Still waiting for validation?

Message boards : Number crunching : Still waiting for validation?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

1 · 2 · Next

AuthorMessage
Divide Overflow
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 365
Credit: 131,684
RAC: 0
United States
Message 60551 - Posted: 4 Jan 2005, 22:56:44 UTC
Last modified: 5 Jan 2005, 1:27:04 UTC

I was hopeful that the return of the servers this morning would mean the swift processing of the backlog of WU's ready for validation, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I can still find a large number of WU's with three or four results returned in the "Initial" status.

Has the status page returned to actively reporting on the queues yet? Is there simply a large backlog of validation to do, or are additional changes to the database required to properly flag these WU's for validation checking?

*Edit*
The servers were bounced again. At least someone is aware of things. Now there's the following note on the main page:

January 4, 2005
We are still running a backlog of results waiting to be validated and are looking into it.

ID: 60551 · Report as offensive
Profile Geek@Play
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 31 Jul 01
Posts: 2467
Credit: 86,146,931
RAC: 0
United States
Message 60803 - Posted: 5 Jan 2005, 13:14:02 UTC

I currently have hundreds of workunits that have a quorem of 3 and 4 results in the initial validation state with no credit awarded. This seems to be a very big problem and is contineing. I believe this started AFTER the changes were made to send out 4 work units on Dec 28. This project cannot continue for long in the current condition.
Boinc....Boinc....Boinc....Boinc....
ID: 60803 · Report as offensive
Profile PT

Send message
Joined: 19 May 99
Posts: 231
Credit: 902,910
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 60806 - Posted: 5 Jan 2005, 13:18:49 UTC - in response to Message 60803.  
Last modified: 5 Jan 2005, 13:21:40 UTC

>>> This project cannot continue for long in the current condition.

Yes, there is a problem but this project can and will continueit! It has been some bumps on the road but I sure they will fix it soon.
Happy crunching

Happy crunching
ID: 60806 · Report as offensive
STE\/E
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 29 Mar 03
Posts: 1137
Credit: 5,334,063
RAC: 0
United States
Message 60810 - Posted: 5 Jan 2005, 13:25:59 UTC
Last modified: 5 Jan 2005, 13:29:32 UTC

OMG, The Sky is falling, The Sky is Falling ;)
ID: 60810 · Report as offensive
Profile littleBouncer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 May 99
Posts: 151
Credit: 666,283
RAC: 0
Switzerland
Message 60834 - Posted: 5 Jan 2005, 14:42:29 UTC
Last modified: 5 Jan 2005, 15:36:51 UTC

For me it seems there is a "stupid" failure (syntax-error) , like : missing Blank or Blank set where it shouldn't in the new Query-Rules after 12.27.04.
Because older WU's (sent before 12.27.04) are granted near immediately (old-rules ???)

ID: 60834 · Report as offensive
Profile Paul D. Buck
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Jul 00
Posts: 3898
Credit: 1,158,042
RAC: 0
United States
Message 60889 - Posted: 5 Jan 2005, 17:50:57 UTC - in response to Message 60803.  

> I currently have hundreds of workunits that have a quorem of 3 and 4 results
> in the initial validation state with no credit awarded. This seems to be a
> very big problem and is contineing. I believe this started AFTER the changes
> were made to send out 4 work units on Dec 28. This project cannot continue
> for long in the current condition.

Most of us do. But as the "Rules and Policies" states, it is possible that you will return a result and get no credit for it. Because it does not affect the science it is very likely we will see this as an on-going "problem".

Not to minimize your anguish :)

But, I still would rather that they concentrate on getting us to the cross-platform GUI and get the kinks worked out of that ... later we can look into these issues (well the developers can) and come up with a fix. Since it is probably a problem in the seti specific code (just guessing, in that the other projects did not seem to have this issue) we can work on other projects as they work to clean this up ...
ID: 60889 · Report as offensive
Divide Overflow
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 365
Credit: 131,684
RAC: 0
United States
Message 60904 - Posted: 5 Jan 2005, 18:26:59 UTC - in response to Message 60810.  

> OMG, The Sky is falling, The Sky is Falling ;)

Why, yes, it *is* raining out at the moment! ;)

My concern is much less about the granting of credit and more about the generation of useable science. If we're all generating WU results and they continue to sit around without being checked, tested, compared and validated as acceptable then the process is broken and something should be done to fix it.

