why am I getting old WU's?

Message boards : Number crunching : why am I getting old WU's?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile MattDavis
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Nov 99
Posts: 919
Credit: 934,161
RAC: 0
United States
Message 165518 - Posted: 10 Sep 2005, 6:02:53 UTC - in response to Message 165516.  

yes i read Matts reply previously, probably I have to clarify or add a word the other in my previous question of: were there any other opinions told/offered from someone other person that any procedure expected about a right/other timely based wu distribution?

Well, since Matt is the guy who actually loads the tapes, I'm not quite sure why you would want to hear from any other person on that subject. If you don't want to believe what he says, that's up to you.



I think he meant me.
-----
ID: 165518 · Report as offensive
Profile dbrinza
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 31 May 99
Posts: 60
Credit: 16,887,043
RAC: 269
United States
Message 165551 - Posted: 10 Sep 2005, 7:00:23 UTC

Orgil:

I joined seti@home BOINC on Aug16. Of the 70 WU's I've received, 49 are from 2003 and the remainder are from 2004. In terms of "freshness", most of my WU's were sent within minutes to hours after being created from the "old" original telescope tapes.

During this outage, I'm processing WU's on SETI@HOME Classic. The current WU in process is from 2004, but I've seen 2003 WUs on Classic recently as well.

We all get WU's from the same processing pipeline. Take a look in your results and view a few of the other users that process the same WUs you receive. You'll find some "old-timers" with thousands of classic units as well as newcomers in the mix.

ID: 165551 · Report as offensive
Profile Dorsai
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 7 Sep 04
Posts: 474
Credit: 4,504,838
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 165564 - Posted: 10 Sep 2005, 9:51:40 UTC - in response to Message 165551.  

I joined seti@home BOINC on Aug16. Of the 70 WU's I've received, 49 are from 2003 and the remainder are from 2004.


which gives 21 from 04. 21/70 = 30% from '04.

On my machines I currently have 56 WUs, 16 are from 04. 16/56 = 29% from '04.

I see no "conspiracy" here. Same ratio of '03:'04 wus.

This ties in well with the fact that there are 5 instances of the splitter. The top 5 tapes being split contain one from '04, and four from '03, which (all other things being equal) would give an estimated 20% of WUs from '04.

The numbers seem to make sence to me.




Foamy is "Lord and Master".
(Oh, + some Classic WUs too.)
ID: 165564 · Report as offensive
1mp0£173
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 8423
Credit: 356,897
RAC: 0
United States
Message 165639 - Posted: 10 Sep 2005, 15:27:30 UTC - in response to Message 165509.  

yes i read Matts reply previously, probably I have to clarify or add a word the other in my previous question of: were there any other opinions told/offered from someone other person that any procedure expected about a right/other timely based wu distribution? I guess we are experiencing some cultural clush thing that in one kind of culture people understands right meaning through skipped word in other they think only they are always right let's correct him something.
so let's drop this [why am I getting old WU's?] subject it is getting realy boring.

"newer" tapes are no more (or less) likely to have what we're looking for than "older" tapes. The order is completely unimportant.
ID: 165639 · Report as offensive
Astro
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Apr 02
Posts: 8026
Credit: 600,015
RAC: 0
Message 165643 - Posted: 10 Sep 2005, 15:29:51 UTC
Last modified: 10 Sep 2005, 15:30:33 UTC

You know? I've reread this and maybe Orgil is trying to say he/she thinks it would be better if WU were done in chronological order, rather than in a random fashion.
ID: 165643 · Report as offensive
Profile Dorsai
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 7 Sep 04
Posts: 474
Credit: 4,504,838
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 165669 - Posted: 10 Sep 2005, 16:34:50 UTC - in response to Message 165643.  

You know? I've reread this and maybe Orgil is trying to say he/she thinks it would be better if WU were done in chronological order, rather than in a random fashion.


Perhaps.

But it seems totally irrelevant in which order they are done, as no one knows which tape "might" contain the signal we are looking for.
It might be in one made yesterday, or one made in 2003.
So random is as valid an order as chronological.

