Sticky post for current version?

Author	Message
keyboards Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 14 Jul 00 Posts: 66 Credit: 492,766 RAC: 0	Message 306283 - Posted: 15 May 2006, 13:02:38 UTC Is it possible for one of the mods to keep a "sticky" for the latest version released (or at least post it on the front page)? For those running optimized apps. it is almost essential to allow "new" app WUs to downlaod. *!!Stupidity should be PAINFUL!!* ID: 306283 ·

Mr.Pernod Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 8 Feb 04 Posts: 350 Credit: 1,015,988 RAC: 0	Message 306285 - Posted: 15 May 2006, 13:03:34 UTC application overview ID: 306285 ·

keyboards Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 14 Jul 00 Posts: 66 Credit: 492,766 RAC: 0	Message 306353 - Posted: 15 May 2006, 14:29:45 UTC - in response to Message 306285. application overview Windows X86 shows 5.12 yet I am getting both 5.12 and 5.13 WUs. Beta is up to 5.15. So much for the application overview. *!!Stupidity should be PAINFUL!!* ID: 306353 ·

Mr.Pernod Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 8 Feb 04 Posts: 350 Credit: 1,015,988 RAC: 0	Message 306365 - Posted: 15 May 2006, 14:43:02 UTC Last modified: 15 May 2006, 14:43:19 UTC well, it IS the official listing, so I suspect a sticky on the forums wouldn't be much more up-to-date. btw, any chance you are running crunch3rs optimized application with an app_info.xml that includes a few lines for 5.13 on your P4 1.6? WU 77831013 is showing your host to run 5.13 through Crunch3rs 5.12 while the other hosts are using the official 5.12.... ID: 306365 ·

keyboards Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 14 Jul 00 Posts: 66 Credit: 492,766 RAC: 0	Message 306462 - Posted: 15 May 2006, 16:35:36 UTC - in response to Message 306365. well, it IS the official listing, so I suspect a sticky on the forums wouldn't be much more up-to-date. btw, any chance you are running crunch3rs optimized application with an app_info.xml that includes a few lines for 5.13 on your P4 1.6? WU 77831013 is showing your host to run 5.13 through Crunch3rs 5.12 while the other hosts are using the official 5.12.... Actually both machines (p4 1.4 and p4 2.8) are running Crunch3r optimized. Only running "standard" enhanced on my Beta test machine (and yes I belive I added the 5.13 to the appinfo.xml per the example in the number crunching posts). *!!Stupidity should be PAINFUL!!* ID: 306462 ·

Mr.Pernod Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 8 Feb 04 Posts: 350 Credit: 1,015,988 RAC: 0	Message 306475 - Posted: 15 May 2006, 16:50:25 UTC ok, here's how I see it (someone correct me if I'm wrong, please) due to the current version-discrepancies between different systems/operating systems, the splitter is giving out work that has both version numbers in the header-information. your client with the adapted app_info.xml sees 5.13 as the newest version and ignores the 5.12 version-information in the result and crunches the work with the "spoofed" 5.13 (crunch3rs 5.12) on your machine and reports this back as being crunched by 5.13 ID: 306475 ·

keyboards Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 14 Jul 00 Posts: 66 Credit: 492,766 RAC: 0	Message 306550 - Posted: 15 May 2006, 18:33:46 UTC - in response to Message 306475. ok, here's how I see it (someone correct me if I'm wrong, please) due to the current version-discrepancies between different systems/operating systems, the splitter is giving out work that has both version numbers in the header-information. your client with the adapted app_info.xml sees 5.13 as the newest version and ignores the 5.12 version-information in the result and crunches the work with the "spoofed" 5.13 (crunch3rs 5.12) on your machine and reports this back as being crunched by 5.13 That would be reasonable except that my P4 2.8G has the exact same app_info.xml as my P4 1.4G and it is only downloading 4.18 and 5.12 - no sign of a 5.13. *!!Stupidity should be PAINFUL!!* ID: 306550 ·

Mr.Pernod Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 8 Feb 04 Posts: 350 Credit: 1,015,988 RAC: 0	Message 306554 - Posted: 15 May 2006, 18:39:12 UTC - in response to Message 306550. Last modified: 15 May 2006, 18:40:05 UTC That would be reasonable except that my P4 2.8G has the exact same app_info.xml as my P4 1.4G and it is only downloading 4.18 and 5.12 - no sign of a 5.13. interesting. your P4 2.8 is still crunching on results that were released a couple of days before 5.13 was released for the Mac OS, while your P4 1.4 is crunching results from the day 5.13 was released or newer. ID: 306554 ·

