The point is we donate our CPU time voluntarily to do the work that Seti asks of us volunteers, yet Seti is always down, and I mean down when compared to the other Boinc applications. They may have problems once in a while, but not constantly as Seti does. I am about to drop Seti and just do the work of the other Boinc projects


To the person, who pretty much posted that that the world does not end if they cannot upload a few Seti Wu's, I would like to say to you that I hope we don't make contact with alien life anytime soon as it would probaly bore you.


You too, Good Morning!

Take a look around any games/programs forums and see how many people neglect to read the readme text where things are explained. before you bring up that splendid idea.

...But no, most will not even try to figure out how things work, but they will manage to come on here and say that the old was Better!

Windows 95 was better than 3.11, Windows 98 was better than 95. XP is apparently better than 2000. I'll always ask them why they want to upgrade their whole computer, hardware and software, but refuse to go with a better program to find Seti. If someone can answer that to me, I'll stop asking.

Plain. Simple.

There needs to be better documentation for folk to refer to on how it works. Wiki is a start so well done Paul.

I still think a model of the whole system would be appropriate to highlight weaknesses and to better identify the affects of points of failure; thus improving the ruggedness of the system.

I understand the design goals of doing other projects - some people only want SETI.

To address the High Priest / Priestesses & Gurus (aka Cheer Leaders) criticisms of the above or anything else I say:

- This is everyone's forum.....you do not own it.
- All are free to express their views and should not be the subject of petty harassment and rubbishing.
- Your view is a view....make it...its no better than anyone else's and no worse........don't deprecate other peoples' views.

I agree with those who say to close SETI Classic ASAP, where there is a reasonable timeframe for the transition and that it's announced properly to all.

But Ageless said something that made me think... maybe it's a good idea, you decide: why not zip up WU's - both uploads and downloads? Of course, the server and client should be responsible for automaticly packing and unpacking the ZIPs.

The main problem is connecting to the UL/DL server, not bandwith - although that is also stressed - but when you have one file to deal with, instead of 15 or 200 or whatever, it should be easier to clear the queue too. Besides, a zipped file is usually also smaller than its individual members combined size. Plus, it would be fewer connection requests when users had only one file to upload.

Maybe another thing to consider also: why not give bandwidth depending on the client's needs? The definition on "need" can be a lot and I don't mean to discriminate or favorize anyone, but one have to realize that some are in greater need than others.

People with big farms, maybe spread wide geographically and 400 uploads or more, can't easily just press the "Retry Now" button on every WU - as those who have one machine and a handful of WU's. (Myself, I have 3 machines and with lots of patience I have managed to UL/DL all units so far.) Also, people who are in risk of not meeting deadline(s) because of server problems, should maybe get a temporary higher bandwith priority, just to make it easier to reach the deadline(s). The client and server could arrange such things between them on the fly - depending on that the client gets connection once in a while.

Please don't jump down my throat for suggesting solutions. We need to discuss these things I beleive, and I want your opinions, but please consentrate on the issues and not the person(s). This thread is heated enough as it is.. And Yes, I know about the arguments about making your cache size to fit your needs and that it's your own fault if you miss deadlines, and that you can always attach to another project, and all that... but we also have to realize that the server has problems here and you cannot blame users for that.

Tigher; I didn't know that the developers was already thinking about this, but that only shows that ideas are seldom unique. :) It's great if they find any improvements in this area.

Paul; you're right about that we don't know yet exactly what the problem about dropped packets is. And I have also heard several times (I don't remember from where) who said the UL/DL server is CPU bound. So we'll see which solutions (if any) are feasable in the end. I have absolute confidence that the developers are on top of the situation. In the mean time, we mortals can fabulate around the topic some more. ;)

Here's another idea (probably not unique either): you know those phone queues, where an answering machine tells you what your place in the queue is? Maybe the UL/DL server could do something similar... The client could display its place number in the queue, so that the user may relax a bit - knowing his/hers turn is coming and (approximately) when.

Then, when the connection is made eventually, and it's your turn to talk to the server, just maybe the client/server chat should not end with that the server hangs up abruptedly and go the next client before the packet has been re-tried a couple of times.

The anologue to this situation is when you wait a long time in a phone queue, and when you finally reach a person then he/she just hangs up because he/she can't hear you properly within 1,5 seconds or so... and you have to start all over and call back... I'm sure most of us know how frustrating that can be! :)

Paul
Thank you for your reply.

I am saddened to think that you feel in any way the need to respond to this. You are, quite candidly, the last person on these forums at whom I would ever frown.

I both respect and admire your almost single handed efforts to improve this project with the limitations you have often referred to (again here) and the constraints you have when it comes to the development team and their willingness or otherwise to walk a wise path.

I stand by everything I said and I thank you for your comment. You make your points and you back them up with fact or considered opinion which is always qualified as such when needed. I have no problem with this at all. Others do not!

In respect of the model my maths is not good enough. Straight and simple and already said. My suggestion was that a UCB undergrad be asigned. Ideal work for them. So I would if I could but I cannot. I can contribute to ideas around it of course and have made many such suggestions here already in other threads.