Of course, I have no visibility into how this science is actually reviewed past the point where my WU is returned. After valid results are collected, it could be years before anything more is done with the data!

ID: 60904 · Report as offensive
Walt Gribben
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 353
Credit: 304,016
RAC: 0
United States
Message 60917 - Posted: 5 Jan 2005, 19:03:50 UTC - in response to Message 60904.  
Last modified: 5 Jan 2005, 19:09:42 UTC

The validator is catching up, my WU's from Dec 29 now have credit. At least those where all three hosts returned results.

Theres still a backlog, my results from Dec 31 are still pending, even those where all four hosts returned results.

David, you wrote:
> Of course, I have no visibility into how this science is actually reviewed
> past the point where my WU is returned. After valid results are collected, it
> could be years before anything more is done with the data!
>

Have you read any of the "more recent" Science Newsletters from the Classic SETI project? Theres
Rescored Candidates and SETI@home Reobservation Report where results were used to pick canidates reobservation.

ID: 60917 · Report as offensive
Walt Gribben
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 353
Credit: 304,016
RAC: 0
United States
Message 60919 - Posted: 5 Jan 2005, 19:08:47 UTC - in response to Message 60917.  
Last modified: 5 Jan 2005, 19:10:01 UTC

oops, meant to edit not reply
ID: 60919 · Report as offensive
Bill Barto

Send message
Joined: 28 Jun 99
Posts: 864
Credit: 58,712,313
RAC: 91
United States
Message 60927 - Posted: 5 Jan 2005, 19:44:42 UTC

I just did a real quick check of a few hosts and it seems that if a workunit has been sent out after 29 Dec it will not be granted credit. I have many results waiting for credit to be granted and there have been three or four results submitted. I noticed this because one of my computers crashed prior to the 30th of Dec. I finally got it back up and have been returning the workunits that were received before the 30th. When these results were submitted credit was immediately granted.

ID: 60927 · Report as offensive
Profile Daniel Michel
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 04
Posts: 14925
Credit: 1,378,607
RAC: 6
United States
Message 60930 - Posted: 5 Jan 2005, 19:53:40 UTC - in response to Message 60927.  

> I just did a real quick check of a few hosts and it seems that if a workunit
> has been sent out after 29 Dec it will not be granted credit. I have many
> results waiting for credit to be granted and there have been three or four
> results submitted. I noticed this because one of my computers crashed prior to
> the 30th of Dec. I finally got it back up and have been returning the
> workunits that were received before the 30th. When these results were
> submitted credit was immediately granted.
>
>
>-----
i've had credit granted on work units recieved post 12-29...i have several work units that were downloaded to my computer on 12-31 recieve credit...i have others though, recieved before and after 12-29 that have not been credited yet.

PROUD TO BE TFFE!
ID: 60930 · Report as offensive
Divide Overflow
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 365
Credit: 131,684
RAC: 0
United States
Message 60931 - Posted: 5 Jan 2005, 19:57:36 UTC - in response to Message 60927.  
Last modified: 5 Jan 2005, 19:59:56 UTC

> I just did a real quick check of a few hosts and it seems that if a workunit
> has been sent out after 29 Dec it will not be granted credit.

That's not entirely accurate. See Here for one example. They *are* few and far between, however.

ID: 60931 · Report as offensive
Bill Barto

Send message
Joined: 28 Jun 99
Posts: 864
Credit: 58,712,313
RAC: 91
United States
Message 60932 - Posted: 5 Jan 2005, 19:58:15 UTC

If you look at this workunit:

http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=6964996

Two of the workunits were sent out on 29 Dec and yours on 31 Dec. It seems like if some were sent prior to the 30th they are granted credit. If they were all sent out after 29 Dec they are not.
ID: 60932 · Report as offensive
Bill Barto

Send message
Joined: 28 Jun 99
Posts: 864
Credit: 58,712,313
RAC: 91
United States
Message 60935 - Posted: 5 Jan 2005, 20:00:27 UTC - in response to Message 60931.  

