BTW#2.
Why you speak so 'personally' to me?

...because I'm a 'personable type of guy'?

I know you think you haven't had issues in the past, but I keep seeing the odd quirk here and there posted by you in different threads on the message board. I think you may have an issue with the OC that is just a tiny bit "bad", something that throws a different result for a math operation here and there that is ok "most of the time", but not "all the time".

As for not overclocking since yesterday, your very latest results are still reporting the processor speed as > 3000.

I'm just trying to help. People discard my suggestions often, so I'm used to it. The most notable suggestion offered that was discarded was the immediate reporting being an irritant to the Validate Error issue. Twice did I mention it and have it be discarded, but yet it turned out to be true. Now, I'm not saying I'm right all the time, but I'm not wrong all the time either.

Brian

BTW#2.
Why you speak so 'personally' to me?

...because I'm a 'personable type of guy'?

@ Brian Silvers

How many posts from you were hidden from the mods?


The problems I had, were only one problem.
Because we needed a lot of time to find the reason.
Because I found an error-message in BOINC which nobody other had before.

'no command' after upload of result/s
..finally then this were shown as 'validate errors' at the overview.
(the problem: interrupt upload of results)

Finally I think the reason is because of the firewall.. (sometimes she interrupt the upload of results.., I don't know, but this must be the only reason)
(Or maybe the LAN-port.. or the DSL-router)
..but nothing with OC.

..but no problem to think more about, they are now very rare..

And I will update the OS from 32 to 64 bit very soon.
But I think about, WinXP or WinVista?
Because a few people saw that Vista is more slowly..

What you think?



In past with BOINC V5.10.13 I had 3143 and 3144 MHz.
Since I updated to BOINC V5.10.28 and Crunch3rs BOINC V6.1.0.32-files, the CPU-speed is shown now much more different in the overview.. 30xx to 3144
..so I don't know where the problem is..

I let run the OC-settings 314 x 10 since a few months..

---

...the last one is because of that the wingman have S@H Rev. 1.41 (not compatible with MB), I think.

Any of the optimized apps based on the project's 5.15 code are compatible with MB in terms of science calculations. The weakness in lunatics.at 1.41 version is in chirping, where it doesn't maintain quite enough accuracy to always get results the validator will like. It has always had a higher "weakly similar" rate for that reason, and the additional chirping for MB WUs probably does increase that rate further. When issued, 1.41 increased productivity a lot, so the relatively rare "weakly similar" reduced but didn't overcome its advantages. Now, if the owner weren't anonymous I would have sent a PM.

I wonder if a huge, red, blinking "PLEASE DO NOT DOWNLOAD AND INSTALL THIS OPTIMIZED SOFTWARE UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO RETURN AND CHECK FOR LATER REVISIONS AT LEAST MONTHLY." on each download page would help.

                                                                 Joe

Here's a curious one that I have captured as I think it likely to assimilated shortly - not one of mine but of a wingman of a pending of mine (if you follow :)
---------------------------------------------------------------
application SETI@home Enhanced
created 20 Nov 2007 8:09:29 UTC
name 21fe07ad.26983.98028.9.6.162
canonical result 671530254
granted credit 75.52
minimum quorum 2
initial replication 3
max # of error/total/success tasks 5, 10, 5
Task ID Computer Sent Time reported Server state Outcome Client state CPU time (sec) claimed credit granted credit
671530254 2406453 1 Dec 2007 6:37:50 UTC 1 Dec 2007 10:20:56 UTC Over Success Done 11,150.89 43.02 75.52
662803323 3833708 20 Nov 2007 11:41:22 UTC 23 Nov 2007 19:22:39 UTC Over Success Done 11,603.56 75.53 75.52
662803322 3855708 20 Nov 2007 11:02:34 UTC 30 Nov 2007 23:15:22 UTC Over Success Done 10,495.90 75.52 75.52
------------------------------------------------------------------

The first 2 results returned were obviously "Weakly Similar" so the WU was sent out again. It hit a 4.45 client. What I find confusing is:
- the 4.45 was declared "Canonical"
- the Credit Granted was not that from the Canonical result (i.e. in this case the 4.45 got a higher credit than claimed.

