To make DCF work as well as it can, the project needs to get the raw estimates for all work in line. From reported data here it looks like the AP estimate needs to be scaled up, but the most that can be expected is scaling to approximately match stock setiathome_enhanced. Those running optimized s_e will continue to have a significant mismatch unless optimized versions of AstroPulse can be produced which achieve similar speed improvements.

All you can do is calibrate the scaling to the stock apps. The guys running optimized apps should be smart enough to know the est. completion times will be off. :)

That said, my 1st AP WU since reattaching to SETI says it will take 92 hours on a 3.0GHz E8400. That seems a bit high compared to the others on the forum. I'll wait until it reports OK before talking anymore about this.

I got my first 2 AP WUs on 27Aug., I'm crunching them using the standard v4.35 AP client. Both AP WUs started with an estimated completion time of 13h:00m, and the est. completion time continued to increase (not decrease) during about the first 12 hours of computation, then levelled off and began to slowly decrease. One AP WU completed this morning (66,585 CPU secs, 454 credits claimed+granted), the 2nd AP WU is still crunching (currently at 70.0% after 21h:20m with estimated 08h:05m to reach completion).

For non-AP WUs, I crunch using Alex Kan's v8 SSE4.1 optimized client. With my C2D E8400, I can crank out ~1 MB WU/core/hr, hence ~2 WUs/hour. Most recent typical MB WUs completed in average ~4200 CPU secs and yield average 52 credits.

So it seems, at least for me + my wingman, the 454 credit granted for this first completed AP is quite LOW (this WU took 66,585 CPU secs on my E8400 under WinXP32SP3, less than my wingman's 69,814 CPU sec under VistaSP1). To be on rough parity w/ MB, the AP should have granted 66.6/4.2 * 52 = 817 credits -vs- the actual claimed+granted 454 credits. Maybe my math is invalid trying to compare time+credit of non-optimized AP client -vs- AKv8 optimized MB client. Granted that was my first completed AP WU, hopefully future AP WUs will yield more credit. I do S@H for the science, but it *is* nice to earn some credits whilst we're at it.

---

Sabertooth Z77, i7-3770K@4.2GHz, GTX680, W8.1Pro x64
P5N32-E SLI, C2D E8400@3Ghz, GTX580, Win7SP1Pro x64 & PCLinuxOS2015 x64

To make DCF work as well as it can, the project needs to get the raw estimates for all work in line. From reported data here it looks like the AP estimate needs to be scaled up, but the most that can be expected is scaling to approximately match stock setiathome_enhanced. Those running optimized s_e will continue to have a significant mismatch unless optimized versions of AstroPulse can be produced which achieve similar speed improvements.

All you can do is calibrate the scaling to the stock apps. The guys running optimized apps should be smart enough to know the est. completion times will be off. :)

That said, my 1st AP WU since reattaching to SETI says it will take 92 hours on a 3.0GHz E8400. That seems a bit high compared to the others on the forum. I'll wait until it reports OK before talking anymore about this.

I got my first 2 AP WUs on 27Aug., I'm crunching them using the standard v4.35 AP client. Both AP WUs started with an estimated completion time of 13h:00m, and the est. completion time continued to increase (not decrease) during about the first 12 hours of computation, then levelled off and began to slowly decrease. One AP WU completed this morning (66,585 CPU secs, 454 credits claimed+granted), the 2nd AP WU is still crunching (currently at 70.0% after 21h:20m with estimated 08h:05m to reach completion).

For non-AP WUs, I crunch using Alex Kan's v8 SSE4.1 optimized client. With my C2D E8400, I can crank out ~1 MB WU/core/hr, hence ~2 WUs/hour. Most recent typical MB WUs completed in average ~4200 CPU secs and yield average 52 credits.

