I agree with Tigher. End Classic Now!

If they do it tomorrow, will you, Tigher and ecpa be around here 24 hours a day to ward off the complaints of everyone who was still crunching 5.00 to 600.00 units of Classic but have no where to return them to?

Will you? Because if the answer to that is no, you could perhaps withdraw your arrogance a bit and understand others concerns.

The classic folks have been told that there will be a "global email" to all users prior to the shutdown of Classic. On top of that, IIHO, the shutdown of classic should be done in an orderly (and pre-documented - the last "plan is way outdated)) way. The truth is there might still be more people (and note I didn't say hosts) crunching classic than are crunching seti/boinc. Hosts don't care when they can't get data, but I think it's safe to say, people do!

If they shutdown classic on monday to reuse the HW for seti/boinc, trust me, it would anger a whole bunch of people that are donating resources (CPU time and their time) (A.K.A. "Volinteers"), and would not be a wise move.

I think the solution (as we all know classic is going away), is for UCB SSL to publish a "transition plan" (with real dates), here and on the classic site. It's got to be a "reasonable timeframe" for the events. For example, "Send email mon, stop work tue, stop acepting work wed, reuse boxes on thur" would not be good!

What it seems some don't understand is the real "volinteers" here are not the handfull of folks that write code or document the program. It's the thousands, or more correctly hundreds of thousands that crunch the data. Without the real volinteers, the folks at UCB SSL would sit at a monitor and say "hey, we got a result.. That's 5 today and almost 30 this month!"

Timeline... eMail sent out on Wednesday of this week. September 1, no more downloads. September 15, server transfered to BONIC as client upload (UCB download). October 1, no more uploads. October 15 server transfered to BONIC as client upload. October 16, all the VOLUNTEERS (nope correct spelling) are happy. Things might still not be 100% due to the added BONIC users, however, atleast all of the resources will be dedicated to BONIC, which is obviously where the project is going.

Problem solved IMHO.

Chris

Kind of agree... but servers can't be fully transfered to boinc until it's over.. Boinc services might run on a box that is primarily a classic server. Look up the difference between "service" and "server" and I'll look up the spelling of "volinteer!" :)

---

No no... the results would be uploaded at anytime. Only new WU downloads would be halted during that 5 minute window.

Jim

So if a dial-up user has missed the last 5 upload windows on his AMD 3800+, he has some 200 units waiting to upload in 5 minutes?

It takes every unit seperately about 10 seconds to get an answer from the scheduler, 200 units at average 15KB on a 4.5KB upload won't go fast. Around 670 seconds. Think you can zip them up? ;)

---

So if a dial-up user has missed the last 5 upload windows on his AMD 3800+, he has some 200 units waiting to upload in 5 minutes?

It takes every unit seperately about 10 seconds to get an answer from the scheduler, 200 units at average 15KB on a 4.5KB upload won't go fast. Around 670 seconds. Think you can zip them up? ;)

I was saying an hour 4 times a day dedicated to only uploads.. This should release most of the stress on the server, therefore, the remaining 20 hours a a day there shouldn't be as many people trying to upload, taking it back to how it was before the crash.

---

- cJ

I read about this "work around" already today. Although I've personally not tried it, several others were saying that it really doesn't upload it, but rather kills the WU and the result was showing as invalid.

Well, I guess I'll find out when two other users manage to get that same WU uploaded. What mine shows is:

Server state:	Over
Outcome:	Success
Client state:	Done
Exit status:	0 (0x0)
Validate state:	Initial

Anyway, I've suspended SETI on my PC's. There's other projects that are working smoothly.

---

*** Join the #1 Aussie Alliance on SETI ***

My reply wasn't against your good thought, FFEM, but to Jim's post here. (and all the posts we had with eachother after that)

Shoot... even say the first 5 minutes of every hour dedicated to the servers recieving only.

---

I hope you've stumbled onto something good.

Good luck.

Jim

I read about this "work around" already today. Although I've personally not tried it, several others were saying that it really doesn't upload it, but rather kills the WU and the result was showing as invalid.

Well, I guess I'll find out when two other users manage to get that same WU uploaded. What mine shows is:

Server state:	Over
Outcome:	Success
Client state:	Done
Exit status:	0 (0x0)
Validate state:	Initial

Anyway, I've suspended SETI on my PC's. There's other projects that are working smoothly.

