I have several, networked PCs, each is using BOINC for s@h and each has it's own cache of WUs waiting to be processed. If every PC could 'look' in the same place (say, a shared network drive) for it's next WU, the local cache of WUs waiting to be processed would be much smaller. How about letting me choose where the WUs are stored?

---

BOINC was created to make sure cheating doesn't happen. So, they limited the ability to do server caching as you have recommended. Each machine that downloads a unit should be the same one that returns the unit. This way they can keep a better integrity on the data.

---

My movie https://vimeo.com/manage/videos/502242

BOINC was created to make sure cheating doesn't happen. So, they limited the ability to do server caching as you have recommended. Each machine that downloads a unit should be the same one that returns the unit. This way they can keep a better integrity on the data.

Thanks for your response. So I take it that, even though the WUs were all downloaded by the same individual (not a 'team') user, albeit processed on different PCs, that would not be sufficient for tracking? (I do understand the need for tracking and maintaining the integrity of the research.)

imho, is there really much difference between my PCs taking WUs off SETI's server or taking them from my own 'intermediate' server? The machine that actually processed the WU would be the one reporting it back. I just saw an opportunity to streamline the process while reducing the total number of WUs stored here (which makes them un-available for others to process - each of my machines caches several WUs ahead). Say, in order to keep my machines busy in the event of a SETI outage, or my own ISP's failure.

Thanks, again.

---

BOINC was created to make sure cheating doesn't happen. So, they limited the ability to do server caching as you have recommended. Each machine that downloads a unit should be the same one that returns the unit. This way they can keep a better integrity on the data.

Thanks for your response. So I take it that, even though the WUs were all downloaded by the same individual (not a 'team') user, albeit processed on different PCs, that would not be sufficient for tracking? (I do understand the need for tracking and maintaining the integrity of the research.)

imho, is there really much difference between my PCs taking WUs off SETI's server or taking them from my own 'intermediate' server? The machine that actually processed the WU would be the one reporting it back. I just saw an opportunity to streamline the process while reducing the total number of WUs stored here (which makes them un-available for others to process - each of my machines caches several WUs ahead). Say, in order to keep my machines busy in the event of a SETI outage, or my own ISP's failure.

Thanks, again.

The problem is that some users were abusing this ability in Classic to get credit for doing a task multiple times by copying the completed task to several computers. Some BOINC projects with very few users actually allow two Tasks from the same Work Unit to be assigned to different computers of the same user, while this not the preferred method, it can be the acceptable. But assigning the the two Tasks from the from the same WU to the same computer essentially removes the cross check completely.

---

BOINC WIKI

Exactly, each machine that downloads a unit should be the same one that returns the unit. But I have a trick for this. You can run a new job at boinc, then pause it, remember its name, copy state.sah and init_file.xml from the corresponding slot folder, corresponding result and workunit file from the project folder to some new folder and setiathome_etcetc.exe(better one is optimized (eg. SSE2) version from lunatics.at which does not require any extra files) too. Then just rename workunit and result file to work_unit.sah and result one to result.sah. Run the exe file and wait till it completes(eg. at some other computer over network). After the completition do exactly reversed process. Unpause the job and it should resume somewhere around 99%. This process should be sensitive to seti servers when made correctly. So remember to be care - full. Oh and when copying the files back, better shut boinc down, in the first stage it souldnt be necessary.

---