WOW, this is fantastic..
I really got a seti@home WU. For about 45 minutes ago :-

Due to validation errors/timeouts we're still sending out work at the rate of about 1 workunit every few seconds (though that rate is slowing).

- Matt

---

-- BOINC/SETI@home network/web/science/development person
-- "Any idiot can have a good idea. What is hard is to do it." - Jeanne-Claude

After reading the previous post, I've re-enabled S@h in BOINC Manager, but with the AP WU at 54.4% after 54 hours 35, and Einstein WUs running at 16.5 hours each, somehow, I don't think I'll be bothering the S@h schedulers much for a while.

I can't believe Matt and Co TIDIED UP the lab!!

Has no-one told them?????

NOW THEY'LL NEVER BE ABLE TO FIND ANYTHING AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lol

---

When it's done it's done. There will be a long catchup this time anyway once it is all operational I presume.

Good work guys

---

Proud Founder and member of



Have a look at my WebCam

WOW, this is fantastic..
I really got a seti@home WU. For about 45 minutes ago :-

Due to validation errors/timeouts we're still sending out work at the rate of about 1 workunit every few seconds (though that rate is slowing).

- Matt

OK.
What is the status of Thumper? When can we hopfully running seti at full potency again?

---

WOW, this is fantastic..
I really got a seti@home WU. For about 45 minutes ago :-

Due to validation errors/timeouts we're still sending out work at the rate of about 1 workunit every few seconds (though that rate is slowing).

- Matt

OK.
What is the status of Thumper? When can we hopefully running seti at full potency again?

It's still MIA so far, Probably still on the UPS truck from wherever SUN is at. I wait, watch and crunch Rosetta until It's up and running.

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

I am currently crunching abc@home on the PC's and abc@home beta on my iMac C2D.

Looking forward to crunching SETI once again.

---

Have you ever thought of using something like Dell, HP, IBM or even Intel server motherboard basied clone servers? Then use Windows 2003 server in a cluster configuration, so if one fails the other server(s) will seamlessly switch over!

I manage several older and newer Intel made server class systems running Windows 2003, and they have been very solid.

---

Have you ever thought of using something like Dell, HP, IBM or even Intel server motherboard basied clone servers? Then use Windows 2003 server in a cluster configuration, so if one fails the other server(s) will seamlessly switch over!

I manage several older and newer Intel made server class systems running Windows 2003, and they have been very solid.

Hmmmm have you ever worked with a UNIX system ????

On the same Intel based hardware Windows Advanced Server 2000 only has about 70% of the performance of a competing Linux. W2K3 is more efficient, but, requires more horsepower to do the same tasks so the effect is a net loss over W2K... Further, Linux based systems can be clustered in a manner similar to W2K/W2K3... It's not unique in the industry by a long shot.....

However, the main consideration for this application would be CISC .vs. RISC... For most database machines, UNIX on RISC is the preferred platform. Better drivers and buffering for starters...

While the SUN may or may not be the best RISC processor in the market right now, it's really hard to argue with the cost effectiveness of a free SUN. and, all the disk drives with the data are already formatted and loaded for the SUN. And, in case you did not know, SUN's have had the reputation for the best uptime in the industry... and we are not just talking about today's world... SUN's have regularly and reliably had uptimes measured in multiples of months or even years, instead of simply days or weeks of a Microsoft Server... And, they have been achieving these uptimes since the late 1980's... There is no free lunch..., but, it's damn close...

I will grant you one small point... I do think administering a W2K3 server solution would be easier overall...

Thanks for the continuing patience and encouraging sentiments since the science database server crashed over a week ago. Still waiting on the server replacement. I think we're all anxious for it to arrive already, but we originally expected it no earlier than late-in-the-day today.

We had the usual database backup outage, in case anybody noticed. Outside of the usual backup/compression of the BOINC database, I fixed the replica server, so that's back up and running again. I also rebooted our Network Appliance which has been complaining about "misconfigurations" as of late, but that didn't seem to help or hurt. We think a bad drive in the system is causing these errors. I then replaced a bad drive in the Snap Appliance so that's back to having two working hot spares (phew). Jeff, Eric, and I also cleaned up the lab. Entropy reigns supreme around here. The table which we sit around and eat lunch was full of miscellaneous screws, heat sinks, empty drive trays, shredded bubble wrap, etc. but not anymore.

- Matt

That is so good to hear. I know you have been working hard. And soon we will be back up. Hurray. Blessings, Quarter Moon

---

The theme of JEAPORDY keeps ...

---

Hmmmm have you ever worked with a UNIX system ????

On the same Intel based hardware Windows Advanced Server 2000 only has about 70% of the performance of a competing Linux. W2K3 is more efficient, but, requires more horsepower to do the same tasks so the effect is a net loss over W2K... Further, Linux based systems can be clustered in a manner similar to W2K/W2K3... It's not unique in the industry by a long shot.....

However, the main consideration for this application would be CISC .vs. RISC... For most database machines, UNIX on RISC is the preferred platform. Better drivers and buffering for starters...