---

I agree with Tigher. End Classic Now!

If they do it tomorrow, will you, Tigher and ecpa be around here 24 hours a day to ward off the complaints of everyone who was still crunching 5.00 to 600.00 units of Classic but have no where to return them to?

Will you? Because if the answer to that is no, you could perhaps withdraw your arrogance a bit and understand others concerns.

The classic folks have been told that there will be a "global email" to all users prior to the shutdown of Classic. On top of that, IIHO, the shutdown of classic should be done in an orderly (and pre-documented - the last "plan is way outdated)) way. The truth is there might still be more people (and note I didn't say hosts) crunching classic than are crunching seti/boinc. Hosts don't care when they can't get data, but I think it's safe to say, people do!

If they shutdown classic on monday to reuse the HW for seti/boinc, trust me, it would anger a whole bunch of people that are donating resources (CPU time and their time) (A.K.A. "Volinteers"), and would not be a wise move.

I think the solution (as we all know classic is going away), is for UCB SSL to publish a "transition plan" (with real dates), here and on the classic site. It's got to be a "reasonable timeframe" for the events. For example, "Send email mon, stop work tue, stop acepting work wed, reuse boxes on thur" would not be good!

What it seems some don't understand is the real "volinteers" here are not the handfull of folks that write code or document the program. It's the thousands, or more correctly hundreds of thousands that crunch the data. Without the real volinteers, the folks at UCB SSL would sit at a monitor and say "hey, we got a result.. That's 5 today and almost 30 this month!"

Timeline... eMail sent out on Wednesday of this week. September 1, no more downloads. September 15, server transfered to BOINC as client upload (UCB download). October 1, no more uploads. October 15 server transfered to BONIC as client upload. October 16, all the VOLUNTEERS (nope correct spelling) are happy. Things might still not be 100% due to the added BOINC users, however, atleast all of the resources will be dedicated to BOINC, which is obviously where the project is going.

Problem solved IMHO.

Chris

Kind of agree... but servers can't be fully transfered to boinc until it's over.. Boinc services might run on a box that is primarily a classic server. Look up the difference between "service" and "server" and I'll look up the spelling of "volinteer!" :)

If there is a server on classic doing uploads, and a server on classic doing downloads... Then as soon as the (server side) uploads are done... That server has served its purpose for classic. If it is only one server doing all the work, then let me ammend my timeline:

eMail sent out on Wednesday of this week. September 1, no more downloads. October 1, no more uploads. Date TBD (When all classic services are completed) server transfered to BOINC as client upload. October 16, all the VOLUNTEERS (note correct spelling) are happy.



Does this sound better to you?

P.S.

All of this from my point of view is just my opinion on a way to correct things... If there is a better way, that is fine, but I havn't seen anything offered by you or anyone else. And all the dates can be ammended by the UCB crew.. That is just an idea to satisfy your theory on that it can't be done.

---

- cJ

My reply wasn't against your good thought, FFEM, but to Jim's post here. (and all the posts we had with eachother after that)

Shoot... even say the first 5 minutes of every hour dedicated to the servers recieving only.

Ok.. Thanks for clearing up for me.

---

- cJ

I can kinda see how that statement could be misinterpreted.

What I meant to say is

0:00 Servers recieve results only. no work units sent out

0:05 - 0:59 Servers send and receive as normal.

Jim

My reply wasn't against your good thought, FFEM, but to Jim's post here. (and all the posts we had with eachother after that)

Shoot... even say the first 5 minutes of every hour dedicated to the servers recieving only.

---

BONIC

The correct spelling is BOINC.

If you want to correct the spelling of volunteers anyway. ;)

Berkeley Open Infrastructure Network Computing.

Not...

Berkeley Offered Nothing In Crunching.

8-D

---

I can kinda see how that statement could be misinterpreted.

What I meant to say is

0:00 Servers recieve results only. no work units sent out

0:05 - 0:59 Servers send and receive as normal.

Jim

My reply wasn't against your good thought, FFEM, but to Jim's post here. (and all the posts we had with eachother after that)

Shoot... even say the first 5 minutes of every hour dedicated to the servers recieving only.

That would work, but I would think it might be able to allow more people to upload if it is longer.