Richard Haselgrove Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 14656 Credit: 200,643,578 RAC: 874	Message 306556 - Posted: 15 May 2006, 18:40:08 UTC - in response to Message 306475. ok, here's how I see it (someone correct me if I'm wrong, please) due to the current version-discrepancies between different systems/operating systems, the splitter is giving out work that has both version numbers in the header-information. your client with the adapted app_info.xml sees 5.13 as the newest version and ignores the 5.12 version-information in the result and crunches the work with the "spoofed" 5.13 (crunch3rs 5.12) on your machine and reports this back as being crunched by 5.13 It could even be worse than that. Chrunch3r posted that he'd seen talk of versions up to 5.17 being tested. I have two old Win 98 machines which don't take kindly to being restarted. So I put references for everything up to 5.17 into the app_info.xml: and immediately downloaded (apperently) v5.17 work! Of course, the slowest machines got the longest work (60% after 24 hours) so don't hold your breath for any results. I'm beginning to think that the application version number shown in BOINC Manager (or in my case, BoincView) may be a pure artefact of the XML, and not telling us anything about what the scheduler is offering. Also, I looked in the WU data files and couldn't find anything about app versions in their XML headers. Anybody got the definitive answer to this one? ID: 306556 ·

Fuzzy Hollynoodles Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 9659 Credit: 251,998 RAC: 0	Message 306691 - Posted: 15 May 2006, 21:23:27 UTC - in response to Message 306556. It could even be worse than that. Chrunch3r posted that he'd seen talk of versions up to 5.17 being tested. I have two old Win 98 machines which don't take kindly to being restarted. So I put references for everything up to 5.17 into the app_info.xml: and immediately downloaded (apperently) v5.17 work! Of course, the slowest machines got the longest work (60% after 24 hours) so don't hold your breath for any results. I'm beginning to think that the application version number shown in BOINC Manager (or in my case, BoincView) may be a pure artefact of the XML, and not telling us anything about what the scheduler is offering. Also, I looked in the WU data files and couldn't find anything about app versions in their XML headers. Anybody got the definitive answer to this one? I'm testing a 5.15 at the moment over at Beta. And I think Crunch3r is right, they still have versions to test. So I think, and this is my oppinion only, that the 5.12 won't be the final version. "I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me ID: 306691 ·

keyboards Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 14 Jul 00 Posts: 66 Credit: 492,766 RAC: 0	Message 306709 - Posted: 15 May 2006, 21:39:21 UTC - in response to Message 306691. It could even be worse than that. Chrunch3r posted that he'd seen talk of versions up to 5.17 being tested. I have two old Win 98 machines which don't take kindly to being restarted. So I put references for everything up to 5.17 into the app_info.xml: and immediately downloaded (apperently) v5.17 work! Of course, the slowest machines got the longest work (60% after 24 hours) so don't hold your breath for any results. I'm beginning to think that the application version number shown in BOINC Manager (or in my case, BoincView) may be a pure artefact of the XML, and not telling us anything about what the scheduler is offering. Also, I looked in the WU data files and couldn't find anything about app versions in their XML headers. Anybody got the definitive answer to this one? I'm testing a 5.15 at the moment over at Beta. And I think Crunch3r is right, they still have versions to test. So I think, and this is my oppinion only, that the 5.12 won't be the final version. I agree with Fuzzy - I have 5.14 and 5.15 in my que at BETA and who knows what the final version will be. *!!Stupidity should be PAINFUL!!* ID: 306709 ·

Mr.Pernod Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 8 Feb 04 Posts: 350 Credit: 1,015,988 RAC: 0	Message 306724 - Posted: 15 May 2006, 21:48:17 UTC I agree, I don't think we'll see a "final" version this week. what versionnumber it will be? dunno, your guess is as good as mine. which brings us back to the original idea of the thread. I don't think a link on the homepage or a sticky with a link to the Applications Page is a bad idea. it will give the people who are using the optimized applications a signal to check their queues and the optimizers homepages. ID: 306724 ·

©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.