My pendings are up to 2800...anyone else's high....???

---

Somebody dumped 150,000+ results back into the sump a short time ago and the servers are gagging.

It really seems that the system could be architected to be less sensitive to short wu's and large uploads.

Easy enough to do, just takes money.

---

Still no mention of the source / cause of all the shorty work - just its effects.

Isn't the cause well known? Isn't it simply the nature of what was recorded at the telescope??

---

I've been checking one of the 2.47 AR WUs, and as far as I can determine it's legitimate.

Oh, I think I have an observation you might want to observe... ;)

I had grabbed a few results the other day, and they were NOT of the short-running variety based on their AR. I noticed a couple of results that the wingman had already reported that were "noisy", so I decided to start up processing on those two and go ahead and get them back in...

Well, there's a bit of a problem... LOL

The two hosts that had concluded that they were too noisy were running the stock application. My host with the optimized application typically runs into the '-9' overflow faster than the stock application does. Not this time. In fact, one of the results is still running at the 9 minute mark...

So, one has to ask, is there a bug in the stock application?

Message boards are finally still performing well even with the cricket graph showing the same maxed out bandwidth...

Perhaps they moved the public-facing web servers onto another router/switch?

DOH! Wishful thinking...

Note: Because database access seems to be the limiting factor in how much data can be delivered, I'm not doing any data gathering while transfers are maxed.

Just think of the impact to the new social networking features... Anyone who issues a request to another to be a "friend" in all of this is surely dedicated... Either that, or they have a sick sense of humor... :-P

In that case....[in AOL voice] "You've got a friend request!"

In your case, I think I'll stick with "sick sense of humor"...

Also, as I mentioned to someone else, I am not accepting friend requests, but not based on my like / dislike of the person. I don't think it is a function that belongs here and/or that the effort to implement it could be much more wisely spent on other things...

Yes, bah-humbug!

Note: Because database access seems to be the limiting factor in how much data can be delivered, I'm not doing any data gathering while transfers are maxed.

Just think of the impact to the new social networking features... Anyone who issues a request to another to be a "friend" in all of this is surely dedicated... Either that, or they have a sick sense of humor... :-P

In that case....[in AOL voice] "You've got a friend request!"

---

Note: Because database access seems to be the limiting factor in how much data can be delivered, I'm not doing any data gathering while transfers are maxed.

Just think of the impact to the new social networking features... Anyone who issues a request to another to be a "friend" in all of this is surely dedicated... Either that, or they have a sick sense of humor... :-P

There are almost 2,500,000 results awaiting validation. Isn't that rather excessively large?

Jim-R, Joe, etc.:

Did anyone notice the stats I posted in message 693998 - Technical news, Holiday Checkup, Dec 23 - and couple of hours before we all got distracted by the 'Yet another forum update bug'?

This is the crucial stat:

530 out of 631 (83.99%) of all tasks issued after 12:00:00 UTC 22 Dec 2007 are shown as Angle Range 2.46 to 2.64

That compares with 399 out of 9766 (4.09%) of tasks issued in the previous four months.

That's a H*** of a variance from the normal observing pattern. I haven't read the GALFA user's guide Joe linked (I'm away from home, and on dial-up, so it's a bit of a struggle), but those ARs, if genuine, would be almost double the normal basketweave scan. It's possible, of course, but it seems unusual enough - and sustained enough - to be worth a second look as a sanity check.

I don't even have a copy of Excel here, so coupled with the dialup, I can't even think about continuing the analysis for the moment (Fred, if you're watching, could you possibly run the hoover over my watchlist while I'm away? My hosts, and the ones from my list in Joe's deadline thread). But I'll explore further when I'm back home.

I've been checking one of the 2.47 AR WUs, and as far as I can determine it's legitimate. It's 01dc06ad.5060.9479.14.6.38, recorded Fri Dec 1 22:36:07 2006 which makes it an A2172 observation. The Right Ascension values match the Arecibo Local Sidereal Time[1] as they should for normal basketweave scanning. The Declination goes from 33.154 to 35.598 which seems consistent with the "high latitude" mapping mentioned in the proposal. That proposal asked for 125.6 Hours of observation time. I don't know how much it actually got, but the first observation I found was Oct. 24, 2006 and the last Jan. 28, 2007.

Some other observation campaigns are even shorter, we may have seen all of some of those in the data from early 2007 which has been covered fairly thoroughly. The data we've seen so far is probably not a reliable indicator of the AR distribution we can expect from other time periods.

The GALFACTS precursor observations used 1.53 degrees per sidereal minute rates in declination, if the full campaign uses the same we can expect a lot of WUs with ARs around 2.76.

[1]Local Sidereal Time is the same as the Right Ascension directly above the longitude of the telescope. It varies with the time of year because sidereal time has one more day in a year than solar time. The right side of the Arecibo schedules has the LST scale, for more precise values a converter can be used.

Note: Because database access seems to be the limiting factor in how much data can be delivered, I'm not doing any data gathering while transfers are maxed. There was a lull during the first day of Christmas so I did gather some then.

