Once again the Cricket has been showing reduced output for a while, the AP creation rate is down around 0.0xxx/sec, and my Mac is about out of GPU work.

Seems to be reoccurring every few hours according to the levels on the Cricket graph. The MB 'Results received in last hour' seems to be low also, so, barring other problems I'd guess there aren't very many 'Shorties' around. The Mac Alpha MB App doesn't like those longer (LAR) MBs, so, that doesn't look hopeful either.

Does it really matter?
Not the primary reason, no.
But if AP 'pays' a little better to show my efforts, I run it when I can. And am perfectly happy to crunch MB when it is not.

AP also does a different bit of science on the data than MB does, so both are valid to run.

And if somebody else one day finds a signal and I do not, I shall be perfectly happy in the success of the project.

Meow.

---

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

Yes. It is about recognition for effort. You get less recognition for effort on MB than you do for effort on AP.

I do not think you or anyone deserves "more recognition" you can just afford to spend more on equipment than I can, so you are saying that because you have more money to spend you deserve more recognition?

That is not what distributed computing is about, if someone can only afford a low powered computer but wants to help SETI@Home, you are saying they deserve less recognition than me, as their total and RAC will be a lot lower.

I know several who would love to build high powered rigs and crunch more but cannot afford to, me being one. Still nice to know you look down on people like me.

People give what they can and all deserve the same recognition for doing what they can.

Still if that is all you care about I hope they fix things so you can get your recognition, the "credit problem" has little effect on poor people like me.

---

You are quite welcome.

---

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

The data base seems to be stuck again. I have issues viewing my tasks.

---

Does it really matter?

Yes. It is about recognition for effort.
cheers

New Math...... $=Effort
Therefor 3X$=3XEffort

:-~

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Bernie, you missed the point.

---

Bernie, you missed the point.

Bernie is spot on

---

Does it really matter?

Yes. It is about recognition for effort.
cheers

New Math...... $=Effort
Therefor 3X$=3XEffort

:-~

Not sure what you are getting at?

Regardless of how your machine(s) run, you should get the same level of recognition for MB and AP. This was the case under MB6 and AP6. They were fairly well matched so it did not matter which one you did.

It is not the case for MB7 (and AP6 and AP7).

As a rough example, if you do AP6/7 (yes I know that there is no more AP6) you would get X (based on how you ran your machine(s)). If you do MB7 based on the same behaviour, you get about 70% of X. Thus you get less recognition (from Berkeley) for your effort if you do MB compared to AP.

cheers

---

Thus you get less recognition (from Berkeley) for your effort if you do MB compared to AP.

So what?

---

But, credit equality is not worked out on those of us using optimised apps, or on GPU crunching

You need to find out what the difference is, if any, using stock apps on the "average" CPU.

Time to panic??

3 machines all get the same response....

Project has no work available...


Hmmmm......

I've been having stuck Downloads since the Server came back up. They eventually finished, until the last one. It's been stuck since the last time the SSP updated...about 45 minutes ago.
The Crickets have died as well.
Not good.

Wed Jan 21 01:08:00 2015 | SETI@home | Started download of ap_30jn14ag_B3_P1_00257_20141226_23183.wu
Wed Jan 21 01:13:00 2015 | SETI@home | Temporarily failed download of ap_30jn14ag_B3_P1_00257_20141226_23183.wu: transient HTTP error
Wed Jan 21 01:13:00 2015 | SETI@home | Backing off 00:03:59 on download of ap_30jn14ag_B3_P1_00257_20141226_23183.wu
Wed Jan 21 01:40:08 2015 | SETI@home | Started download of ap_30jn14ag_B3_P1_00257_20141226_23183.wu
Wed Jan 21 01:41:24 2015 | SETI@home | Temporarily failed download of ap_30jn14ag_B3_P1_00257_20141226_23183.wu: transient HTTP error
Wed Jan 21 01:41:24 2015 | SETI@home | Backing off 05:06:26 on download of ap_30jn14ag_B3_P1_00257_20141226_23183.wu
Wed Jan 21 01:46:45 2015 | SETI@home | Started download of ap_30jn14ag_B3_P1_00257_20141226_23183.wu
Wed Jan 21 01:48:09 2015 | SETI@home | Temporarily failed download of ap_30jn14ag_B3_P1_00257_20141226_23183.wu: transient HTTP error
Wed Jan 21 01:48:09 2015 | SETI@home | Backing off 03:31:46 on download of ap_30jn14ag_B3_P1_00257_20141226_23183.wu

