This isn't a sarcastic question. I really have no idea what's going on since I usually only superficially browse the forums.

Everyone seems to be angry and I don't know why. Important people also appear to be leaving, and I hear references to heavy-handed moderator influence.

---

-----

IMHO, egos & hurt feelings.

---

I didn't catch most of the events, but I think the following went on:

There were some flame wars getting nasty, driving people off the boards.

As a consequence, moderation was introduced, threads got deleted and people banned temporarily.

The current moderation policy seems to be overly strict:

As soon as you post something that might be controversial, your posts or the entire thread will disappear.

Some posts and threads that were critical of the current situation have been deleted, what in turn offended the people that posted.


Regards Hans


P.S: Arrogant remarks by a certain mod also didn't help the situation....

---

This isn't a sarcastic question. I really have no idea what's going on since I usually only superficially browse the forums.

I think it has a lot to do with the Law of Unintended Consequences and maybe we (as a group) are a little too self-important.

Seriously. Anyone who was reading these fora a year ago knows all about claimed credit and granted credit, and how poorly the benchmark predicted actual results.

Now everyone is angry because the project addressed the issue.

I'm not going to address the issue of personalities, aside from my comment on self-importance. When one starts taking things like this too seriously, it's time to take a vacation.

---

This isn't a sarcastic question. I really have no idea what's going on since I usually only superficially browse the forums.

Then why don't you read 1st before starting a new thread and get yourself up to speed????

Than if you have a question that is not covered you can start a new thread.

People aren't even taking the RIGHT THINGS seriously. In another thread I just saw a guy complaining and going on strike until he gets the old, short work units back!

---

-----

The only thing that get me back!

IS

SHORT WORKUNITS !

Please !

---

Now everyone is angry because the project addressed the issue.

Please don't generalize with such a large brush... "Everyone" is not "angry" because of the different credit scheme...because "everyone" includes me and I'm not "angry" about that. The issue I have at the moment is every so often burning a lot of CPU time on a unit that ends up with a computation error. That is wasteful. It hasn't reached a level yet that I'm "angry" about it, I'd just like someone to do something about it or give a reasonable explanation as to why that's the way it's going to be and let me make up my mind as to if I want to accept that or not...

Brian

---

I am leaving this seti, what ever you say is ok for me, MattDavis

Regards Cya2, if I’ am the guy.
I take the RIGHT very THINGS seriously

---

Also Not Angry !

When I was a kid my dad said...
"There's two things that will cause arguments
and the loss of friends. Politics and Religion"
That was before Computers, Distributed computing,
BOINC and SETI@HOME.

We are all here doing this by choice. Even Matt !

We're here to help distributed computing technology
AND as a byproduct maybe find an ET signal, cure a disease,
measure a gravitational wave and above all, have fun.
You can even have a pretty neat screensaver if you want.
Just how cool is all that ?

What we're not here for, is to compete for credits,
make money, win a trophy, make optimised programs,
overclock and blow up our PC's. And then get all upset
in the forums because your's not getting credit for these
activities. I have no problem at all that these things are
done by folks. It's just not for me.

Unless you enjoy those things, they are all stressfull
and taking days, weeks, months and maybe years off of
your life.

If I thought that my blood pressure was ever raised by
even one point. Or I was taking one second off of my life
by doing this. I wouldn't be doing it.

Neither should anyone else ! But that's what choice is
all about in this world. I smoke and I know the risks
fully and won't be pissed when I get sick. Won't sue
a tobacco company because THEY got me hooked.
I paid for my first pack of butts.

If you can't find a way to enjoy this project.
Find another one. Or another hobby all together.

Life is too short already. And there are so many things
out there to actually be angry about.

Steve

---

And what's all the fuss about smaller/larger work units and
the great degree os variation in the time they take to crunch ?
Every enhanced unit I have run have taken between 7 and 7.5 hours!
What am I missing here?

Is the variability due to the optimized apps folks are running
or overclocking ?

If so, why is this BOINC's or S@H's problem.
Seems to me if you don't run the delivered software
or you try to run your CPU faster than the manufacturer
thought was best for the machine, it's totally YOUR problem.

Not BOINC's.
Not SETI @ HOME's
Certainly, Not mine.

Be angry if you like. But put blame where it belongs when
things YOU did go badly.

Hey !!! I got angry... sorta ;-)

Have a good weekend all.
Gonna turn on the SS and slow down a WU or two.

