> Things will get a bit better when climateprediction.net gets online in a few
> days. Then you can do resource sharing between seti and cpdn.
>

Not until S@H starts using BOINC v4.x....

>Not until S@H starts using BOINC v4.x....

Correct. But shouldn't be too long.

> As I understand it, you only get credit when three people return the same
> result, then all three get credit; if only two agree, then no one gets credit.
> This is supposed to make cheating harder. Why then shouldn't the BOINC
> platform send out four or more copies and credit those three (or more)who
> match? Eventually, a WU (for lack of a better term) that didn't match the
> first time has to be sent out again to be processed, but if the first three
> times it's processed do not match, the original recipients just wasted their
> time even if one or two of them did it right. The 7 - 10 times classic sent
> out WU's may make more sense.

Allow me to answer at least the first one for you MajorKong:
The server will eventually see that the 3 first result-slots sent out for a given WU will not be able to agree (either because something happens to the hosts so they stop crunching or a single or more results do not validate). When this happens it allocates another result-slot and sends it to another user (ie. now 4 result-slots allocated). If this user returns the same as the first 2 (that agreed) the WU is closed as successfull. If not, the server allocates another slot etc. etc.
There is a maximum of 15 slots or something like that. If, for one reason or another, the results still don't agree at that point (highly unlikely), the server will close the WU as "failed".
In other words the server only sends out many copies if it needs it - where the old system would deliberately send out as much as 20 copies (and more!) if the client asked for it.

> Also, there are fewer than 30K at BOINC now, yet many have not been able to
> regularly download work...

You are missing the point about hardware failures... SETI/BOINC will be able to support quite a few more users when everything starts running as expected. When queues are filled the experience will be a lot more "smooth". I tried it when it worked like a charm...trust me, it's a whole different feeling =)

Credits have been "awarded", "granted", "Sloshed out" in the past, so I wouldn't get too excited.
==========

I agree with that, although it is good to get some Credits & calm a few people down a little bit what I have received so far for the amount of work I have turned in over the last 5-6 weeks doesn't impress me in the least.

Nor have I seen any of the other Team Members on our Team get any significant increase in their Credits either. I turned in around 1500 WU's since the 15'th of July and so far I have only received about a 1100 Credit increase, that doesn't even come to 1 Credit Per WU ... :(

I know 1500 WU's turned in over a 5 or 6 week period is a drop in the Bucket to what some people turn in during the same time frame but for me with just 3 Computers & 1 of them slower than a herd a Stampeding Turtles it is a significant effort on my part to turn in that many WU's during that time. If I'm only going to get less than 1 Credit Per WU then maybe it really is time to consider just dropping BOINC Seti from my Projects List...

I also realize it is going to take 3 or 4 days to finalize the Validation Process (If the Server Can run even that long even) but if this is all I have received so far for the amount of WU's I have turned in then I don't really think I'll be seeing much more Credit over the next few days either ...

JOIN TEAM

> > As I understand it, you only get credit when three people return the
> same
> > result, then all three get credit; if only two agree, then no one gets
> credit.
> > This is supposed to make cheating harder. Why then shouldn't the BOINC
> > platform send out four or more copies and credit those three (or
> more)who
> > match? Eventually, a WU (for lack of a better term) that didn't match
> the
> > first time has to be sent out again to be processed, but if the first
> three
> > times it's processed do not match, the original recipients just wasted
> their
> > time even if one or two of them did it right. The 7 - 10 times classic
> sent
> > out WU's may make more sense.
>
> Allow me to answer at least the first one for you MajorKong:
> The server will eventually see that the 3 first result-slots sent out for a

Hey, point your response at Tom Koenig, not me. I understand how it works. That was what Koenig wrote.

> All the shit with this program is a wast of time and energy! I was excited to
> start this and disabled the SETI classic and Folding@home to run this bonic
> F****-up, then low and behold I spend most of my time idle not getting work or
> not enough to last me a day! Then after I finish up all that I have then your
> shit hole of a surver crashes, loosing all that I did! This shit should of
> never left Beta, I will continue with Classic and when it ends I WILL NOT
> continue, nore will any other system that I have, or work on, or buld! I have
> beta programs all the time that I have had some problems with and fixed, this
> is not beta and should of never left Alfa!

Hmmmm - the greatest social computing experiment of all time, and we get a ton of whiners bitchin' about teething probs.

If yer not happy - go...