So it seems, at least for me + my wingman, the 454 credit granted for this first completed AP is quite LOW (this WU took 66,585 CPU secs on my E8400 under WinXP32SP3, less than my wingman's 69,814 CPU sec under VistaSP1). To be on rough parity w/ MB, the AP should have granted 66.6/4.2 * 52 = 817 credits -vs- the actual claimed+granted 454 credits. Maybe my math is invalid trying to compare time+credit of non-optimized AP client -vs- AKv8 optimized MB client. Granted that was my first completed AP WU, hopefully future AP WUs will yield more credit. I do S@H for the science, but it *is* nice to earn some credits whilst we're at it.

There is some anomaly with your 454 claim - maybe this is an AP equivalent to a -9 MB WU that errored out early. AP WU's should all have about the same credit which seemed to start off at about 722 and now seems to be down to about 714.

F.

---

There is some anomaly with your 454 claim - maybe this is an AP equivalent to a -9 MB WU that errored out early. AP WU's should all have about the same credit which seemed to start off at about 722 and now seems to be down to about 714.

F.

Yes, I saw 719 and 714, but more recent tasks have started to rise again. My two most recent pendings are 745.08 and 746.86

Edit - and yes, AP does have an 'early exit' route if it finds too many (30) pulses - though this is by design, rather than an error.

There is some anomaly with your 454 claim - maybe this is an AP equivalent to a -9 MB WU that errored out early. AP WU's should all have about the same credit which seemed to start off at about 722 and now seems to be down to about 714.

F.

Yes, I saw 719 and 714, but more recent tasks have started to rise again. My two most recent pendings are 745.08 and 746.86

Edit - and yes, AP does have an 'early exit' route if it finds too many (30) pulses - though this is by design, rather than an error.

My first completed AP WU is here: http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=321727928
Both my wingman and I crunched it with C2D E8400 CPUs, we both claimed 454.17 credits and we both were granted 454.17, albeit w/ slight differences in CPU time (me= 66,585.91, wingman= 69,813.83). So it completed after ~18.5 CPU hrs, much sooner than the ~30 hours I had expected (based on 8% completed @ 2h:30m & 33% completed @ 10h:00m). So maybe this WU went out through the large AP pulse "early exit" Richard H. described.

My 2nd AP WU is still crunching, now at 90.0% after 27h:04m with 3h:12m to completion (hence I again expect ~30.3hr total). My wingman has completed this WU http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=321727924 , his claimed 730.82 credits is in the ballpark of what Fred W. & Richard H. said.

Hopefully the Lunatics or other coders will have an optimized AP app (Win32 SSE4.1) available soon.

---

Sabertooth Z77, i7-3770K@4.2GHz, GTX680, W8.1Pro x64
P5N32-E SLI, C2D E8400@3Ghz, GTX580, Win7SP1Pro x64 & PCLinuxOS2015 x64

My first completed AP WU is here: http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=321727928

That WU ends:

In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 9472
Found 30 single pulses and 30 repeating pulses, exiting.
called boinc_finish

A full-length AP WU ends:

In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 14976
called boinc_finish

So you would have expected to claim about 9472/14976 or 63%. Pro-rata, your 454.17 credit WU would have earned about 718.08 if it had run to full term. If your next one is in line for 730 credits, then the correction process is moving things gently up, as I reported yesterday.

My first completed AP WU is here: http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=321727928

That WU ends:

In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 9472
Found 30 single pulses and 30 repeating pulses, exiting.
called boinc_finish

A full-length AP WU ends:

In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 14976
called boinc_finish

So you would have expected to claim about 9472/14976 or 63%. Pro-rata, your 454.17 credit WU would have earned about 718.08 if it had run to full term. If your next one is in line for 730 credits, then the correction process is moving things gently up, as I reported yesterday.

OK Richard H., good to hear the 'correction process' is working...

Now I'm curious though about my first AP WU result (confirmed 30 single & 30 repeating pulses). When an AP WU like that with high pulse count (30, and potentially more) is reported, what does the Seti@Home project do with that knowledge? Do they re-analyze all or part of that WU? Does it get factored into re-mapping that part of the sky? Are "They" out there, or.....?

