Both of my AP units have finished, one came in at 18.49 and the other at 18.14 hours. That is a 4 hour reduction over the 4.36 optimized version.

---

Crunch AP and the possibility to get 0 Credits:

• The other user use 'wine'.
  
• Different AP app versions.
  

There are other possibilities also?

Not a well 'advertisement/commercials' for to let run AP.. :-(

---

Crunch AP and the possibility to get 0 Credits:

• The other user use 'wine'.
  
• Different AP app versions.
  

There are other possibilities also?

Not a well 'advertisement/commercials' for to let run AP.. :-(

I don't think it's that much of a problem to not do AP.

While it's true it appears that if your wingman uses wine you could end up not getting credit for a task, I don't believe the odds of it happening are that high and in the end the science part of it is still good.

THe different AP app versions AFAIK can be fixed by updating to the latest opti app (or at least make your oddds better at getting credit), so there really is no need to stop doing AP IMHO

Edit: BTW 2nd task done on AMD 64 3800+ came in at 138,838.30 still beating the old opti ;) and just started the third one.

---

Cruiser's compiled results so far:

Main:
368768645 (Validated) - 0.008021076 credits per CPU second
368768653 (Validated) - 0.008183099 credits per CPU second
368496971 (Pending) - 0.008235288 credits per CPU second
368768654 (Validated, canonical result) - 0.008136883 credits per CPU second
368768675 (Pending) - 0.008161555 credits per CPU second

368418713 (v4.37, Pending) - 0.006726898 credits per CPU second

Beta:
1563494 (Validated) - 0.009484371 credits per CPU second
1565756 (Validated) - 0.009705443 credits per CPU second
1564992 (Validated) - 0.009227865 credits per CPU second
1565745 (Pending) (Task details) - 0.009846161 credits per CPU second

For comparison:
Shorty Multibeam (16.84 credits): 0.007037046 credits per CPU second
Average Multibeam (44.12 credits): 0.008375063 credits per CPU second
Long Multibeam (63.86 credits): 0.010619245 credits per CPU second

I have decided to keep crunching Astropulse units on Main, but only one at a time.

---

Cruiser
Gateway GT5692 L-f-S Edition
-Phenom X4 9650 CPU
-4GB 667MHz DDR2 RAM
-500GB SATA HD
-Vista x64 SP1
-BOINC 6.2.19 32-bit client
-SSE3 optimized 32-bit apps

My AP took 29:42:34 hrs whilst my last complete one took over 32 hrs, so I have saved around 2-3 hrs with one AP taking longer it would have been 4-5 hrs. Hopefully this will continue and I can get them done under 2 working days (30hrs)

---

Just finished my first AP V5 WU on my Q9450@3600MHz.

Relative approx times (from units still in my pendings)

v4.6 13.1 hours
v4.7 11.8 hours
v5.0 10.4 hours

Certainly heading in the right direction :-)

F.

---

Certainly heading in the right direction :-)

Looking at the times from my T7300, I have to agree:

stock v4.35 44h
opt v4.35 22h
opt v5.00 17h (1 task)

Decided to start running this task. If the user in the initial replication manages to return his result before me and validates against his original wingmate, there'll be two v5.00 invalids.

//Sami.

Edit - The credit/CPU hour ratio is now in line with optimised MB (AK v8 SSSE3x) on this machine:
MB VLAR 38 cr/h
MB 0.4x 44 cr/h
MB VHAR ~55 cr/h
AP 44.8 cr/h

Big thanks to all concerned for their work with these wonderful apps!

---

...
Decided to start running this task. If the user in the initial replication manages to return his result before me and validates against his original wingmate, there'll be two v5.00 invalids.

//Sami.
...

I've seen 4.x vs. 5.00 validations go both ways, but I'd expect at least weakly similar results in most cases so all might be granted credit.

                                                                 Joe

I've seen 4.x vs. 5.00 validations go both ways, but I'd expect at least weakly similar results in most cases so all might be granted credit.

