Hi, I think this is one for the developers or experts.

Take a look at this Workunit. 3 hosts have reported this with the SAME claimed credit and all got zero. The other 3 which had "SETI@Home Informational message -9 result_overflow" claimed the same or less credit .

There is a 7th result with a deadline of 20 Feb 2007 still out In Progress.

This seems to be unfair in the way credit has not been granted to 3, but granted to others.

Are there any other WUs like this?

This problem of a windows error instead of a -9 overflow msg (noisy unit) is known about and Joe and others are looking into it, on the Beta site.
Hopefully it will be fixed in the next version, and then we will get multi beam data from the new HDD, rather that tape, splitter. This will also mean the data will be from 2007, and stop the queries of why we are crunching old data.

Andy

Here's another example (this one has a deadline tomorrow 10 Feb 2007 9:11:56 UTC). How often do these happen? It seems strange that the ones that got credit claimed 50.70 and got it, the ones that got zero credit claimed 50.68

@Andy. Could you give more details about the beta site thread please. I will try searching. Thanks, Keith

EDIT: I found the beta site message boards, but every thread that I click on gives an error similar to this "Fatal error: Call to a member function getAuthenticator() on a non-object in /disks/setifiler1/home/boincadm/projects/beta/html/user/forum_thread.php on line 21". Will try later, I think part of the beta site is down at the moment.

EDIT: I found the beta site message boards, but every thread that I click on gives an error similar to this "Fatal error: Call to a member function getAuthenticator() on a non-object in /disks/setifiler1/home/boincadm/projects/beta/html/user/forum_thread.php on line 21". Will try later, I think part of the beta site is down at the moment.

If I am not logged in I get that message on both Production and Beta boards of SETI. Looks like something mess up with the authentication.

---

SL

This WU has a similar but different error:

3 results returned, all claimed 27.8
2 granted 27.8 one granted zero.

This WU has a similar but different error:

3 results returned, all claimed 27.8
2 granted 27.8 one granted zero.

The second example you gave is another of the ones where a noisy (overflow - dash 9) result causes some applications to fail with an error, but others - typically the optimised ones - to finish successfully and validate. As Andy has said.

This example, on the other hand, is a different, but also known, problem. Just occasionally, Simon's optimised v1.41 application returns a result just sufficiently different from everyone else's to fail validation. Again, this is a problem that should go away with the next set of released applications. In the meantime, it's slightly irritating, but overall the optimised application is so much better than anything else available that it's better to put up with the very rare dropouts, than to downgrade to a slower app.

This WU has a similar but different error:

3 results returned, all claimed 27.8
2 granted 27.8 one granted zero.

The second example you gave is another of the ones where a noisy (overflow - dash 9) result causes some applications to fail with an error, but others - typically the optimised ones - to finish successfully and validate. As Andy has said.

This example, on the other hand, is a different, but also known, problem. Just occasionally, Simon's optimised v1.41 application returns a result just sufficiently different from everyone else's to fail validation. Again, this is a problem that should go away with the next set of released applications. In the meantime, it's slightly irritating, but overall the optimised application is so much better than anything else available that it's better to put up with the very rare dropouts, than to downgrade to a slower app.

Is the ammount of credit claimed different to the result returned? I tried to follow the threads on the beta message board but can't view them at the moment.

Is the ammount of credit claimed different to the result returned? I tried to follow the threads on the beta message board but can't view them at the moment.

Yes. The result returned is the 9KB - 20KB of scientific data you see being uploaded as soon as a WU has finished crunching (or sometimes not, given the server problems just at the moment!)

The credit claimed is the amount you're asking to be paid for doing the work and submitting the result. For example, if you were a coal-miner, your 'result' would be sacks of coal, and your 'credit claimed' would be dollars, roubles or whatever in your pay packet. But if it turned out that you had weighed in a sack of stones instead of a sack of coal, you wouldn't get paid - different result, no credit!