The following workunits show something interesting. One of the 3 successfull results in each has had 0 seconds of work and 0 credit requested. The other two results show that significant work has been done and credits requested. A quorum has apparently been established, since the median credit level has been granted to all 3 - *even to the WU with 0 seconds*. There is no 4th pending result, indicating the WU that took 0 seconds to process had the same result as the others that actually did the work. ???

[Edit: Probably most likely that BOINC isn't calculating 'seconds' correctly on the host, and incorrectly reporting 0 work accomplished??]

http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=5609366
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=5609365
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=5609179

I'd just looooooooove to get one of those 0 units.... :-)) :-)) :-D

---

WinXP Home, P4 3.2GHz HT, 512Mb RAM. Running SETI, Predictor, Prime Grid, SIMAP, Folding

---

visit boinc@Australia

> [Edit: Probably most likely that BOINC isn't calculating 'seconds' correctly
> on the host, and incorrectly reporting 0 work accomplished??]

obviously for the result to be valid, there would have had to be some processing done.. this happens quite a lot on pirates, and the stderr output shows the time spent.

---

<img src="http://boinc.mundayweb.com/one/stats.php?userID=6">

@Thentil,

There _may_ also still be a display problem that could show the result, on the "Work Unit" page, as has processed for zero seconds. Check the actual work unit record and see what is recorded there. The processing time is calculated to six decimal places, the diplay pages only show it to two decimal places. I don't know how/if they round for the display, but I suspect they truncate at two decimal places rather than round. If I'm worng, someone please correct me.

> The following workunits show something interesting. One of the 3 successfull
> results in each has had 0 seconds of work and 0 credit requested. ...

Cheers,

Stephen

---

<P>"I want to go dancing on the moon, I want to frolic in zero gravity!....", and now, I might be able to go someday! Thanks, SpaceShipOne and crew!<BR><a><img src="http://69.93.59.107/stats/banner.php?cpid=26cbd89db7fb85cbfe580729d76705c1"></a>

I have also watched one WU on one of my machines that dropped the crunch time from 6+ hours to 0 seconds just before it was due to report.

---

BOINC WIKI

> unit record and see what is recorded there. The processing time is calculated
> to six decimal places, the diplay pages only show it to two decimal places. I

I don't think this is the problem, since the reported time for the other two machines is >10k seconds. It's only that one computer that is reporting 0 seconds work on some WUs...

I agree that work *must* be done in order to have a valid result -- but it would be good to figure out why some apparently report back 0 seconds of work for a WU that took other computers a much more significant time.

---

I would say that Forgger90 needs to look at his 3.0 ghz computer. Take the covers off and check the cpu fan. He has MANY results returned with 0 time with this computer. Could be overheating cpu core.

---

Boinc....Boinc....Boinc....Boinc....

> I would say that Forgger90 needs to look at his 3.0 ghz computer. Take the
> covers off and check the cpu fan. He has MANY results returned with 0 time
> with this computer. Could be overheating cpu core.
>
yes, he does have a lot of those 0sec reports, but he consistantly returns 14-16 WUs per connect, and if you take an avg of his 13,000-14,000 second time per WU that shows time, it seems about right 2½ to 3 days of crunching for one CPU, so about 1½ days if they are both (HT) running all the time.

I know that some of the linux clients were having problems with reporting correct times, maybe he compiled the code for his XP, or there is just some other issue with the time reporting.

karthwyne

---

S@h Berkeley's Staff Friends Club

I got those too. Here's one:

Screenshot

Work unit

BOINC 4.13, AMD XP 2800, Win 98 SE

Thanks to Image Shack for Free Image Hosting

> I got those too. Here's one:
>
> Screenshot

> Work
> unit
>
> BOINC 4.13, AMD XP 2800, Win 98 SE
>
Well that one isn't so telling as we can't tell how much time your PC spent on it, the messages tab would be good to include.

You will get a fair number with that chip that WILL report 0sec correctly, such as your WU WU 6704441 but I am curious to see what the other person returns on WU 6704444 as the one other person who has returned at this point took 18,000 sec with a xeon system. That WU might be one for the gurus to look at (of which i am not ;)

did you happen to compile this yourself, or download the programs from setiweb?

---

S@h Berkeley's Staff Friends Club

> did you happen to compile this yourself, or download the programs from
> setiweb?

Downloaded the standard version when I registered.