Time to panic??

3 machines all get the same response....

Project has no work available...


Hmmmm......

Network traffic has almost died, but it might as well have.
"Project has no tasks available" has been the only response I've been getting for a while now, and since the outage the MB splitting output has been way down, and it too has now made it down to next to nothing.
No traffic because there is no work- the splitters just aren't splitting.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

I had some "temporarily failed" for downloads a few hours ago, but after about 30 tries, they finally went through (and took 14 minutes from start to finish on the transfer, instead of the normal 8-10 seconds).



As a side-note, TBar, nice pile of B3_P1s there. High chance they are 100% blanked, so all the struggle and effort to download them will be for naught anyway.

---

Linux laptop:
record uptime: 1511d 20h 19m (ended due to the power brick giving-up)

Server Status stuck at 06:00

I had some "temporarily failed" for downloads a few hours ago, but after about 30 tries, they finally went through (and took 14 minutes from start to finish on the transfer, instead of the normal 8-10 seconds).



As a side-note, TBar, nice pile of B3_P1s there. High chance they are 100% blanked, so all the struggle and effort to download them will be for naught anyway.

Well, those are the same entries for the Same Stuck download. It's been stuck for an Hour now.
The recent B3_P1s look fine to me;
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=3924667043
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=3924628158
A stuck Download is a Stuck Download, it generally means Nothing will get through even if the Upload server continues to work.
Now, seeing as how it Appears the Download Server is broke, that machine is Out of GPU work.

The recent B3_P1s look fine to me;
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=3924667043
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=3924628158

Not all B3_P1s are bad. I get surprised by some once in a while that actually ended up being fine, but most of the time they are 100% blanked.

Personally, I do offline stand-alone testing on B3_P1s when they get assigned and downloaded to see if they are. If they are, I suspend everything else and make those run and get them reported and try to keep the cache full of actual good WUs.

Also, B6_P0s have a higher-than-normal tendency to be 100% blanked, as well. But as always, results vary greatly. I had a B2_P0 and a B4_P0 that were 100% blanked a few days ago. It can happen to any WU, but after B3_P1, B6_P0 is the next most-likely to be.


Anyway, back to the panic. Oh noes! What happened?! Which server died this time?

---

Linux laptop:
record uptime: 1511d 20h 19m (ended due to the power brick giving-up)

Does it really matter?

Yes. It is about recognition for effort.
cheers

New Math...... $=Effort
Therefor 3X$=3XEffort

:-~

Not sure what you are getting at?

Regardless of how your machine(s) run, you should get the same level of recognition for MB and AP. This was the case under MB6 and AP6. They were fairly well matched so it did not matter which one you did.

It is not the case for MB7 (and AP6 and AP7).

As a rough example, if you do AP6/7 (yes I know that there is no more AP6) you would get X (based on how you ran your machine(s)). If you do MB7 based on the same behaviour, you get about 70% of X. Thus you get less recognition (from Berkeley) for your effort if you do MB compared to AP.

cheers

Wait are you saying that if you and I both crunch an AP on a similar GPU one of use gets more credit than the other?

And if my cpu is identical to yours and we crunch MB or AP we get different amounts of credit for the same task.

I didn't realise that.

Or is it that we both get the same credit, just less than it used to be.

And it is high credit you really want?

If I missed the point please explain.

---

SSP