                                                                 Joe

Those shorties are good. They yield well by giving high credits-per-hour, increasing RAC. But, of course, ideally, the CPH should be constant for every workunit of every project, assuming 100 percent devotion to calculation.

---

I don't even have a copy of Excel here, so coupled with the dialup, I can't even think about continuing the analysis for the moment (Fred, if you're watching, could you possibly run the hoover over my watchlist while I'm away?

That may not be very practical. Some of my runs of Fred's VBA have been exceedingly slow or even failed to finish after many hours in the current state of the site.

LOL - I thought it was just this dialup that was holding up the page loading! But looking at Scarecrow's graphs, 'Ready to send' has never picked itself up off the floor since last night's outage, and I can't even open 'My Account' page to start checking what my hosts have been munching on while I've been away.

That makes it 5 days, 6 hours - 126 hours - of almost continuous shorties since the first anomalous ARs around 12:00 UTC on 22 December. Where are they coming from?

Dunno...I just commented on the same thing in another thread...
What confounds me is that the datasets have come from a several month timespan, yet we are still seeing nothing but 'shorties'.
I am assuming that by now any splitter software bugs would have been picked up on, yet we are still under attack by these small WUs.
Tiz a puzzlement...

---

"Learn from yesterday. Live for today. Hope for tomorrow." Albert Einstein
"With cats." kittyman

I don't even have a copy of Excel here, so coupled with the dialup, I can't even think about continuing the analysis for the moment (Fred, if you're watching, could you possibly run the hoover over my watchlist while I'm away?

That may not be very practical. Some of my runs of Fred's VBA have been exceedingly slow or even failed to finish after many hours in the current state of the site.

LOL - I thought it was just this dialup that was holding up the page loading! But looking at Scarecrow's graphs, 'Ready to send' has never picked itself up off the floor since last night's outage, and I can't even open 'My Account' page to start checking what my hosts have been munching on while I've been away.

That makes it 5 days, 6 hours - 126 hours - of almost continuous shorties since the first anomalous ARs around 12:00 UTC on 22 December. Where are they coming from?

I don't even have a copy of Excel here, so coupled with the dialup, I can't even think about continuing the analysis for the moment (Fred, if you're watching, could you possibly run the hoover over my watchlist while I'm away?

That may not be very practical. Some of my runs of Fred's VBA have been exceedingly slow or even failed to finish after many hours in the current state of the site.

---

Could this be part of the problem?

Very early this morning, I had over 60 wu's d/l'ing on my server. On looking in the transfer section, I could not understand what was happening - 1 wu had approx. 96.xx d/l'ed, another was at 28.xx, etc, etc.

This had happened to over 60% of the d/l's.

Surely, it would be better to d/l each wu before moving onto the next one?

---

Jim-R, Joe, etc.:

Did anyone notice the stats I posted in message 693998 - Technical news, Holiday Checkup, Dec 23 - and couple of hours before we all got distracted by the 'Yet another forum update bug'?

This is the crucial stat:

530 out of 631 (83.99%) of all tasks issued after 12:00:00 UTC 22 Dec 2007 are shown as Angle Range 2.46 to 2.64

That compares with 399 out of 9766 (4.09%) of tasks issued in the previous four months.

That's a H*** of a variance from the normal observing pattern. I haven't read the GALFA user's guide Joe linked (I'm away from home, and on dial-up, so it's a bit of a struggle), but those ARs, if genuine, would be almost double the normal basketweave scan. It's possible, of course, but it seems unusual enough - and sustained enough - to be worth a second look as a sanity check.

I don't even have a copy of Excel here, so coupled with the dialup, I can't even think about continuing the analysis for the moment (Fred, if you're watching, could you possibly run the hoover over my watchlist while I'm away? My hosts, and the ones from my list in Joe's deadline thread). But I'll explore further when I'm back home.

I tried to connect a client to SETI tonight. A nice fast quad core on very fast internet.

The downloads from the SETI project were coming in at .3 KBps

OMG this is slow!! Somebody needs to unkink the network wire at the server rack and let the data flow at an acceptable speed again.

I don't quite understand it.......I thought that Matt had posted that he had a fast new webserver online.........
But I suppose it is throttled by the maximum bandwidth available to all of the servers........
And the Cricket Graph goes wild..........

---

"Learn from yesterday. Live for today. Hope for tomorrow." Albert Einstein
"With cats." kittyman

Somebody dumped 150,000+ results back into the sump a short time ago and the servers are gagging.

It really seems that the system could be architected to be less sensitive to short wu's and large uploads.

Yep lots of short work to do, Shoveling those shorties. :D

The forum is slower than molasses...more shorties are sure to be incoming.

I tried to connect a client to SETI tonight. A nice fast quad core on very fast internet.

The downloads from the SETI project were coming in at .3 KBps

OMG this is slow!! Somebody needs to unkink the network wire at the server rack and let the data flow at an acceptable speed again.

---

It's not too many computers, it's a lack of circuit breakers for this room. But we can fix it :)