I'm sure there are good reasons behind this but I find it quite obtuse.

F.

---

The first 2 results returned were obviously "Weakly Similar" so the WU was sent out again. It hit a 4.45 client. What I find confusing is:
- the 4.45 was declared "Canonical"
- the Credit Granted was not that from the Canonical result (i.e. in this case the 4.45 got a higher credit than claimed.

I'm sure there are good reasons behind this but I find it quite obtuse.

F.

It's quite easy really: 'science' and 'credit' are completely different animals, and never the twain shall meet.

Science: Result files are checked for scientific similarity, and one of them is chosen as the canonical scientific result. The other results are OK, or not OK, depending on whether they are similar to the canonical result.

Credit: If the result is OK (see above), it gets credit. Looking at the credit claims in the reports judged OK, discard the highest and lowest, and average the remainder (if only two results, take the lower).

Your cited WU is fine on both counts. The science app result veered towards #1, irrespective of BOINC: the BOINC credit claim averaged out at #3, irrespective of science. Horses for courses.

It's quite easy really: 'science' and 'credit' are completely different animals, and never the twain shall meet.

Science: Result files are checked for scientific similarity, and one of them is chosen as the canonical scientific result. The other results are OK, or not OK, depending on whether they are similar to the canonical result.

Credit: If the result is OK (see above), it gets credit. Looking at the credit claims in the reports judged OK, discard the highest and lowest, and average the remainder (if only two results, take the lower).

Your cited WU is fine on both counts. The science app result veered towards #1, irrespective of BOINC: the BOINC credit claim averaged out at #3, irrespective of science. Horses for courses.

Ahhh. Thanks, Richard. I thought the "discard the highest and lowest, and average the remainder (if only two results, take the lower) had been dumped with the move to initial issue of 2.

F.

---

How many posts from you were hidden from the mods?

I don't quite understand the intent of that question, but it's ok. Consider the matter dropped...

[edit]
[soapbox]
This is why I am so screwed up (still) about the depiction of me by someone else who is a native Russian and Latvian speaker. I was ever-so-patient with trying to make sure that I understood what SHE meant in English, but she never was patient with me to make sure that she understood what I meant in English. Your reactions are reminding me of her and how I was assumed to be so "bad", like an accusation of wanting to spy on her because I wanted her to temporarily install VNC and allow me to access her computer to fix a problem she was having that we weren't being able to text/talk through...and then the same accusation when I sent her 2 .HTML files and 1 .JS (JavaScript) file that was my schoolwork that I wanted her to look at and be proud of me (a simple form where you entered your name and address as a start for an ecommerce application, the javascript just checked for what browser you were running and handled form field validation with regular expressions before passing it to a PHP page that we were going to do in the next assignment), but she said "I'm not stupid! You just want to use my computer!"

After all that crap, I still care about her because I know she's better than that. She just got paranoid and then wouldn't let go of the paranoia.

If you want to jointly ask for our latest posts in this thread to be hidden, that's fine with me.
[/soapbox]
[/edit]

@ Brian Silvers

..it was only..
..if you are all the time 'personally' to the persons you speak, somebody could feel maybe some day little bit attacked..
..and a flame war could start and the mods do their job.. ;-)


EDIT:
But after re-re-re-reading all the posts.. it's maybe a translation prob from me.. 'personally'..

EDIT#2:
'persönlich' mean, if you come very close to somebody (with negative vibrations) into the private zone..
..I had the feeling that one post of you were 'little bit negative'.. but maybe.. it was only a translation mistake?

---

@ Brian Silvers

..it was only..
..if you are all the time 'personally' to the persons you speak, somebody could feel maybe some day little bit attacked..
..and a flame war could start and the mods do their job.. ;-)


EDIT:
But after re-re-re-reading all the posts.. it's maybe a translation prob from me.. 'personally'..

