Joined: 10 Mar 12
Would it be possible to take into consideration when sending out resends, the reputation of a host (like its reputation of producing valid results, and how fast it usually sends back results), and send out resends primarily to hosts with the highest reputation?
There's often results hanging there in the database for many weeks, or even months, waiting for hosts that never sends back the result. Then it times out and is sent out again, and often again is being sent to a host who will at best send it back in a couple of weeks, or at worst never be heard from again. Then the cycle begins all over again....
Having hosts with high reputation for reliability as the primary resend hosts, would likely reduce the demand on the database, as well as the size of the database, since it wouldn't be som many tasks out there in the wild at the same time.
WARNING!! "THIS IS A SIGNATURE", of the "IT MAY CHANGE AT ANY MOMENT" type. It may, or may not be considered insulting, all depending upon HOW SENSITIVE THE VIEWER IS, to certain inputs to/from the nervous system.
Joined: 6 Apr 11
I have to agree with you on this one. It should be use here at Beta and at SETI main. It would definitely help the ever growing database tables problem they have had at main.
Another thing that would help the database issues would be to reduce the initial turn-around (deadline) times to 14 days for new tasks and 7 days for all resends. I don't know any other project with such long deadline as SETI.
I know BoincSIMAP used reliable hosts for resends. The resent tasks are sent out as high-priority so they get pushed to the front of the line for processing.
©2019 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.