Steve

---

Yep, but if a work unit take about 45 hours, you get angry.
No matter what: 335089759 . And 5 of those, on a same computer . Grrr…………..
And someone finish it in 49,554 seconds.

cya2

---

Also Not Angry !

When I was a kid my dad said...
"There's two things that will cause arguments
and the loss of friends. Politics and Religion"
That was before Computers, Distributed computing,
BOINC and SETI@HOME.

Basically, the whole problem is politics and religion.

---

Yep, but if a work unit take about 45 hours, you get angry.
No matter what: 335089759 . And 5 of those, on a same computer . Grrr…………..
And someone finish it in 49,554 seconds.

cya2

Old units = smaller = LESS SCIENCE DONE

You are more interested in small units than the science.

---

-----

Now everyone is angry because the project addressed the issue.

Please don't generalize with such a large brush... "Everyone" is not "angry" because of the different credit scheme...because "everyone" includes me and I'm not "angry" about that. The issue I have at the moment is every so often burning a lot of CPU time on a unit that ends up with a computation error. That is wasteful. It hasn't reached a level yet that I'm "angry" about it, I'd just like someone to do something about it or give a reasonable explanation as to why that's the way it's going to be and let me make up my mind as to if I want to accept that or not...

Brian

Nice to know I'm not the only one.

Your "lost credit" issue looks more like a bug, and talking constructively about bugs will likely get them fixed. Bugs are not "errors of commission" -- they aren't something that someone specifically did to somehow hurt someone else.

Changing to FPOPS as a way of calculating credit was intentional, and I think SETI did a good job trying to make the system more accurate and not change the result -- which is probably harder to do than it sounds.

---

And what's all the fuss about smaller/larger work units and
the great degree os variation in the time they take to crunch ?
Every enhanced unit I have run have taken between 7 and 7.5 hours!
What am I missing here?

I don't know what you're missing, maybe it's just coincidence, but there is currently pretty huge variation in WU crunch time depending on angle range. Just taking a random look at my results, I see

21,203; 16,909, 8,221 & 6381.80 seconds on subsequent WU's on the same PC.

Digging a little further I see times as low as a few hundred to fifteen hundred seconds, and as high as 37k seconds.

CYA2,

Lets take a deep breath and see if we can as a group
figure out why you are having these long times.
I can tell you that on my notebook Pent M 1.6 GHZ
in both the Beta testins as well as now, the times got
longer. But by less than double. About 5 hours to 7hrs min.
7.5hrs max. Always in that range. Average about 7:10

So lets go.... You were gonna quit anyway. So why not
kill a little time seeing what's up.

Step 1. ( Instruction )
Go make a tea and come back to ONE machine that is
causing you pain right now.

Step 2. ( Question )
Before Enhanced, did the times run around 25 hours/unit ?
I ask because you stated that they take 45 hours now.

Step 3. ( Questions )
What's your OS
What's your CPU
What's the speed of the CPU

Step 4. ( Instructions )
A. Cut and paste a reply to Steps 1-3
B. Finish your tea
C. Clean the teacup and put it away
D. Watch some TV

Step 5. ( Important Instruction )
SMILE A LITTLE

Steve

---

Yep, but if a work unit take about 45 hours, you get angry.
No matter what: 335089759 . And 5 of those, on a same computer . Grrr…………..
And someone finish it in 49,554 seconds.

cya2

Old units = smaller = LESS SCIENCE DONE

You are more interested in small units than the science.

Science is good, but when you want you know, when a computer left a building, is bad! At work……………….

Step 1:

http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/show_host_detail.php?hostid=2140943

Step 2: 1-2= 0.5 hour.

Step 3

http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/show_host_detail.php?hostid=2140943

Step 4

Working on it !

:)

---

And what's all the fuss about smaller/larger work units and
the great degree os variation in the time they take to crunch ?
Every enhanced unit I have run have taken between 7 and 7.5 hours!
What am I missing here?

I don't know what you're missing, maybe it's just coincidence, but there is currently pretty huge variation in WU crunch time depending on angle range. Just taking a random look at my results, I see

21,203; 16,909, 8,221 & 6381.80 seconds on subsequent WU's on the same PC.

Digging a little further I see times as low as a few hundred to fifteen hundred seconds, and as high as 37k seconds.

According to this post there is about a 12:1 ratio between the fastest work units (which go faster than 4.x standard) and the longest enhanced work units.

The longest work units should give 12x the credit granted to the shortest ones, and that can probably stand some improvement, but it's much more consistent than it was before.

---

Ned,
You running optimized? or Stock ?
S

---