarded a large credit, which I do think is unfair.

---

.


A person who makes no mistakes, creates nothing.

Other than the user checking his results, no. They probably should implement something like this. I would think it would help correct some problems and maybe even lower the work load on the servers a bit. Maybe on the projects page list a percentage of WU valid. Anything under a certain percent would be signs of problems.

If you send back only crap, your max. daily WU-rate goes down from 100 to 1. So one indication would be a cold puter ;)

So in the long run, no much harm will be done.

The daily WU quota is reduced when there are client errors. In this case it is the validation process that is failing for this host and the quota is not being reduced. This one is different from others like this I have seen in that he is not getting the -9 result overload error.

I only wondered as he seems to be wasting his and everybodie elses time. In this there is no real harm done, but I have had another instance where a computer as claiming 0 or small credit and being awarded a large credit, which I do think is unfair.

In the cases where hosts claim low credit but are granted normal credit it is because of a problem with the benchmarking. In fact the host has taken the normal amount of time to process the WU and the result is validated. You can tell this by looking at the amount of time it takes the host to return results. I don't have a link for one of these hosts handy or I would post it.

I only wondered as he seems to be wasting his and everybodie elses time. In this there is no real harm done, but I have had another instance where a computer as claiming 0 or small credit and being awarded a large credit, which I do think is unfair.

In the cases where hosts claim low credit but are granted normal credit it is because of a problem with the benchmarking. In fact the host has taken the normal amount of time to process the WU and the result is validated. You can tell this by looking at the amount of time it takes the host to return results. I don't have a link for one of these hosts handy or I would post it.

I tried find an example of large credit for little or no credit claimed but it was a little while back and it must have fallllen of the end of my results.

---

.


A person who makes no mistakes, creates nothing.

I don't have a link for one of these hosts handy or I would post it.

Here is one with a benchmark problem. He has benchmarked 0.00/0.00, and therefore claims just that: 0.00 ;)

---

Gruesse vom Saenger

For questions about Boinc look in the BOINC-Wiki

His computer has ZERO CPU's. Wow... talk about super computing!

I don't have a link for one of these hosts handy or I would post it.

Here is one with a benchmark problem. He has benchmarked 0.00/0.00, and therefore claims just that: 0.00 ;)

---

His computer has ZERO CPU's. Wow... talk about super computing!

I don't have a link for one of these hosts handy or I would post it.

Here is one with a benchmark problem. He has benchmarked 0.00/0.00, and therefore claims just that: 0.00 ;)

Maybe it's overclocked.