As an example, I don't get the "..it was only.." Only what? Only what you refer to on the next line of text? The way I would state that in (I hope) mostly-fluent English would be:

"Brian, what I meant to say was that if you are always direct with the person that you speak to, they could feel attacked and a flame war could start because of it."

Where "direct" is what I think you mean by "personally", but I'm not sure. If not, just post or PM the word in German or whatever your native language is and I'll go figure out the English equivalent...

[edit]
"Personally" is close, but doesn't directly translate right in the mind of a native English-speaker. Other ways to say the same thing would be:

"in the personal space of"
"direct with"
"in someone's face"
or simply ask if the person is attacking you.

Honestly, I bolded your name because I felt you were not even considering what I was suggesting (and I was right about that). Perhaps I shouldn't have done so. You have every right to not consider it, just like I have every right to still think that there is a problem with the OC. If you had a damaged PSU, how do you suppose it got damaged? Did the fan go out and it overheated? Before it failed, it possibly sent out incorrect voltages on the rails, which could in turn damage another component.

It's my gut instinct that you've now got some slight instability. Perhaps I'm wrong. What can it hurt to check though?
[/edit]

---

I wonder if a huge, red, blinking "PLEASE DO NOT DOWNLOAD AND INSTALL THIS OPTIMIZED SOFTWARE UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO RETURN AND CHECK FOR LATER REVISIONS AT LEAST MONTHLY." on each download page would help.

                                                                 Joe

Doubtful. On a somewhat related yet off-topic item, I find it laughable that jars of peanut butter have warnings on them now that state:

Contains: peanuts

Ya think?

"Personally" is close, but doesn't directly translate right in the mind of a native English-speaker. Other ways to say the same thing would be:

"in the personal space of"
"direct with"
"in someone's face"
or simply ask if the person is attacking you.

Or an even better word:

"confrontational"

I wonder if a huge, red, blinking "PLEASE DO NOT DOWNLOAD AND INSTALL THIS OPTIMIZED SOFTWARE UNLESS YOU ARE WILLING TO RETURN AND CHECK FOR LATER REVISIONS AT LEAST MONTHLY." on each download page would help.

                                                                 Joe

LOL, maybe adding a TTL, forcing people to upgrade, would help.

---

Getting back on topic, this WU is notable because one computer had a -9 overflow and the other did not, neither one is a Vista box.

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=175318278

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=650351424

Task ID	650351424
Name	22mr07aa.11254.13979.12.6.190_1
Workunit	175318278
Created	2 Nov 2007 17:14:40 UTC
Sent	3 Nov 2007 5:05:14 UTC
Received	22 Nov 2007 13:11:33 UTC
Server state	Over
Outcome	Success
Client state	Done
Exit status	0 (0x0)
Computer ID	3500735
Report deadline	25 Dec 2007 12:38:38 UTC
CPU time	5391.625
stderr out	<core_client_version>5.10.13</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<stderr_txt>
Optimized SETI@Home Enhanced application
Optimizers: Ben Herndon, Josef Segur, Alex Kan, Simon Zadra
   Version: Windows SSE3 32-bit based on S@H V5.15  'Noo? No - Ni!'
  Revision: R-2.4V|xP|FFT:IPP_SSE3|Ben-Joe
     CPUID: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU           @ 2.66GHz 
     Speed: 4 x 3144 MHz 
     Cache: L1=64K L2=4096K
  Features: MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 
 
Work Unit Info
WU Credit multi. is:  2.85
WU True angle range:  0.409353

Spikes Pulses Triplets Gaussians Flops
   1      3       0        5     16375970976668

</stderr_txt>
]]>
Validate state	Checked, but no consensus yet
Claimed credit	54.0343931086874
Granted credit	0
application version	5.28

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=650544007

Task ID	650544007
Name	22mr07aa.11254.13979.12.6.190_2
Workunit	175318278
Created	3 Nov 2007 0:25:26 UTC
Sent	3 Nov 2007 7:20:23 UTC
Received	3 Nov 2007 9:30:00 UTC
Server state	Over
Outcome	Success
Client state	Done
Exit status	0 (0x0)
Computer ID	3970692
Report deadline	25 Dec 2007 14:53:47 UTC
CPU time	86.828125
stderr out	<core_client_version>5.4.11</core_client_version>
<stderr_txt>
setiathome_enhanced 5.27 DevC++/MinGW

