After a week of my p4 number crunching this project , i still not have been credited for the work what is going on it been a week since it updated

After a week of my p4 number crunching this project , i still not have been credited for the work what is going on it been a week since it updated

I'm sorry to say you are one of the few unlucky crunchers, you are using Astropulse version 5.00 and your "Wingman" (the other cruncher of your Work Unit) is using Astropulse version 4.36. In this case neither of you will be granted credit because of differences between the versions.
I suppose it's all luck of the draw!
And don't worry you are not the only person having this problem... :)

---

- Luke.

Not entirely true. The WU has been sent to a third cruncher, and depending on what happens with that one, letsdance has a good chance of getting credit...

-Dave

---

Not entirely true. The WU has been sent to a third cruncher, and depending on what happens with that one, letsdance has a good chance of getting credit...

-Dave

Possibly not, the third Wingman also has a few Astropulse units labeled 4.36...

---

- Luke.

Not entirely true. The WU has been sent to a third cruncher, and depending on what happens with that one, letsdance has a good chance of getting credit...

-Dave

Possibly not, the third Wingman also has a few Astropulse units labeled 4.36...

But even so, the other person should get credit, so it's pretty likely that one of the two already turned in will get credit... Not the best news for letsdance, but not what you originally said, either.

-Dave

---

Not entirely true. The WU has been sent to a third cruncher, and depending on what happens with that one, letsdance has a good chance of getting credit...

-Dave

Possibly not, the third Wingman also has a few Astropulse units labeled 4.36...

But even so, the other person should get credit, so it's pretty likely that one of the two already turned in will get credit... Not the best news for letsdance, but not what you originally said, either.

-Dave

Thank you for clarifying... I don't completely understand... but I try to help out anyway :)
So it's a 50/50 chance for letsdance?

---

- Luke.

Thank you for clarifying... I don't completely understand... but I try to help out anyway :)
So it's a 50/50 chance for letsdance?

More or less... at this point I would have thought it unlikely that another 4.36 result would get returned, but if that happens and it's a close match, letsdance probably won't get credit. If a 5.00 result gets returned next, letsdance probably will get credit, assuming a close match. It's also possible that whatever gets returned, both current units could be weakly similar, in which case it's possible that all three would get credit (though this isn't likely). It's also possible that letsdance won't match but the WU will still be around next time Eric runs his credit-granting script and manual credit would be granted, though this is also not likely.
Or the third WU returned could not be strongly similar to either one of the ones already in and it gets sent out again.
Lots of variables in the AP system right now...

-Dave

---

lol thats great, the pc spent all week crunching this one, i did not relize more than one person gets the same tasks or similiar, i see in a few days if anything happens, does it take that long to get credited, longer the crunching the longer the credits will come ?

Oh dear. The new wingman was still running v4.35 optimised on 1 December (task 1075003751). I promised to go round and do something unmentionable if I found anyone like that: does anyone know where anonymous lives?

I think, even if all 3 will return different results (5.0, 4.36, 4.35), then fourth cruncher will match one of these three results and all four get credit in the end :)

The danger is that 4.35 will validate with 4.36 (they are supposed to), and stop further processing with 5.00 left out in the cold.

Edit - at least anonymous runs a reslly long cache, so there's plenty of time for Eric's script to run.

I promised to go round and do something unmentionable if I found anyone like that: does anyone know where anonymous lives?

Once anonymous users like this are down to being a few, if nothing else, the 0 credit they get from never validating on the AP tasks will wake them up I guess.

---

The danger is that 4.35 will validate with 4.36 (they are supposed to), and stop further processing with 5.00 left out in the cold.

You probably know better, but to my experience, even if the two validate, the 5.0 will also get credit, 'cause it's succeed in calculation w/o error and is valid. The third (fourth, fifth) result will only determine how much credit each valid cruncher will get exactly, and not if it will get or wiil not at all.