While the SUN may or may not be the best RISC processor in the market right now, it's really hard to argue with the cost effectiveness of a free SUN. and, all the disk drives with the data are already formatted and loaded for the SUN. And, in case you did not know, SUN's have had the reputation for the best uptime in the industry... and we are not just talking about today's world... SUN's have regularly and reliably had uptimes measured in multiples of months or even years, instead of simply days or weeks of a Microsoft Server... And, they have been achieving these uptimes since the late 1980's... There is no free lunch..., but, it's damn close...

I will grant you one small point... I do think administering a W2K3 server solution would be easier overall...

Agreed the Unix systems are deffinitly more reliable as history proves but if built properly a Windows 2k or 2k3 box will have just as much uptime as their Unix counterparts.

---

Jeff, Eric, and I also cleaned up the lab.

Ooooooh. Bad mojo. Didn't you know that tidying up causes bitrot?

The table which we sit around and eat lunch ...

And who gave you permission to stop and eat lunch? If you have time for that then you obviously aren't working hard enough. ;-)

Seriously, you folks deserve much more praise than you get around here. You've got an awesome uptime record spanning years and years. We'll wait patiently until things are back on line.

---

I just got done with a class with windows 2k3 this semster. Seemed to be a pretty reliable semester. I seemed to dazzel the class with my presentation on bulk imports/imports of active directory information with csvde and ldifde in windows 2003.

---

Is it ready yet? ;) (j/k...I'll stop here)

Nooo, We'll arrive at home soon... be patient, AND DON'T EAT ON THE CAR!!

;)

---

Hmmmm have you ever worked with a UNIX system ????

On the same Intel based hardware Windows Advanced Server 2000 only has about 70% of the performance of a competing Linux. W2K3 is more efficient, but, requires more horsepower to do the same tasks so the effect is a net loss over W2K... Further, Linux based systems can be clustered in a manner similar to W2K/W2K3... It's not unique in the industry by a long shot.....

However, the main consideration for this application would be CISC .vs. RISC... For most database machines, UNIX on RISC is the preferred platform. Better drivers and buffering for starters...

While the SUN may or may not be the best RISC processor in the market right now, it's really hard to argue with the cost effectiveness of a free SUN. and, all the disk drives with the data are already formatted and loaded for the SUN. And, in case you did not know, SUN's have had the reputation for the best uptime in the industry... and we are not just talking about today's world... SUN's have regularly and reliably had uptimes measured in multiples of months or even years, instead of simply days or weeks of a Microsoft Server... And, they have been achieving these uptimes since the late 1980's... There is no free lunch..., but, it's damn close...

I will grant you one small point... I do think administering a W2K3 server solution would be easier overall...

Agreed the Unix systems are deffinitly more reliable as history proves but if built properly a Windows 2k or 2k3 box will have just as much uptime as their Unix counterparts.

Some appretations:

Windows is copyright'ed, and UNIX is copyleft'ed (so, for UNIX u haven't to pay a license.)
Windows has many "blackholes": It seems stable, but... at least crash!
Most of net servers works better on UNIX platforms (less resources needed and more speed responses)
Did I told anything about stability? ;)
UNIX is better on security issues: He doesn't do anything u didn't told him to do, but Windows starts opening ports for many different net purposses
UNIX has less virus attacks than Windows
etc, etc, etc...

Of course, UNIX is commandline (except XWindow or similar), but... What about some LINUX? ;)

---

Oops! Now I know why there's been no new work and Seti wasn't working... Duh! I'd no idea what was wrong until browsing to this thread. All I knew was all was OK on my end.

Hope you're up and running soon.

Don

(so, for UNIX u haven't to pay a license.)

Only if you steal a copy.
LINUX & BSD are based on UNIX, but they are not UNIX.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

(so, for UNIX u haven't to pay a license.)

Only if you steal a copy.
LINUX & BSD are based on UNIX, but they are not UNIX.

BSD is UNIX. FreeBSD, OpenBSD and netBSD are not UNIX.
Tullio

---

I run an Intel Serverboard on Windows 2003. It's pretty much XP (Server Edition). I'm sure there are tehnicalities some would argue me on about that tho. It uses XP drivers, runs XP software, and everything else XP, for the most part. Oh, and minus the screen savers, and wallpapers and such. I have couple of non-XP drivers, and 1 game that I have to actually select "XP Compatability" in the compatability mode.

I did run Linux, and enjoyed the power and efficiency of it. It's a great OS. I will eventually build another Linux-box, buuuut not the most user friendly. And most of the software is written for windows. When I want to run something, I just want to run it straight up sometimes, not configure, compile, command line, etc.

Oddly enough, on the XP/2003 bit, alot of the info scripts ID me as using XP. Most of the ones on here aren't fooled though, they say Windows 2003 Server.

---

> Agreed the Unix systems are deffinitly more reliable as history proves but
> if built properly a Windows 2k or 2k3 box will have just as much uptime as
> their Unix counterparts.

Hmmm, I guess my Windows 2003 server isn't built properly then, because the M$ security updates force a reboot most weeks. Or is there a Microsoft definition for "uptime" that I'm not aware of :-)

Gary.