---

- cJ

I can kinda see how that statement could be misinterpreted.

What I meant to say is

0:00 Servers recieve results only. no work units sent out

0:05 - 0:59 Servers send and receive as normal.

Jim

My reply wasn't against your good thought, FFEM, but to Jim's post here. (and all the posts we had with eachother after that)

Shoot... even say the first 5 minutes of every hour dedicated to the servers recieving only.

You have no concept on what this would take on the server side, right? Much less the client side! This would result in a complete mess!

I'd explain, but I'm not sure you'd understand the answer!

---

I understand that a longer window would allow more people to upload, but there was some concern about the people on dial-up not being able to download immediately and having to wait.

However, there is one problem that I just thought of... if the upload and download processes are on different machines, none of this will help, will it? The whole idea of this system was to lower the CPU usage during a specified window. But, lowering the CPU on one machine wont have a direct effect on a different machine (for our purposes anyway)

right?

Jim

I can kinda see how that statement could be misinterpreted.

What I meant to say is

0:00 Servers recieve results only. no work units sent out

0:05 - 0:59 Servers send and receive as normal.

Jim

That would work, but I would think it might be able to allow more people to upload if it is longer.[/quote]

---

I understand that a longer window would allow more people to upload, but there was some concern about the people on dial-up not being able to download immediately and having to wait.

However, there is one problem that I just thought of... if the upload and download processes are on different machines, none of this will help, will it? The whole idea of this system was to lower the CPU usage during a specified window. But, lowering the CPU on one machine wont have a direct effect on a different machine (for our purposes anyway)

right?

Jim

I can kinda see how that statement could be misinterpreted.

What I meant to say is

0:00 Servers recieve results only. no work units sent out

0:05 - 0:59 Servers send and receive as normal.

Jim

That would work, but I would think it might be able to allow more people to upload if it is longer.

[/quote]


My understanding is that right now they are on the same machine. If they aren't then no, this will not help. Unless it was done on a network level instead of a server level. But, if the people on there dial up have their machines set to have more than one WU downloaded at a time, then they will have a buffer and it shouldn't matter.

---

- cJ

I can kinda see how that statement could be misinterpreted.

What I meant to say is

0:00 Servers recieve results only. no work units sent out

0:05 - 0:59 Servers send and receive as normal.

Jim

My reply wasn't against your good thought, FFEM, but to Jim's post here. (and all the posts we had with eachother after that)

Shoot... even say the first 5 minutes of every hour dedicated to the servers recieving only.

You have no concept on what this would take on the server side, right? Much less the client side! This would result in a complete mess!

I'd explain, but I'm not sure you'd understand the answer!

Why don't you just go on and tell us, so that we can listen to the all knowing. If there is a true problem with this idea, I would like to know. However, I would like to hear it from someone who works on the project, writing the scripts.

---

- cJ

My understanding is that right now they are on the same machine. If they aren't then no, this will not help. Unless it was done on a network level instead of a server level. But, if the people on there dial up have their machines set to have more than one WU downloaded at a time, then they will have a buffer and it shouldn't matter.

it's been good discussing this with you. I think it's about time for me to give up for the night and see if I can get some sleep.

Oh, BTW, check your signature. Your team banner is showing an error.

Jim

---

My understanding is that right now they are on the same machine. If they aren't then no, this will not help. Unless it was done on a network level instead of a server level. But, if the people on there dial up have their machines set to have more than one WU downloaded at a time, then they will have a buffer and it shouldn't matter.

it's been good discussing this with you. I think it's about time for me to give up for the night and see if I can get some sleep.

Oh, BTW, check your signature. Your team banner is showing an error.

Jim

Already fixed.

---

- cJ

I think it's about time for me to give up for the night and see if I can get some sleep.

Jim

/me sends Nurse Fuzzy that way. Way better than Nurse Rita. ;)

---

Whoo Hoo!!!!

:D

I think it's about time for me to give up for the night and see if I can get some sleep.

Jim

/me sends Nurse Fuzzy that way. Way better than Nurse Rita. ;)

---

Whoo Hoo!!!!

:D

I think it's about time for me to give up for the night and see if I can get some sleep.

Jim

/me sends Nurse Fuzzy that way. Way better than Nurse Rita. ;)

Good Night.

---

- cJ