---

Sabertooth Z77, i7-3770K@4.2GHz, GTX680, W8.1Pro x64
P5N32-E SLI, C2D E8400@3Ghz, GTX580, Win7SP1Pro x64 & PCLinuxOS2015 x64

My 2nd AP WU (see http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=321727924 ) is now completed in a little less than 30 CPU hrs on my E8400, naturally wingman's E6700 took more CPU time. We both claimed & were granted 730.82 credits for this one.

That AP WU is Validated, workunit details for wingman and me show same high pulse count & 'early exit' ending condition:
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 14720
Found 30 single pulses and 30 repeating pulses, exiting.
called boinc_finish

So I'm still curious (as I queried earlier) as to the high pulse count significance and what subsequent S@H Team steps are envisioned.

---

Sabertooth Z77, i7-3770K@4.2GHz, GTX680, W8.1Pro x64
P5N32-E SLI, C2D E8400@3Ghz, GTX580, Win7SP1Pro x64 & PCLinuxOS2015 x64

My 2nd AP WU (see http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=321727924 ) is now completed in a little less than 30 CPU hrs on my E8400, naturally wingman's E6700 took more CPU time. We both claimed & were granted 730.82 credits for this one.

That AP WU is Validated, workunit details for wingman and me show same high pulse count & 'early exit' ending condition:
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 14720
Found 30 single pulses and 30 repeating pulses, exiting.
called boinc_finish

So I'm still curious (as I queried earlier) as to the high pulse count significance and what subsequent S@H Team steps are envisioned.

Unfortunately, a high pulse count is more typically associated with terrestrial radio-frequency interference - an aeroplane flying overhead, a tourist's cell-phone - which is why the application is designed to quit early and move on to the next task when it finds them. If it was as easy as just catching lots of pulses, we'd have found ET long ago!

There hasn't been a lot written about the post-processing plans for Astropulse: I would hope that would be added to the astropulse science in due course. But if it follows the same pattern as the standard SETI search, the scientists will be most interested in patterns of pulses which are observed repeatedly with the same characteristics coming from the same point in the sky. So these early AP tasks won't necessarily be studied in isolation, but should be sorted and graded and stored in a database for comparison with what's observed the next time Arecibo is studying the same point in the sky.

Now that the Astropulse and v6.03 applications are up and running, I hope that Berkeley will be able to concentrate their programming effort on the NTPCKR (Near Time Persistency Checker) which is intended to monitor our results for these repeated signals - see the SETI plans page.

Unfortunately, a high pulse count is more typically associated with terrestrial radio-frequency interference - an aeroplane flying overhead, a tourist's cell-phone - which is why the application is designed to quit early and move on to the next task when it finds them. If it was as easy as just catching lots of pulses, we'd have found ET long ago!

Yes high pulse rate * time = high pulse count does correlate well with exposure to aeroplanes & cell-phones for most terrestials. But I'm not discouraged that these 2 AP WUs may be chalked up to terrestial activity, I'll keep crunching.

There hasn't been a lot written about the post-processing plans for Astropulse: I would hope that would be added to the astropulse science in due course. But if it follows the same pattern as the standard SETI search, the scientists will be most interested in patterns of pulses which are observed repeatedly with the same characteristics coming from the same point in the sky. So these early AP tasks won't necessarily be studied in isolation, but should be sorted and graded and stored in a database for comparison with what's observed the next time Arecibo is studying the same point in the sky.

Now that the Astropulse and v6.03 applications are up and running, I hope that Berkeley will be able to concentrate their programming effort on the NTPCKR (Near Time Persistency Checker) which is intended to monitor our results for these repeated signals - see the SETI plans page.

Thanks Richard for your concise overview and for the links with fascinating info- much appreciated! And I join you in hope for renewed project focus on the NTPCKR effort.

---

Sabertooth Z77, i7-3770K@4.2GHz, GTX680, W8.1Pro x64
P5N32-E SLI, C2D E8400@3Ghz, GTX580, Win7SP1Pro x64 & PCLinuxOS2015 x64

Unfortunately, a high pulse count is more typically associated with terrestrial radio-frequency interference - an aeroplane flying overhead, a tourist's cell-phone - which is why the application is designed to quit early and move on to the next task when it finds them. If it was as easy as just catching lots of pulses, we'd have found ET long ago!

