... (even) fewer donations...

Wasting money on divisive topics like politics also hurts donations.

---

We still have time for diplomacy, and few (few yes, but very very good) people are working on that. We all need give them some time and our support.

Anyway i agree with Mark, SETI will survive with or without limit or creditscrew, why? simply because the project and our dreams are a lot greater than all this mess.

Just rise your eyes on a dark night with clear sky and thing, we can´t be alone.

We are not alone.
I am very sure of that single point.
Not a doubt in my mind about that. Not a single reservation.

Whether we shall find what we seek in MY lifetime I can wonder about.

Mankind's quest for knowledge other than his own shall continue long after I pass.
I can only contribute what I can whilst I am still here.

And when I am looking down on who remains from perhaps kpax..........LOL.
Who knows, I might just send you in the correct direction.
Kitties have awesome powers, you know by now.
If mankind were not so stupid at times............
Learn from kitties. Embrace kitties. Know kitties.
Look into their eyes, as there is SO much there to learn.

A single minute looking into the eyes of a loving cat is worth eons looking into a mirror at yourself. And can tell you so much more.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

Why are 500 channels being loaded into the splitters? A while back, the most that were loaded at one time was 200. With the current cache limits, 200 channels was a good number. You could Almost have your AP cache last until more channels were loaded. If 500 channels are loaded, there is NO WAY your cache will last through them.

If you load 500 channels, most dual card hosts will need over 500 APs to last through the period.
If you load only 200 channels, some dual card hosts can actually last until the next loading. Other hosts will run out hours before.

Until the cache limits are raised, DO NOT LOAD OVER 200 Channels at one time.
I speak from experience.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why they thought it was a good idea to go from 2-3 days between AP downloads to 5 days between downloads. In a sense SETI has exacerbated the problem themselves.

If you are concerned about people 'hoarding', then why Double the period between Downloads. That makes about as much sense as telling someone one they should buy another computer while their present one sits idle.

Totaly out of topic

Anyone could imagine how is a ET kittie?

Back to topic

One goal we achive with all this discusion, most of the rescheduler hosts are a little quiet and with smaller caches now.

@Tbar
They will not load more AP tapes until we clear the MB tapes first, so there is another reason why we need to crunch both types of WU. Another good reason why we ask for the balance.

---

Why are 500 channels being loaded into the splitters? A while back, the most that were loaded at one time was 200. With the current cache limits, 200 channels was a good number. You could Almost have your AP cache last until more channels were loaded. If 500 channels are loaded, there is NO WAY your cache will last through them.

If you load 500 channels, most dual card hosts will need over 500 APs to last through the period.
If you load only 200 channels, some dual card hosts can actually last until the next loading. Other hosts will run out hours before.

Until the cache limits are raised, DO NOT LOAD OVER 200 Channels at one time.
I speak from experience.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why they thought it was a good idea to go from 2-3 days between AP downloads to 5 days between downloads. In a sense SETI has exacerbated the problem themselves.

If you are concerned about people 'hoarding', then why Double the period between Downloads. That makes about as much sense as telling someone one they should buy another computer while their present one sits idle.

Your question is moot.
A certain number of datasets are loaded into the splitter.
They yield a certain number of tasks.
When the APs are all gone out to the field to be processed, that leaves the MB tasks waiting to be done.
It's not a matter of choosing to do more AP or less.

And if it were not for the credit situation, we would not be having this conversation in the first place. It's all valid work to advance the project.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

You apparently do not realize that SETI has changed the procedure from loading 200 channels at a time to 500 channels at a time. This has doubled the Time between AP downloads. It has been mentioned Before, please read my last post carefully.

Why are 500 channels being loaded into the Splitters?

Why are 500 channels being loaded into the Splitters?

To make this more infrequently server-side? Make sense if for this operation someone should go somewhere from his usual desk :)

---

SETI apps news
We're not gonna fight them. We're gonna transcend them.

Why are 500 channels being loaded into the Splitters?

To make this more infrequently server-side? Make sense if for this operation someone should go somewhere from his usual desk :)

That's also the only thing I can think of. So my AP only Mac has gone from just making it from download to download, to being out of work over 50% of the time. Others find it necessary to 'hoard'. Because, someone leaves their desk less frequently? Yep, right up there with telling someone to buy another computer while the one that use to work sits idle. yep...

