Posts by [B^S] RicketyCat
|
1)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Panic Mode On (78) Server Problems?
(Message 1301803)
Posted 3 Nov 2012 by  [B^S] RicketyCat
Post: Well, just rebooted both the firewall and router and it shot up to 39 KBps and that rapidly dwindled to 3KBps. using the hosts method and declaring .21 as the go to server. tracert to both .21 and .13 reveal the transfer at berkeley is choked at 208.178.58.185 (unknown ownership) and 67.16.134.26 (a global exchange server) [edit] After another timeout I ran another set of tracert: 64.71.140.42 didn't want to identify itself after having decent sub 20ms pings, 208.68.243.254 with 2 drops and a 59ms ping, 208.68.240.13 two lines with one dropped ping each and an average of 60ms. [edit2] Seems to have sorted as I just got 4 AP units after aborting the two that were hanging. |
|
2)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Panic Mode On (78) Server Problems?
(Message 1301790)
Posted 3 Nov 2012 by [B^S] RicketyCat
Post: I've aborted 6 AP task downloads. Each after they repeatedly tried to download never getting past the 1.5 KBps threshold and never past the 1.6% total down after an hour of logged download time. Got two spinning right now doing the same thing. I'd love to crunch these things, but if they never arrive I can't. Currently one of them has reached the 1.99% after 47 minutes (a new record!). If these need to be aborted as well, then I'll have to turn off AP downloads altogether until this is addressed. I have noticed that there seems to be some relation to the transient HTTP error as each time the DL has stopped that error pops up in the log. There is no relation to reporting or uploading as I haven't crunched any type of work unit since (I think) Wednesday. |
|
3)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Gripes and Kudos II
(Message 1301214)
Posted 2 Nov 2012 by [B^S] RicketyCat
Post: Kudos:
they'll run on the new ATI app This project is still trying to innovate
|
|
4)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Could Validator Backlog be a DOS attack?
(Message 155529)
Posted 23 Aug 2005 by [B^S] RicketyCat
Post: Anyone who remembers how to (properly) use punch-tape or a slide rule, or who believes BASIC needs line numbers is an old fart. Not only that but they is a freakin' old Geek, too. [like me!] Back To Topic - The ratio of dullards to careful BOINCers I would estimate at around 1:1000. Given that, even 60 pieces of crap per dullard is going to create a clog in the validator. Hopefully the daily outages will reduce the current clog to a more managable level. However, the dullard problem will continue even with the RAC and D/L to Good Unit ratio lilitations in place. Any time you ask the mob to help with your science, the mob proves it can't cope. |
|
5)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
****CLOSED SETI/BOINC Milestonesâ„¢ II CLOSED****
(Message 152946)
Posted 18 Aug 2005 by [B^S] RicketyCat
Post: The sig. says it - mostly... My current goals: 20k Seti and 75k BOINC total. This might take awhile with only one computer (yeah - a few hosts but only ever one computer). It proves to the new people that one computer can still post significant results. |
|
6)
Questions and Answers :
Wish list :
Date instead of debt
(Message 82952)
Posted 27 Feb 2005 by [B^S] RicketyCat
Post: I have now missed a deadline twice because of the debt system. After adjusting the resources for all projects I still had trouble getting BOINC to crunch WUs whose due date was next. I have even resorted to forcing a 12 hour wait before a project switch which did not work as well as I thought it would. The debt management system of project priority-setting does not take due dates into account. It should so that due dates are missed only because the machine was too slow. |
|
7)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Phishing?
(Message 73767)
Posted 24 Jan 2005 by [B^S] RicketyCat
Post: > Unfortunately, owning a driver's license doesn't mean you're a good driver. Bad internetters wouldn't get support. Thier computers would stop working...end of problem. Bad drivers exist because the Department of Motor Vehicles (or the equivalent in other countries) allow average [70%] drivers onto the road. My belief (and the DMV refuses to allow me to do the study to confirm it) is that at least 75% of all accidents are caused by someone who received less than 90% on the driving portion of their test. By issuing levels of licensing, if a person wanted to get connected to the internet they'd need at least a 90% score before they were allowed to connect at that level. This would generate cash and keep the IDtenT errors to a minimum. |
|
8)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Phishing?