I have 9 WUs MB crunched with Linux AK_V8 in a pending credit state. I also have two AP WUs crunched with an "untested" optimized app waiting for the third and fourth man to finish. Some of my wingmen have used 4.36 and 5.0 stock apps and we are in the same boat. I do not care about credits,but this is a mess. I have stopped all AP work until things straighten up.
Tullio

---

Here I have a situation where I was using 5.0, wingman 4.36, and third anonimous wingman 5.0 is working right now. Let's see if all three get credit.

The danger is that 4.35 will validate with 4.36 (they are supposed to), and stop further processing with 5.00 left out in the cold.

You probably know better, but to my experience, even if the two validate, the 5.0 will also get credit, 'cause it's succeed in calculation w/o error and is valid. The third (fourth, fifth) result will only determine how much credit each valid cruncher will get exactly, and not if it will get or wiil not at all.

I suspect that might be "Eric's Benevolence" kicking in - the credit-granting script which covers up the project's mistake in releasing incompatible versions this way.

If that's the case, it also punctures Byron's theory about the zero credit acting as a wake-up call to the half-asleep one-time optimisers.

The danger is that 4.35 will validate with 4.36 (they are supposed to), and stop further processing with 5.00 left out in the cold.

You probably know better, but to my experience, even if the two validate, the 5.0 will also get credit, 'cause it's succeed in calculation w/o error and is valid. The third (fourth, fifth) result will only determine how much credit each valid cruncher will get exactly, and not if it will get or wiil not at all.

I suspect that might be "Eric's Benevolence" kicking in - the credit-granting script which covers up the project's mistake in releasing incompatible versions this way.

If that's the case, it also punctures Byron's theory about the zero credit acting as a wake-up call to the half-asleep one-time optimisers.

Actually, my "experience" was based on once "pending" MB units, I believe you that there's error with AP.

If that's the case, it also punctures Byron's theory about the zero credit acting as a wake-up call to the half-asleep one-time optimisers.

Don't like such theories! ;) Even one-time optimizers deserved their time to sleep :D They and ONLY they should get zero credit for outdated clients, not their wingmans too.
It's PURE project MISTAKE to be honest, no other theories should be invented to cover their asses! ;)

One of main BOINC features IMHO - it allows unattended run.
And nobody (even peoples who installed once opt app and forgot about BOINC at all) should be charged for current zero credit issues. ONLY project staff. Don't forget this. Peoples have right on their own business and if their help in form of opt app installation was rejected in such rude way there is no their fault.

If that's the case, it also punctures Byron's theory about the zero credit acting as a wake-up call to the half-asleep one-time optimisers.

Don't like such theories! ;) Even one-time optimizers deserved their time to sleep :D They and ONLY they should get zero credit for outdated clients, not their wingmans too.
It's PURE project MISTAKE to be honest, no other theories should be invented to cover their asses! ;)

One of main BOINC features IMHO - it allows unattended run.
And nobody (even peoples who installed once opt app and forgot about BOINC at all) should be charged for current zero credit issues. ONLY project staff. Don't forget this. Peoples have right on their own business and if their help in form of opt app installation was rejected in such rude way there is no their fault.

I wasn't saying I thought folks that continue to use the 4.36 opti app shouldn't recieve credit for their work. To be honest I don't care about the credits so I really don't have an opinion about it, other than keeping track of what is expected to happen with them.

I was only trying to say since it appears the only way they'll continue to get credit is if Eric runs the script, and at some point I thought that would end since the "good will" would only be extended for so long by my understanding of it's use. Eventually the people with the old opti app would notice the 0 credit and most likely come to the boards and learn why.

---

I was only trying to say since it appears the only way they'll continue to get credit is if Eric runs the script, and at some point I thought that would end since the "good will" would only be extended for so long by my understanding of it's use. Eventually the people with the old opti app would notice the 0 credit and most likely come to the boards and learn why.

Hm, if something designed to cover flaw - is it "good will" or just "cover for own flaw" ? ;)
That script has meaning for beta project. It ensures that participants honored for participating in testing of maybe unstable app.
And what that script will do here? Main project became beta? Not right way to go, isn't it ?