In respect of those that want only seti. Yes you are right but equally I think you may be wrong. They have no choice but to move from classic to boinc. They believe this is "being done to them" not for them. They did not want anything else and now they are told they have to or they will have spare CPU cycles.

I have not called you a cheer leader and I ask that you let me know if you think I have. I am so sad you put yourself in this class and hopefully this is a two sides of the pond mis interpretation of cheer leader. The Titanic was unsinkable....the company said so...the architect said so.....so did the cheer leaders who were the last seen on deck rearranging deck chairs. A cheer leader is never neutral....never......and is there to get support for one team or one argument against another. So.....that's this side of the pond. What's your side say?

I will go no further until you let me know as the second part of your response is based purely on how you have interpretted a word pair and then applied it, I think unnecessarily, to yourself.

Tell me if you think my analysis is wrong?

?

Paul
Thank you for your reply.

you are welcome ... :)

I am saddened to think that you feel in any way the need to respond to this. You are, quite candidly, the last person on these forums at whom I would ever frown.

I knew I did not separate the parts well enough and I beg pardon. No, you have not, others have. So, I was responding in part directly to your post and ALSO to the general tone. So, my fault for not being precise enough or clear enough. I, like you say in the post I am now quoting from, also like the debate and the exploration of the ideas. Case in point is the one on data compression which I did a little thought expiriment and then 4 small test cases ... and the basic conclusion is still *MAYBE*... All we can do now is to maybe recast this as a note to the developers mailing list to make the suggestion.

The capability to zip/unzip is in BOINC, I just don't know what the issues are or now hard it would be to make the change. But further thought does seem to make this an idea that has much more merit than I first thought ... especially as the file does NOT have to be decompressed on the Data Server fi I understand things correctly ... so, Maybe I will make the mailing after I wrap this up.

I both respect and admire your almost single handed efforts to improve this project with the limitations you have often referred to (again here) and the constraints you have when it comes to the development team and their willingness or otherwise to walk a wise path.

I stand by everything I said and I thank you for your comment. You make your points and you back them up with fact or considered opinion which is always qualified as such when needed. I have no problem with this at all. Others do not!

Thank you.

In respect of the model my maths is not good enough. Straight and simple and already said. My suggestion was that a UCB undergrad be asigned. Ideal work for them. So I would if I could but I cannot. I can contribute to ideas around it of course and have made many such suggestions here already in other threads.

Well, you are ahead of me. I would not know where to start (and would not spend the time to research a starting point I am too far behind on my corner), but, if you have? Then, lets start there ... even if we cannot finish ... maybe we can start? They may not have a grad student handy ...

In respect of those that want only seti. Yes you are right but equally I think you may be wrong. They have no choice but to move from classic to boinc. They believe this is "being done to them" not for them. They did not want anything else and now they are told they have to or they will have spare CPU cycles.

I think this is where you and I part is only on the conclusion. Yes, it *IS* being done *TO* them. But, the choice is up to them. Volunteer or not volunteer. UCB does not *OWE* anything to the prior participants beyond a thank you. IF, a participant does not like BOINC. Fine. Don't volunteer. Do something else. SETI@Home is moving on. They can, or they can say no. Again, this is the point where we differ. I am a volunteer, I know it and love it. I *KNOW* the project people appreciate us. But, do we really need them to be telling us that they appreciate us, or, doing their part of the project?

My considered choice is that I would rather they spent more time on the project. Not holding my hand. I write documentation ... Tony, bless his heart, spends his time patrolling the forums and directing traffic. Sends me notes or directs me to a post that he thinks could use my help ... others, to numerous to mention do other things ... but the point is ... I volunteer my time, computers, efforts and dreams to the project. But, they owe me NOTHING. Not the time of day, not a message, not even a thank you ... but burried in that part of your post is the implication that UCB and the SETI@Home team *OWES* us something ... they *DON'T* ... sorry, I am getting worked up and shouldn't ...

I have not called you a cheer leader and I ask that you let me know if you think I have. I am so sad you put yourself in this class and hopefully this is a two sides of the pond mis interpretation of cheer leader. The Titanic was unsinkable....the company said so...the architect said so.....so did the cheer leaders who were the last seen on deck rearranging deck chairs. A cheer leader is never neutral....never......and is there to get support for one team or one argument against another. So.....that's this side of the pond. What's your side say?

You did not. But others have. Again, I was not clear, and hungry so, I posted with a simple edit rather than clarity. So, breakfast was good and I apologize for the inadvertant implication that you had.

I will go no further until you let me know as the second part of your response is based purely on how you have interpretted a word pair and then applied it, I think unnecessarily, to yourself.

Well, it has been applied to me and in one sense it is 100% correct because I am passionate about BOINC, I think it is one of the most significant advances in Distributed Computing. I can now participate in 5-10-20-100 projects easily without having to limit myself to one DC project to one computer. And running the risk of running out of work ... so, I accept the term on that basis. I am just disappointed that so many cannot address the issues directly but so quickly degenerate into name calling as a last resort.

And, so, I will likely not continue here ... I see little likelyhood that this is going to turn into a thread with merit ...

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

"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me