Foamy is "Lord and Master".
(Oh, + some Classic WUs too.)
ID: 165669 · Report as offensive
Astro
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Apr 02
Posts: 8026
Credit: 600,015
RAC: 0
Message 165724 - Posted: 10 Sep 2005, 18:21:24 UTC

While I was searching old posts for another thread I found this:

80) Message boards : : SETI@home Science : New WUs are from 2003???
Posted 92 days ago by Matt Lebofsky
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This always comes up when I throw old tapes into the workunit splitters. Sometimes we have a block of old tapes that never made it into the splitters for one reason or another. It's all fairly random. I have a big pile of tapes by my desk and when we need more data I basically close my eyes and grab one. Well not really, but the result is the same. Then I say, "Oh look - some data from 2003. Fancy that." I actually have some tapes from 1999 in there that I think are suspect (potential RFI issues and whatnot) but for kicks I may split one of those if we are desparate for data.

In terms of the science, order of tape splitting doesn't matter, because we don't know when the interesting signals happened.

- Matt
ID: 165724 · Report as offensive
Profile Kajunfisher
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Mar 05
Posts: 1407
Credit: 126,476
RAC: 0
United States
Message 165728 - Posted: 10 Sep 2005, 18:25:46 UTC - in response to Message 165724.  

While I was searching old posts for another thread I found this:

80) Message boards : : SETI@home Science : New WUs are from 2003???
Posted 92 days ago by Matt Lebofsky
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This always comes up when I throw old tapes into the workunit splitters. Sometimes we have a block of old tapes that never made it into the splitters for one reason or another. It's all fairly random. I have a big pile of tapes by my desk and when we need more data I basically close my eyes and grab one. Well not really, but the result is the same. Then I say, "Oh look - some data from 2003. Fancy that." I actually have some tapes from 1999 in there that I think are suspect (potential RFI issues and whatnot) but for kicks I may split one of those if we are desparate for data.

In terms of the science, order of tape splitting doesn't matter, because we don't know when the interesting signals happened.

- Matt



Tony, Copy & Paste that to a text file, that keeps popping up so often...
ID: 165728 · Report as offensive
Astro
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Apr 02
Posts: 8026
Credit: 600,015
RAC: 0
Message 165731 - Posted: 10 Sep 2005, 18:34:16 UTC

your right,, I should, but i'm stupid and keep spending time finding these same old boring tired posts OVER and OVER.

LOL
ID: 165731 · Report as offensive
1mp0£173
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 8423
Credit: 356,897
RAC: 0
United States
Message 165758 - Posted: 10 Sep 2005, 19:31:34 UTC - in response to Message 165724.  

While I was searching old posts for another thread I found this:

80) Message boards : : SETI@home Science : New WUs are from 2003???
Posted 92 days ago by Matt Lebofsky
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This always comes up when I throw old tapes into the workunit splitters. Sometimes we have a block of old tapes that never made it into the splitters for one reason or another. It's all fairly random. I have a big pile of tapes by my desk and when we need more data I basically close my eyes and grab one. Well not really, but the result is the same. Then I say, "Oh look - some data from 2003. Fancy that." I actually have some tapes from 1999 in there that I think are suspect (potential RFI issues and whatnot) but for kicks I may split one of those if we are desparate for data.

In terms of the science, order of tape splitting doesn't matter, because we don't know when the interesting signals happened.

- Matt

In another of Matt's posts, he explains that noisy work units tend to come in batches so splitting in chronological order is likely to have everyone getting the infamous quick, noisy work units -- they get returned quickly, which means more downloads, more uploads, and next thing you know the project is out of work and splitting as fast as possible.

Selecting tapes randomly avoids that a bit.
ID: 165758 · Report as offensive
Profile Kajunfisher
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Mar 05
Posts: 1407
Credit: 126,476
RAC: 0
United States
Message 165763 - Posted: 10 Sep 2005, 19:34:53 UTC

How about we donate a bigger box? ;-)
ID: 165763 · Report as offensive
1mp0£173
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 8423
Credit: 356,897
RAC: 0
United States
Message 165764 - Posted: 10 Sep 2005, 19:38:28 UTC - in response to Message 165763.  

How about we donate a bigger box? ;-)

I've seen some really big ones at the local home appliance store.

I'll bet we could find a place nearby that'd probably let us have it instead of recycling the cardboard.
ID: 165764 · Report as offensive
Profile Kajunfisher
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Mar 05
Posts: 1407
Credit: 126,476
RAC: 0
United States
Message 165768 - Posted: 10 Sep 2005, 19:43:43 UTC - in response to Message 165764.  

How about we donate a bigger box? ;-)

I've seen some really big ones at the local home appliance store.

I'll bet we could find a place nearby that'd probably let us have it instead of recycling the cardboard.


Perhaps a refridgerator sized box?