Work Unit Info:
...............
WU true angle range is :  0.409353
Optimal function choices:
-----------------------------------------------------
name                
-----------------------------------------------------
              v_BaseLineSmooth (no other)
          v_vGetPowerSpectrum2 0.00051 0.00000 
             sse3_ChirpData_ak 0.02783 0.00000 
              v_vTranspose4ntw 0.01309 0.00000 
                BH SSE folding 0.00301 0.00000 
SETI@Home Informational message -9 result_overflow
NOTE: The number of results detected exceeds the storage space allocated.

Flopcounter: 10551110616.903502

Spike count:    0
Pulse count:    31
Triplet count:  0
Gaussian count: 0

</stderr_txt>
Validate state	Checked, but no consensus yet
Claimed credit	0.0512391959006655
Granted credit	0
application version	5.27

Both computers are running Windows XP.

wuid=178738094

wuid=177821020


It could help if we post the 'Checked, but no consensus yet' results?
Or the problem is noticed and..

wuid=175675575

wuid=175318278

---

wuid=178738094

wuid=177821020


It could help if we post the 'Checked, but no consensus yet' results?
Or the problem is noticed and..

wuid=175675575

wuid=175318278

IMO only worth listing if it happens after three or more results have reported. It is a fairly common occurrence and is usually sorted when third result reports.

wuid=178738094

wuid=177821020


It could help if we post the 'Checked, but no consensus yet' results?
Or the problem is noticed and..

wuid=175675575

wuid=175318278

Three of those are cases where only one app overflowed on pulses, and that problem has been noticed. I'm trying to investigate it, with the help of Richard and Michael who are saving their result files and sending me any which exhibit the problem. It may happen even with optimized apps though the stock app seems more vulnerable, and it may be more frequent on Vista systems than XP.

In other cases, determining the cause would require looking at both of the result files. Posting the links might allow project staff time to extract the files before the deleters remove them, but the problem has so little effect the investigation would be very low priority. I'd say don't bother posting unless they ask.

Keith T. sent me his tiebreaker results for a couple of cases, but in the one which didn't involve spurious pulses I couldn't discern what might have happened to the other hosts.

                                                                  Joe

Three of those are cases where only one app overflowed on pulses, and that problem has been noticed. I'm trying to investigate it, with the help of Richard and Michael who are saving their result files and sending me any which exhibit the problem. It may happen even with optimized apps though the stock app seems more vulnerable, and it may be more frequent on Vista systems than XP.

How often do they send you something?

Three of those are cases where only one app overflowed on pulses, and that problem has been noticed. I'm trying to investigate it, with the help of Richard and Michael who are saving their result files and sending me any which exhibit the problem. It may happen even with optimized apps though the stock app seems more vulnerable, and it may be more frequent on Vista systems than XP.

How often do they send you something?

15 result files since October 28.

                                                               Joe

Josef I send you a PM.

---

Pluto will always be a planet to me.

Seti Ambassador
Not to late to order an Anni Shirt

Three of those are cases where only one app overflowed on pulses, and that problem has been noticed. I'm trying to investigate it, with the help of Richard and Michael who are saving their result files and sending me any which exhibit the problem. It may happen even with optimized apps though the stock app seems more vulnerable, and it may be more frequent on Vista systems than XP.

How often do they send you something?

15 result files since October 28.

                                                               Joe

Hmmm... So they experienced the problem or noticed the problem with wingmen? I don't remember experiencing that as a problem, but I'm not going to state that I never have experienced that problem... It should be noted that I've used the stock app only maybe one time for one or two results total in the past couple of years... I want to say it was when 5.27 was initially released, and IIRC, that was only by mistake as I allowed work fetch by accident before switching to 2.4.