They count on your addiction, they think it's a game for almost everybody.
They don't have to care about participants needs and wants anymore, they got more than they can handle anyways.
Specially they're not interested in your complaints or requests for information about the project, for them you're just the milk cow, doing the work and should sh*t up and just give them more donations !

I must say I'm not sure that there is any actual research been done at all anymore. It's not like we see any of it or hear anything about it.

Perhaps they did finish the project when the classic SETI ended and this is just a sceem to get money. I mean, they are sending out those e-mails begging for money, like any spam e-mail company.

I must say I'm not sure that there is any actual research been done at all anymore. It's not like we see any of it or hear anything about it.

Perhaps they did finish the project when the classic SETI ended and this is just a sceem to get money. I mean, they are sending out those e-mails begging for money, like any spam e-mail company.

Hmmmmmmm, so I guess getting that new multi-bean receiver, which is able to see further into space, was wasted effort. Or getting seti_enhanced onine so the new data could be processed was wasted effort.

Shesh.

Conspiracies theories are everywhere.

[rant mode on]

How can any advancement be made without somebody crying foul, they are taking away my credits, or they are taking too much time to process a workunit?

Any before anybody jumps down my throat about the credits crack, think about it this way. The #1 complaint people had when the enhanced app came online was that it took so long. So to cut down on the amount of time it took to crunch, Eric and crew needed to optimize it. That in turn cut down on the the processing time as well as the overall advantage the 3rd party optimized apps had over the stock app in terms of credit, even though the overall effiency of the whole system was better for it.

Each time an advance is made, somebody has to claim foul play, because something doesn't work like it used too.

You ask for something better, and then when they deliver, you turn around and slap them down for it later. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

[rant mode off]

"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me

I must say I'm not sure that there is any actual research been done at all anymore. It's not like we see any of it or hear anything about it.

Perhaps they did finish the project when the classic SETI ended and this is just a sceem to get money. I mean, they are sending out those e-mails begging for money, like any spam e-mail company.

Your agruments that a simple system have no errors is not correct. What happens if you install everything on one system, and anything goes wrong ? - I would hear whining you...

If you read the technical news, you see that the most common failures caused by old hardware wich produces failures. Have I said, that is cost money ;-)

In any case, one part or one million, it is the SYSTEM that must work.
Think at a roket with a million parts.
The probability than one part is broken is high.
If this part is important, the whole sistem is stopped.
And if this happens 4 times a week, ther is something wrong in the architetture.

I understand the budget problem but please, you in USA (I don't want to make a general case, it's only to explain) for every problem you ask for money.
We in europe, and Italy best, are able to do our job with less money (but not zero) and more fantasy:-)
And we follow simplier solutions, that perhaps are more fault tollerant.

I dont agree with the theory of the bad and old hardware.
You can have it ... but the system must not loose data.
Of course a system can have an hardware fault but the software must detect it in the I/O recovery routine. If this is possible (and must be possible in a good operating system) you stop the program without loosing data or at max loosing the transaction in use. But not one or two hour of job of a projet with a millions of user sending data every second.

I have read that the problem is that the sistem loose a "mount" ....
But is it possible to detect it in real time?
It must be a code solution in a normal error recovery routine.

I have written 18 years ago the software in C for a ground satellite station (meteo) on VAX and that sistem is running 24*7 (maybe also today) without loosing data even if in theese years some disk has broken and was changed. But in the recovery section I have wrote something to use automatically the system with one disk insted of two. I know that must be possible to detect an I/O error and stop the job without loosing or wasting data.

So I don't want to offend nobody but older or not, any disk can broke (even if it has one week) but the SYSTEM (Harware components and Software components) must be fault tollerant.
Ok, you have UPS, you have a lot of things but as I can understand you don't have an error recovery routine able to detect the lost of a "mount" among different servers. This routine, if this is the problem, is not "expencive", if think. So I hope that you can fix the software problem and also have money to have newer hardware.

The problem is that a loosing mount sometimes requires an reboot...
IMHO, a detection of a failed mount would not resolve it.

It is not as easy as you think...

... The problem is to stop upload as soon as possible, as the system detect the mount error or any I/O error that can cause the lost of data.
This shuld be done automatically and not manually ...

I must say I'm not sure that there is any actual research been done at all anymore. It's not like we see any of it or hear anything about it.

Perhaps they did finish the project when the classic SETI ended and this is just a sceem to get money. I mean, they are sending out those e-mails begging for money, like any spam e-mail company.

The problem is that a loosing mount sometimes requires an reboot...
IMHO, a detection of a failed mount would not resolve it.

It is not as easy as you think...

Reboot is not a problem.
The problem is to stop upload as soon as possible, as the system detect the mount error or any I/O error that can cause the lost of data.
This shuld be done automatically and not manually but I don't want to learn cats how to catch mices so I stop here :).

The system is now jet able to cumulate job (upload ad download) so two hours of wait for a reboot of recovery error are not tragic.
Tragic is to send results for hours, discoverin later that workunits are lost.

I think we have to look at it, not from our side, but from Berkeley's. The system they designed is to get the data processed. To get this done their redundancy is if it is not done sucesfully by the first four replications then issue more replicated copies, until it is processed and at least two results strongly agree, or the pre-determined (10 for Seti) number of failed results is reached.

For the system to work as cheaply as possible at Berkeley, or any other project, that means the minimum number of servers and storage devises. If some results fail no matter what the cause, comms, bad host or server mount lost for a brief period, it doesn't matter to the scientfic output.

What we would like so that we don't loose a few credits, probably almost immeasurable over the lifespan of Seti@Home, is a mission critical very high availabilty system costing what? Certainly not attainable on Berkeley's or any other projects budget.

Over the last month I guess there aren't many users that got more than two or three validation errors per computer. Most of us have probably lost more than that by our own failures, in my case installing Vista trial version, incorrectly editing files, OCing too far, installing a suspect RAM module to comfirm good/faulty.

Andy

I understand the budget problem but please, you in USA (I don't want to make a general case, it's only to explain) for every problem you ask for money.
We in europe, and Italy best, are able to do our job with less money (but not zero) and more fantasy:-)

I understand the budget problem but please, you in USA (I don't want to make a general case, it's only to explain) for every problem you ask for money.
We in europe, and Italy best, are able to do our job with less money (but not zero) and more fantasy:-)

If I understand what you are saying, there is some amount of money that is simply not enough, even in Italy.

... and that the only reason Americans would ever ask for more money is because they want more money.

What we would like so that we don't loose a few credits, probably almost immeasurable over the lifespan of Seti@Home, is a mission critical very high availabilty system costing what? Certainly not attainable on Berkeley's or any other projects budget.

(much edited)

Andy

What we would like so that we don't loose a few credits, probably almost immeasurable over the lifespan of Seti@Home, is a mission critical very high availabilty system costing what? Certainly not attainable on Berkeley's or any other projects budget.
(much edited)
Andy

You know, I had originally typed out a rather lengthy response to your little 'cartoon' of the Berkeley folks, but in the end I decided it just wasn't worth starting a flame-war over. I honestly just find it very sad that somebody who is so very bitter and resentful would choose to continue donating resources to a project they obviously loathe. Why not simply unplug the darn thing?