Maybe we could start a lottery thread as to which tape will be next? ;-)
ID: 165768 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20621
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 165805 - Posted: 10 Sep 2005, 20:26:40 UTC - in response to Message 165763.  
Last modified: 10 Sep 2005, 20:27:18 UTC

How about we donate a bigger box? ;-)

EXCELLENT idea!

Especially so if the box contains 5TBytes or so of SCSI RAID disks ;)

Cheers,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 165805 · Report as offensive
Profile Jord
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Jun 99
Posts: 15184
Credit: 4,362,181
RAC: 3
Netherlands
Message 165809 - Posted: 10 Sep 2005, 20:31:34 UTC - in response to Message 165643.  

You know? I've reread this and maybe Orgil is trying to say he/she thinks it would be better if WU were done in chronological order, rather than in a random fashion.

And bar Matt's post you found again, even if we were to go for chronological order from this moment onwards, the tapes would still be from 2003 and we'd always be lagging behind 2 years to 6 months.

Seeing it happily and without further downtime, September 2005 will not happen until at least March 2006.
ID: 165809 · Report as offensive
1mp0£173
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 8423
Credit: 356,897
RAC: 0
United States
Message 165827 - Posted: 10 Sep 2005, 21:00:21 UTC - in response to Message 165805.  

How about we donate a bigger box? ;-)

EXCELLENT idea!

Especially so if the box contains 5TBytes or so of SCSI RAID disks ;)

Cheers,
Martin

You could get a whole bunch of obsolete 1 megabyte SCSI drives in a cardboard refrigerator box.
ID: 165827 · Report as offensive
Profile Kajunfisher
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Mar 05
Posts: 1407
Credit: 126,476
RAC: 0
United States
Message 165832 - Posted: 10 Sep 2005, 21:08:40 UTC

What do we do for prizes?

What are the dimensions of a 1-5TB drive? Chances of picking it first? Should we start a thread for this?

Maybe if someone can come through on the t-shirts we could possibly do a "hat" deal or more.

If there is enough interest...
ID: 165832 · Report as offensive
Profile mikey
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Dec 99
Posts: 4215
Credit: 3,474,603
RAC: 0
United States
Message 166600 - Posted: 12 Sep 2005, 2:51:27 UTC - in response to Message 165809.  

You know? I've reread this and maybe Orgil is trying to say he/she thinks it would be better if WU were done in chronological order, rather than in a random fashion.

And bar Matt's post you found again, even if we were to go for chronological order from this moment onwards, the tapes would still be from 2003 and we'd always be lagging behind 2 years to 6 months.

Seeing it happily and without further downtime, September 2005 will not happen until at least March 2006.

AND when the new version comes out we could start all over again! The new version does twice as much Science on each unit as we have been doing up to now.
That means that "the unit" could have been processed and we just didn't have the technical expertise to know it.


ID: 166600 · Report as offensive
Profile Martin A. Boegelund
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 00
Posts: 292
Credit: 387,485
RAC: 1
Denmark
Message 166667 - Posted: 12 Sep 2005, 7:06:29 UTC - in response to Message 165167.  

Orgil,
Why would you think that "old" data is "no good"?


LOL!
If ET decides to talk to us, we don't want to hear yeasteryears news! We demand the most up to date speaches! Heck, if ET currently is telling us what to do about the sky-high oil-prices today, we wont hear it until 2007 or so! Think of all the money that could be saved!

;-)

"Are you suggesting coconuts migrate?"

ID: 166667 · Report as offensive
Profile Pooh Bear 27
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Jul 03
Posts: 3224
Credit: 4,603,826
RAC: 0
United States
Message 166704 - Posted: 12 Sep 2005, 10:51:32 UTC - in response to Message 166667.  
Last modified: 12 Sep 2005, 10:53:14 UTC

Orgil,
Why would you think that "old" data is "no good"?


LOL!
If ET decides to talk to us, we don't want to hear yeasteryears news! We demand the most up to date speaches! Heck, if ET currently is telling us what to do about the sky-high oil-prices today, we wont hear it until 2007 or so! Think of all the money that could be saved!

;-)


If you think of the cosmos as being millions of years old, and seeing stars that are thousands of light years away, and sound tranvels slower than light, the signals when we finally hear could be very old. So, what is the difference if we find it in 1999 tapes, or 2006 tapes? Plus how much longer after it is found will it take us to translate it, or figure out where it came? What if that civilization has already died off, when we finally hear it?

Just a few thoughts to ponder.



My movie https://vimeo.com/manage/videos/502242
ID: 166704 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : why am I getting old WU's?


 
©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.