(Message 73641)
Posted 24 Jan 2005 by [B^S] RicketyCat
Post: I've used E-mail Tracker and VisualRoute to track down dumba.....heh...phishers. They are not 100% effective in tracking down the final IP, but they come very close to it. I usually contact the abuse address of the hop just before the offending IP. It usually ends there, but I have had to block whole IP blocks on my firewall. The techniques used by these ethically challenged individuals are as tried and true as any other business model. They've been done since at least 1992 (when I hopped on board with my first e-mail address) and there is little doubt that there is anything anyone can really do about it excpet to stop answering the spam. Maybe there should be a test that you have to take before you can get an ISP connection. Like a driver's license that shows you won't do stupid things like click on that pseudo-Viagra link. |
|
9)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
seti 4.07
(Message 43356)
Posted 5 Nov 2004 by [B^S] RicketyCat
Post: Third try and still getting the cascade. d/l the wu's fine. The d/l of the pdb finishes with a bad file error. The work units are compared to the bad file and found ... you guessed it... bad and are then chucked. and the whole thing starts over. Can't d/l the file directly because the d/l page still has 4.13 (ICK!) on it. Any reliable sources for the new .pdb? [Never mind. Just completed the .pdb d/l. I'll keep the original text up in case anyone else has the same question.] |
|
10)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
seti 4.07
(Message 43294)
Posted 5 Nov 2004 by [B^S] RicketyCat
Post: Things are fairly muddled here. Recieved the following cascade of errors when the checksum for 4.07 failed: SETI@home - 2004-11-05 10:56:55 - Giving up on download of setiathome_4.07_windows_intelx86.exe: Downloaded file had wrong size: expected 753664, got 52064 SETI@home - 2004-11-05 10:56:55 - Unrecoverable error for result 03mr04aa.15588.20914.853396.196_1 (app_version download error: couldn't get input files: setiathome_4.07_windows_intelx86.exe: signature verification error ) SETI@home - 2004-11-05 10:59:45 - Started download of 03mr04aa.15588.20914.853396.176 SETI@home - 2004-11-05 10:59:45 - MD5 computation error for setiathome_4.07_windows_intelx86.pdb: -108 SETI@home - 2004-11-05 10:59:45 - Checksum or signature error for setiathome_4.07_windows_intelx86.pdb Upshot - no new work units will d/l because the d/l of 4.07 failed. Now it's trying to do it all again...at about .64 kBps (dail-up be slow, but not THAT slow) |
|
11)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
seti 4.07
(Message 43293)
Posted 5 Nov 2004 by [B^S] RicketyCat
Post: [oops!] double post |
|
12)
Message boards :
Cafe SETI :
Sig test - ignore
(Message 38644)
Posted 20 Oct 2004 by [B^S] RicketyCat
Post: testing |
|
13)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Why cant Seti/Boinc just let this project run for a few days?
(Message 18004)
Posted 26 Aug 2004 by [B^S] RicketyCat
Post: I've seen it all before. Some muckhead chimes in when it isn't necessary insulting the UCB crew for no particular reason. Usually they are wrong and even when they have a valid point (unlike the current situation) they go about it all wrong. In the 5 years that I have participated in this porject there have been moments where I have equated UCB with "yUo Can' BE serious," but not once did I ever voice that opinion because while waiting, reading everything, and letting the real dunderheads (I'm only pretending to be one) stick their necks out for me. That being said, I think UCB has done a creditable job of putting this distribution project together. Yes, there are always the backseat coders that think they know how to do it better, but they aren't doing it while UCB is. The nitpickers need to make a choice: 1) Shut up and deal (my favorite cribbage quote) 2) Apply for a job on the crew (not likely unless you really are hot snot) 3) Quit the project (that includes all BOINC projects) The third would be my recommendation to them. As any businessman can tell you, if you lose 10% of your clients, so what? If you lose 90% of your clients because of the other 10% you're in deep doo. I'd rather not see BOINC suffer because of people who may not be entirely stump-dumb, but definitely require an upgrade to thier social-censor function. Closing: Yes, Virginia, there is an upgrade path. -nosig.toodangold- |
©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.