More WU's (when they start flowin'), for the rest of us...

And the general tone of these forums will lighten up a fair bit...

Gonna miss ya - NOT!!!

Damn - and I thought little kids whined and bitched alot...

Don't let the universe hit ya on the ass on your way out...

'-~

> > Allow me to answer at least the first one for you MajorKong:
> > The server will eventually see that the 3 first result-slots sent out for
> a
>
> Hey, point your response at Tom Koenig, not me. I understand how it works.
> That was what Koenig wrote.

Put pressure on the word "for". I was answering him for you...

(sorry, english isn't my primary language...)

> Put pressure on the word "for". I was answering him for you...
>

My mistake... Thanks.

> (sorry, english isn't my primary language...)
>

You are doing very well at it!


------------
KWSN-MajorKong
KWSN Forum Admin (retired)
http://www.kwsnforum.com

BOINC Beta tester
Member of the 'Magnificent 7'

For pure entertainment value alone, threads like this one can't be beat. All three sides of the fence are equally moronic. The morose, complacent and exultant thin-skinned participants spat… Ya just gotta love it. Keep ‘em coming!

[url=http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/team_display.php?teamid=112572]

> Hmmmm - the greatest social computing experiment of all time, and we get a ton
> of whiners bitchin' about teething probs.
>
> If yer not happy - go...
>
> More WU's (when they start flowin'), for the rest of us...
>
> And the general tone of these forums will lighten up a fair bit...
>
> Gonna miss ya - NOT!!!
>
> Damn - and I thought little kids whined and bitched alot...
>
> Don't let the universe hit ya on the ass on your way out...


Hmmm... and I thought the whiners whined and bitched a lot.

> > I didn't expect you to flame me, you seem like someone who puts some
> thought
> > into your posts. They may be a little wordy, but so are mine, and I'm
> about
> > to get wordy on you now.
>
> Fine by me! :)
>
> > I'm afraid I haven't communicated very well the reason for my anger at
> the
> > initial responses to Battlemate: many of the folks posting here just
> don't see
> > that his outrage, serious enough to cause him to quit (or claim to), is
> not
> > cause for glee, it's cause for concern. How does distributed computing
> work?
> > It works by distributing the work over a large number of individuals'
> > computers. Generally, the more participants there are, the more the
> chance of
> > success in doing the science. And the opposite is true.
>
> Generally yes... Up to a point. But what about the case when there isn't
> enough data to supply all the participants? THIS is the situtation S@H is in,
> and one of the primary driving forces behind BOINC development. As Dr.
> Anderson stated in his presentation at the CPDN 'open day' at Oxford,
> S@H-Classic solved the 'lack of enough data' problem by processing each work
> unit many more times than is necessary, effectively making most of the 'work'
> on S@H-Classic useless busywork. Last time I estimated the redundancy at
> S@H-Classic, I came up with figures that said each work unit was processed
> between 7 and 10 times. This is WAY too many times. The BOINC/S@H developers
> (including Dr. Anderson) have decided that 3 times is enough to satisfy the
> scientific requirements. This means that S@H-Classic is doing,
> conservatively, 2-1/3 times the amount of work that is necessary. Dr.
> Anderson has stated that this is a 'waste of energy', and I happen to agree
> with him.
>
> > I suppose, to be more polically correct, I should have said that your
> response
> > to Battlemate was mindnumbingly stupid, rather than you personally. I
> suspect
> > that clairfication won't make you feel much better. I cited those
> responses
> > to point out what offended me, and if you (all of you) didn't like my
> words,
> > then how do you justify your insensitive remarks to Battlemate in the
> first
> > place? By the way, Battlemate did not direct his remarks to you, but to
> the
> > project, you on the other hand directed your remarks to him.
>
> I was not offended. I was just pointing it out. I have a THICK skin and am
> not easily angered. No problems.
>
> > I know you are a BOINC beta tester, and you should be proud of that, but
> don't
> > let your pride blind you to the legitimate (though sometimes obscene)
> rantings
> > of people like Battlemate. There's a message there for you, the
> developers
> > and all of us.
>
> Yes, I tend to be 'full of myself' at times... :P But in this case, I think
> there is an issue that maybe you are not giving sufficient consideration to.
>
> > OK. There's a finite work supply. But "classic" has WU's to send out,
> and if
> > SETI II can't keep it's hoppers full, it wasn't ready for release--and
> that's
> > part of Battlemate's frustration. If you've always had work you are
> lucky;
> > but if you've always been busy and working at capacity, then how much
> more can
> > you do now that Battlemate is gone and no longer doing any work?
> >
>
> OK. Now for the crux of the issue. Yes, S@H-Classic has WUs to send out.
> But BOINC/S@H (aka S@H II) will NOT likely keep its hoppers full. EVER. The
> demand will be TOO great. Consider this. There are about 500,000 active
> participants in S@H-Classic. I am not sure of the exact number of computers
> that these 500,000 people are running on the project. Lets assume, for sake
> of argument, that the average number of computers per participant is 2 (the
> exact number really doesn't matter in this computation, since it will be
> assumed the same under both S@H-Classic and BOINC/S@H). Ok, thats 1,000,000
> computers running S@H-Classic. When S@H-Classic ends, let us further assume
> that all 500,000 active participants migrate over to BOINC/S@H with ALL their
> computers, giving an average number, again, of 2. Let us then consider that
> BOINC/S@H has the exact same data feed as S@H-Classic (as it will in the near
> term, at any rate).
>
> Since BOINC/S@H will only produce 3 work units for every 7 that S@H-Classic
> produced to keep those 1,000,000 computers busy 24/7, each one of these
> computers on BOINC/S@H will have work only 42.9% of the time. Or, one can
> consider that only 42.9% of those computers will have work available. This
> translates to only enough work for 429,000 computers (out of the 1,000,000),
> or only 214,500 participants. Now then, just what are the other 285,500
> participants gonna do?
>
> This is where the multi-project capacity of BOINC is VITAL! This will allow
> everyone to get their share of S@H work, and still keep their computers busy
> on other projects while staying under a unified credits scheme. If people are
> going to refuse to run ANY other project than S@H, and they are going to get
> mad because their computers are idle much of the time, then perhaps now is the
> best time for them to find something else to do. Again, this point is vital.
> If participants refuse to run anything but S@H, and they are unwilling to
> allow their computers to be idle much of the time, they are GOING to be
> unhappy.
>
> Yes, Berkeley made a mistake with S@H. Their mistake was in allowing the
> project to expand to the point where they needed such obscene amounts of
> busywork to keep the participants happy. Now, they are stuck trying to wean
> participants off of the near-constant S@H data stream they are used to. I
> don't envy Dr. Anderson and the rest of the staff their task in the least.
> Frankly, I would rather have to give a bath to a feral cat without benefit of
> body armor, than to be in their shoes.
> ------------
> KWSN-MajorKong
> KWSN Forum Admin (retired)
> http://www.kwsnforum.com
>
> BOINC Beta tester
> Member of the 'Magnificent 7'
>
>