You apparently do not realize that SETI has changed the procedure from loading 200 channels at a time to 500 channels at a time. This has doubled the Time between AP downloads. It has been mentioned Before, please read my last post carefully.

Why are 500 channels being loaded into the Splitters?

Why NOT?

The end result is the same amount or work being sent out for each in the end run.

You are being daft.

If the AP runs are fewer and farther between, they are longer then.
It's all relevant.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

Think about it Mark. Twice the time between Downloads make a huge difference if your Machine can only run APs. It worked fine since July, then someone thought it would be a good idea to double the wait time.

If you don't understand the problem, you might want to stop making attempts at insults.

Please forgiveme if i´m wrong but you are talking about this host? http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/show_host_detail.php?hostid=6796479
if yes take a look at your abandoned tasks, a lot of them (about 250 AP WU - 2GB of DL from the servers loosed in the limbo) where abandoned today! so it´s sure your cache must be dry.

The others 2 are windows machines with MB crunching capacity and we have plenity of MB WU ready to DL and crunch.

---

Yep. I'm tried of tying to keep it working. It would have been out of work in a couple days anyway. Back when there were only 200 channels being loaded, it would make it from AP download to AP download. Now that 500 channels are being loaded, it will work about 2 out of 5 days then sit idle. If it's going to sit idle over 50% of the time, why use it at all?

Again, can someone answer why there are now 500 channels being loaded instead of the old 200? It's a simple question...

Bad thread to ask that, but i think Raistmer allready answer your question in a previous post, in other words, simply it´s easy for them do that 1 time each 5 days than almost any 2 days. But as we could see your 250 AP WU cache could easely hold for 5 days, and we rerely be out of AP WU for more than 3 days, so that can´t be a problem to your host.

---

Bad thread to ask that, but i think Raistmer allready answer your question in a previous post, in other words, simply it´s easy for them do that 1 time each 5 days than almost any 2 days. But as we could see your 250 AP WU cache could easely hold for 5 days, and we rerely be out of AP WU for more than 3 days, so that can´t be a problem to your host.

So, you don't think that doubling the time between AP downloads has any bearing on people hoarding APs? Really?

That machine was completing 90-100 APs a day, it would have lasted another 2.5 days. 500 loaded channels will take around 5 days to clear. It has been working the BETA APP since July, I know exactly how long it will last. It was working fine when it only had to sit through 200 loaded MB channels. At 500, it's only going to last less than half way.

Do the math, I've been doing it since July.

Or to make hoarders wait twice as long between feeding frenzies
while the MB work units get crunched.

Think about it Mark. Twice the time between Downloads make a huge difference if your Machine can only run APs. It worked fine since July, then someone thought it would be a good idea to double the wait time.

If you don't understand the problem, you might want to stop making attempts at insults.

If I wished to 'insult' you, I certainly could.

I do not wish to, nor want to.
You best bone up on what constitutes an insult.

I can hand them out right and left if you want.

But, the thread was about bad buffoons who choose to res
chedule work, now, wasn't it? Get back to your point and stop bashing me.
I understand the 'problem' perfectly.
I don't simply give a rat's arse about it, as it simply is not an issue for me.
What is one bit of creds one way or another to me?
Not a bit. You all fight it out.\]
I do not really care as long as I get work to do for the project.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

BTW Batter up, I'm going to pass you eventually! :)

It should be soon as I limit 24/7 all out crunching to one consumer grade machine. Any other crunching is for testing.

---

So far, it appears a machine that has been testing the MAC BETA App since July has been reduced to testing the BETA App less than 50% of the time because;
1) It's easier to load data every 5 days verses every 2 days.
2) So Credit Junkies won't abort tasks to gain a few more credits.

Hmmm, I believe Jason was onto something...

I would say that 200 at a time allow also to medium crunchers to reload APs before getting dry.
500 at a time only allows slower GPUs to reload in time.

Is it a kind of socialist way of redistributing kibbles? :-) ;-)

The more tape you load at a time, the lower you put the bar of the power of the GPUs that can reload in time.

Reload -> AP frenzy-> all reach the limit -> APs end -> wait & crunch (the longer the weaker) -> get dry & wait or MBs-> Reload

But I well understand that more tapes at a time puts less stress on the staff at the labs.

I foresee the RAC of "non-cheater" heavy crunchers (especially multi-GPUs) drop further in the next future.

Sleepy