There hasn't been a lot written about the post-processing plans for Astropulse: I would hope that would be added to the astropulse science in due course. But if it follows the same pattern as the standard SETI search, the scientists will be most interested in patterns of pulses which are observed repeatedly with the same characteristics coming from the same point in the sky. So these early AP tasks won't necessarily be studied in isolation, but should be sorted and graded and stored in a database for comparison with what's observed the next time Arecibo is studying the same point in the sky.

Now that the Astropulse and v6.03 applications are up and running, I hope that Berkeley will be able to concentrate their programming effort on the NTPCKR (Near Time Persistency Checker) which is intended to monitor our results for these repeated signals - see the SETI plans page.

To add to the informative links Richard H. posted above, the Planetary Society just posted a brand new article (27Aug08) Astropulse: A Fresh Look at the Skies in Search of E.T. I enjoyed reading it - take a look!

---

Sabertooth Z77, i7-3770K@4.2GHz, GTX680, W8.1Pro x64
P5N32-E SLI, C2D E8400@3Ghz, GTX580, Win7SP1Pro x64 & PCLinuxOS2015 x64

Astropulse WU #1:
Task ID 957350045
Name ap_04jl08aa_B0_P1_00094_20080819_00515.wu_1
Workunit 317780870
Created 19 Aug 2008 10:55:10 UTC
Sent 19 Aug 2008 16:37:06 UTC
Received 25 Aug 2008 2:39:57 UTC
Server state Over
Outcome Success
Client state Done
Exit status 0 (0x0)
Computer ID 4521634
Report deadline 18 Sep 2008 16:37:06 UTC
CPU time 371816.7
stderr out <core_client_version>6.2.18</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<stderr_txt>
In ap_gfx_main.cpp: in ap_graphics_init(): Starting client.
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 896
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 1024
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 1152
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 1280
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 1408
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 1536
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 1664
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 1792
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 1920
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 2048
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 2176
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 2304
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 2432
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 2560
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 2688
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 2816
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 2944
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 3072
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 3200
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 3328
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 3456
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 3584
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 3712
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 3840
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 3968
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 4096
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 4224
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 4352
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 4480
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 4608
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 4736
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 4864
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 4992
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 5120
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 5248
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 5376
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 5504
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 5632
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 5760
In ap_gfx_main.cpp: in ap_graphics_init(): Starting client.
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 5760
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 5888
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 6016
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 6144
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 6272
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 6400
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 6528
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 6656
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 6784
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 6912
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 7040
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 7168
In ap_gfx_main.cpp: in ap_graphics_init(): Starting client.
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 7168
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 7296
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 7424
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 7552
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 7680
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 7808
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 7936
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 8064
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 8192
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 8320
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 8448
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 8576
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 8704
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 8832
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 8960
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 9088
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 9216
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 9344
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 9472
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 9600
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 9728
In ap_gfx_main.cpp: in ap_graphics_init(): Starting client.
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 9728
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 9856
In ap_gfx_main.cpp: in ap_graphics_init(): Starting client.
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 9856
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 9984
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 10112
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 10240
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 10368
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 10496
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 10624
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 10752
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 10880
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 11008
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 11136
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 11264
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 11392
In ap_gfx_main.cpp: in ap_graphics_init(): Starting client.
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 11392
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 11520
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 11648
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 11776
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 11904
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 12032
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 12160
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 12288
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 12416
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 12544
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 12672
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 12800
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 12928
In ap_gfx_main.cpp: in ap_graphics_init(): Starting client.
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 12928
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 13056
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 13184
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 13312
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 13440
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 13568
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 13696
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 13824
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 13952
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 14080
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 14208
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 14336
In ap_gfx_main.cpp: in ap_graphics_init(): Starting client.
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 14336
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 14464
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 14592
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 14720
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 14848
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 14976
called boinc_finish