> > I just did a real quick check of a few hosts and it seems that if a
> workunit
> > has been sent out after 29 Dec it will not be granted credit.
>
> That's not entirely accurate. See <a> href="http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=7006858"> Here [/url]
> for one example.
>
Maybe the 30th is the demarkation day. There is definately something wrong somewhere.
ID: 60935 · Report as offensive
karthwyne
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 May 99
Posts: 218
Credit: 5,750,702
RAC: 0
United States
Message 60951 - Posted: 5 Jan 2005, 20:44:50 UTC - in response to Message 60935.  
Last modified: 5 Jan 2005, 20:50:56 UTC

> > > I just did a real quick check of a few hosts and it seems that if a
> > workunit
> > > has been sent out after 29 Dec it will not be granted credit.
> >
> > That's not entirely accurate. See <a>
> href="http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=7006858"> Here
> [/url]
> > for one example.
> >
> Maybe the 30th is the demarkation day. There is definately something wrong
> somewhere.
>
>
well, i've got one returned today that got credit (though original sent date was long ago)
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=6131484

well, actually i have quite a good number of those, but i was always the one that resent due to timeout or computation error. i'm sure that they will catch up, i have gained a good bit of credit over the last 24 hrs, and RAC has gone up 100 pts.

S@h Berkeley's Staff Friends Club
ID: 60951 · Report as offensive
Walt Gribben
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 353
Credit: 304,016
RAC: 0
United States
Message 60960 - Posted: 5 Jan 2005, 20:53:53 UTC - in response to Message 60932.  
Last modified: 5 Jan 2005, 20:55:36 UTC

> If you look at this workunit:
>
> http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=6964996
>
> Two of the workunits were sent out on 29 Dec and yours on 31 Dec. It seems
> like if some were sent prior to the 30th they are granted credit. If they were
> all sent out after 29 Dec they are not.
>

That isn't quite accurate. Its better to say "If they were all sent out after 29 Dec they are not granted credit yet.

I've watched pending results turn into credit for much of this week, and it does go by WU date - the date it first got sent out. Maybe tomorrow we'll see credits for Dec 30 or 31's WU's.

ID: 60960 · Report as offensive
KWSN_Dagger
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 04
Posts: 36
Credit: 3,578
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 60966 - Posted: 5 Jan 2005, 21:06:46 UTC

All of my WU that were sent to me on the 29th have been validated when the minimum of 3 has been reached. I only have 4 left, but we're waiting on the third person.
<a href="http://www.timtaylor.net/kwsn"><img border="0" src="http://www.boinc.dk/auto.php?user=916957&amp;project=sah&amp;input=&amp;layout="></a>
ID: 60966 · Report as offensive
Profile Geek@Play
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 31 Jul 01
Posts: 2467
Credit: 86,146,931
RAC: 0
United States
Message 60977 - Posted: 5 Jan 2005, 21:33:17 UTC

Well something has improved dramatically. In the last several hours my account picked up almost 1,000 points on the total and nearly 50 points on the RAC. They (Berkeley) have done some good on this problem in my view today.
Boinc....Boinc....Boinc....Boinc....
ID: 60977 · Report as offensive
Profile Paul D. Buck
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Jul 00
Posts: 3898
Credit: 1,158,042
RAC: 0
United States
Message 61241 - Posted: 6 Jan 2005, 13:04:05 UTC - in response to Message 60904.  

> Of course, I have no visibility into how this science is actually reviewed
> past the point where my WU is returned. After valid results are collected, it
> could be years before anything more is done with the data!

I agree to an extent with this. However, I can point out that unlike many projects where complete coverage is necessary to ensure the science, SETI@Home does not have this issue.

In other words, if a particular WU is not processed it does not compromise the science, it just means that the recorded signal is not analyzed causing a miniscule decrease in the likelyhood of catching ET talking on his cell-phone.

Were this about some medical process for people, well, then, the failure to process a WU increases the possiblity that harm could be caused to a person.
ID: 61241 · Report as offensive
Profile RichaG
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 May 99
Posts: 1690
Credit: 19,287,294
RAC: 36
United States
Message 61429 - Posted: 6 Jan 2005, 23:50:24 UTC

Well it looks like they reenabled the waiting for validation counter.

Server Status


Waiting for validation 158,568

That seems a little low, when I have the feeling at least half are mine! (smile)

I really don't have that many.

Good Job Seti@Home.


Red Bull Air Racing

Gas price by zip at Seti

ID: 61429 · Report as offensive
1 · 2 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : Still waiting for validation?


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.