Major Kong you are my hero, I just wish more would read this post and understand the concept, and thank you for your words, it seems I can not get the correct words out of my old head anymore,taking to many drugs that are keeping me alive..... and silly hehehehehe.......
>
This 'SPACE' for Rent.
It is not my fault, I am a cranky Oldman. ;o(

M7

Pascal, I ain't worthy of any 'hero-worship'... Save that for the Developers and Staff of the S@H project that have given us the wonderful opportunity to participate (in a small way) in their research project.

I'm just a poor, starving, middle-aged physics student with an over-inflated ego and a sometimes ghastly lack of tact. Every now and then, I can express an idea in words that people find interesting, but that is NOT the norm.

You mind sharing some of them 'silly drugs'?? ;)
------------
KWSN-MajorKong
KWSN Forum Admin (retired)
http://www.kwsnforum.com

BOINC Beta tester
Member of the 'Magnificent 7'

> > Hmmmm - the greatest social computing experiment of all time, and we get
> a ton
> > of whiners bitchin' about teething probs.
> >
> > If yer not happy - go...
> >
> > More WU's (when they start flowin'), for the rest of us...
> >
> > And the general tone of these forums will lighten up a fair bit...
> >
> > Gonna miss ya - NOT!!!
> >
> > Damn - and I thought little kids whined and bitched alot...
> >
> > Don't let the universe hit ya on the ass on your way out...
>
>
> Hmmm... and I thought the whiners whined and bitched a lot.
>

Ouch - jeez, ya really drew blood with that witty retort...
Bet you were one who objected to the nipple in my sig...

Freakin' kids...

Go away...

You are dead to me - don't waste anymore hand action typin' a reply...

Goof...