</stderr_txt>
]]>

Validate state Initial
Claimed credit 731.085008075149
Granted credit 0
application version 4.35

Astropulse WU #2:
Task ID 967140699
Name ap_05jl08ab_B2_P0_00305_20080828_20470.wu_1
Workunit 322129190
Created 28 Aug 2008 7:38:12 UTC
Sent 28 Aug 2008 12:52:53 UTC
Received 4 Sep 2008 12:41:37 UTC
Server state Over
Outcome Success
Client state Done
Exit status 0 (0x0)
Computer ID 4521634
Report deadline 27 Sep 2008 12:52:53 UTC
CPU time 371283.7
stderr out <core_client_version>6.2.18</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<stderr_txt>
In ap_gfx_main.cpp: in ap_graphics_init(): Starting client.
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 896
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 1024
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 1152
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 1280
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 1408
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 1536
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 1664
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 1792
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 1920
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 2048
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 2176
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 2304
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 2432
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 2560
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 2688
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 2816
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 2944
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 3072
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 3200
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 3328
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 3456
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 3584
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 3712
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 3840
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 3968
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 4096
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 4224
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 4352
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 4480
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 4608
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 4736
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 4864
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 4992
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 5120
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 5248
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 5376
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 5504
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 5632
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 5760
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 5888
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 6016
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 6144
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 6272
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 6400
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 6528
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 6656
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 6784
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 6912
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 7040
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 7168
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 7296
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 7424
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 7552
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 7680
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 7808
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 7936
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 8064
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 8192
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 8320
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 8448
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 8576
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 8704
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 8832
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 8960
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 9088
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 9216
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 9344
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 9472
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 9600
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 9728
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 9856
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 9984
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 10112
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 10240
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 10368
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 10496
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 10624
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 10752
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 10880
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 11008
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 11136
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 11264
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 11392
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 11520
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 11648
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 11776
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 11904
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 12032
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 12160
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 12288
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 12416
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 12544
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 12672
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 12800
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 12928
In ap_gfx_main.cpp: in ap_graphics_init(): Starting client.
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 12928
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 13056
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 13184
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 13312
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 13440
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 13568
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 13696
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 13824
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 13952
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 14080
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 14208
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 14336
In ap_gfx_main.cpp: in ap_graphics_init(): Starting client.
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 14336
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 14464
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 14592
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 14720
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 14848
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 14976
called boinc_finish

</stderr_txt>
]]>

Validate state Initial
Claimed credit 750.780489103208
Granted credit 0
application version 4.35

-----

I've only gotten these two Astropulse units done, and they both took a little over 103 hours to crunch. They don't appear to actually error out, and they both stopped at the same 'chunk' number. They're still listed as the Initial value, and haven't been validated yet. Are they completed? Do I need to cancel the others I have in my queue? I've got two more AP units in progress right now - one at 86%, and one at 30%.

My computer has an AMD Phenom X3 8450 (2.1GHz not overclocked) CPU with 4GB of 667MHz DDR2 RAM, and it's running Vista x64 - is 103 hours normal for this class of computer? My normal SETI units run in 3-4 hours, with the fast ones getting done in a little over 1 hour.

Looking good Leaps-from-Shadows, Just is waiting on your wingmen to complete I expect.

Jason

---

"Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions.

My AMD Opteron 1210 at 1.8 GHz running SuSE Linux took 115 h to complete its first AP WU. Credit asked is 731 credits, pending and waiting for its wingman. The stderr.txt messages are the same.
Tullio

---

AP failing on NT4. If you aren't going to support it, then why are you sending AP to them?

Granted, you can deselect AP in a venue, but that doesn't help much if there are other hosts which can run it which have to run under the same venue.

And yes, I am aware I could app_info it out of play as well, but that's not the point.

Alinator

AP failing on NT4. If you aren't going to support it, then why are you sending AP to them?

Granted, you can deselect AP in a venue, but that doesn't help much if there are other hosts which can run it which have to run under the same venue.

And yes, I am aware I could app_info it out of play as well, but that's not the point.

Alinator

Here' s one, that has got credit, but different claims from 3 clients.

RESULT AP
Can anybody 'reach' this RESULT AP, because sometimes I can't access other other hosts results?
Compaired, in crunching time, they got about half the credit off a SETI WU, running on a Non Optimized Host.
And it looks like faster CPU's got an avantage other then the amount off (G)FLOPS, produced by the host.

---

Here is the, above mentioned result, after gone through 3 hosts, it got validated and creditted.
But there is quite a difference in claiming and granting credit!?
The amount off CPU time is: 98160.78 sec.
Could we find out why there such a difference in crunching times?
<core_client_version>6.2.18</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<stderr_txt>
In ap_gfx_main.cpp: in ap_graphics_init(): Starting client.
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 896
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 1024
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 1152
*SNIP*

In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 14464
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 14592
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 14720
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 14848
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 14976
called boinc_finish

</stderr_txt>
]]>

Validate state Valid
Claimed credit 775.315374570798
Granted credit 719.055561868305
application version 4.35

---

Here' s one, that has got credit, but different claims from 3 clients.

RESULT AP

Compaired, in crunching time, they got about half the credit off a SETI WU, running on a Non Optimized Host.
And it looks like faster CPU's got an avantage other then the amount off (G)FLOPS, produced by the host.

Host 752030 - claim 875.05: using BOINC 4.25, so didn't report FLOPs
Host 4272066 - claim 719.06: applicable FLOP rate at 2 Aug 2008
Host 4290719 - claim 775.32: applicable FLOP rate at 1 Sep 2008

The difference between claim (2) and claim (3) shows that Eric's automatic self-normalisation script is slowly adressing the initial low estimate when the AP app was first released.

The only remaining question is: why did the validator-du-jour decide that a third instance was needed, on 1 Sep? - Ah: spotted it. Result (2) was reported about 5 hours past deadline, so the reissue had gone out, but not yet come back, when the quorum was established. Credit awarded according to rules.

Here' s one, that has got credit, but different claims from 3 clients.

RESULT AP

Compaired, in crunching time, they got about half the credit off a SETI WU, running on a Non Optimized Host.
And it looks like faster CPU's got an avantage other then the amount off (G)FLOPS, produced by the host.

Host 752030 - claim 875.05: using BOINC 4.25, so didn't report FLOPs
Host 4272066 - claim 719.06: applicable FLOP rate at 2 Aug 2008
Host 4290719 - claim 775.32: applicable FLOP rate at 1 Sep 2008

The difference between claim (2) and claim (3) shows that Eric's automatic self-normalisation script is slowly adressing the initial low estimate when the AP app was first released.

The only remaining question is: why did the validator-du-jour decide that a third instance was needed, on 1 Sep? - Ah: spotted it. Result (2) was reported about 5 hours past deadline, so the reissue had gone out, but not yet come back, when the quorum was established. Credit awarded according to rules.

So, it's a matter off time, when the validater du jour, gets tuned or gets used to these AP WU's?

---

***OFFTOPIC***
By the way, the first, off the above mentioned three hosts has a >130GByte UPLoad rate, looks kind a high, to me.
Strange error, though.
Average upload rate 130480468750 KB/sec
***END OFFTOPIC*** :)

---

AP failing on NT4. If you aren't going to support it, then why are you sending AP to them?

Granted, you can deselect AP in a venue, but that doesn't help much if there are other hosts which can run it which have to run under the same venue.

And yes, I am aware I could app_info it out of play as well, but that's not the point.

Alinator

Here' s one, that has got credit, but different claims from 3 clients.

RESULT AP
Can anybody 'reach' this RESULT AP, because sometimes I can't access other other hosts results?
Compaired, in crunching time, they got about half the credit off a SETI WU, running on a Non Optimized Host.
And it looks like faster CPU's got an avantage other then the amount off (G)FLOPS, produced by the host.

None of those hosts were running NT4.

Alinator