OK good to hear, but I had one like this (now purged):

1029620344 3922805 21 Oct 2008 7:51:40 UTC 25 Oct 2008 20:54:19 UTC Over Success Done 78,416.14  755.78 755.78
1064405827 4587127 20 Nov 2008 7:52:07 UTC 25 Nov 2008 23:34:55 UTC Over Success Done 241,457.40 759.34   0.00
1029620343 2377904 21 Oct 2008 7:51:55 UTC 23 Nov 2008 21:00:40 UTC Over Success Done 666,504.70 755.78 755.78

So, i crunched in October and got lucky when wingman returned late with his v4. Not so lucky for the other guy/gal.

//Sami.

Edit - To clarify, for me credits are secondary to good science. So I wouldn't moan if I got a goose egg. I just think it's bad form on part of the project.

---

Cruiser's compiled results so far:

Main:
368768645 (Validated) - 0.008021076 credits per CPU second
368768653 (Validated) - 0.008183099 credits per CPU second
368496971 (Pending) - 0.008235288 credits per CPU second
368768654 (Validated, canonical result) - 0.008136883 credits per CPU second
368768675 (Pending) - 0.008161555 credits per CPU second
368768681 (Validated) - 0.008024405 credits per CPU second

368418713 (v4.37, Pending) - 0.006726898 credits per CPU second

Beta:
1563494 (Validated) - 0.009484371 credits per CPU second
1565756 (Validated) - 0.009705443 credits per CPU second
1564992 (Validated) - 0.009227865 credits per CPU second
1565745 (Pending) (Task details) - 0.009846161 credits per CPU second
1565021 (Pending) (Task details) - 0.009777995 credits per CPU second

For comparison:
Shorty Multibeam (16.84 credits): 0.007037046 credits per CPU second
Average Multibeam (44.12 credits): 0.008375063 credits per CPU second
Long Multibeam (63.86 credits): 0.010619245 credits per CPU second

---

Cruiser
Gateway GT5692 L-f-S Edition
-Phenom X4 9650 CPU
-4GB 667MHz DDR2 RAM
-500GB SATA HD
-Vista x64 SP1
-BOINC 6.2.19 32-bit client
-SSE3 optimized 32-bit apps

at last had the time to download opt AP v5.00 and split and merge the info files together, question is, i did not stop the boinc when i was doing it, i stopped afterwards boinc and open it up again, it is running like before, but was there something else i had to do to get AP units, so far haven´t seen any,ok i just did it like five minutes ago, hjälp please
(found out that you should have stopped boinc, and not open it before you have done the SPLIT, otherwise you have to do it again, but my version just might work too, cause i went to see the app. info and it was allright, merged as should, maybe everything is ok)(except my rac has gone down last week or so,but that has to be something else)

at last had the time to download opt AP v5.00 and split and merge the info files together, question is, i did not stop the boinc when i was doing it, i stopped afterwards boinc and open it up again, it is running like before, but was there something else i had to do to get AP units, so far haven´t seen any,ok i just did it like five minutes ago, hjälp please

1) Editing app_info.xml while BOINC is running is no problem at all - I do it all the time. Provided you have loaded all the other required files, BOINC will use the new app_info when it is restarted - as you have done.

2) To receive Astropulse tasks, you have to ensure that AP is allowed on your SETI@home preferences page.

In addition, you have to wait - wait until BOINC needs new work for its cache, and until AP work happens - by conincidence - to be next in the server queue when you ask for work. If you want to force an AP download for testing purposes, you could temporarily deselect SETI@home Enhanced on that preferences page - that won't affect any enhanced work you may already have downloaded.

thank you, i was bit worried i have messed up a good thing by being too hasty
(next i have to get the darn rac to go up again)

E2180 dual core with another result. Time of 36:35:30
AMD64 3800+ result. Time of 37:30:23

---

Josef W. Segur wrote in the Astropulse FAQ thread:

When 5.00 starts up, it checks the data in the WU to see what parts look like radar noise which needs to be removed. It creates an indices.txt file in the slot directory to save that information. Some WUs have no noise to be removed, indices.txt is zero bytes in size, and the 5.00 processing will be identical to 4.36 so should validate. Some WUs may only have a few spots where 5.00 will replace the original data with random numbers, but it replaces nearly a third of a second worth of data for each one. The more that's replaced, the less likely a 5.00 result will match a 4.36 result.

I had read that, but didn't remember about it yesterday when writing this:

...
Decided to start running this task. If the user in the initial replication manages to return his result before me and validates against his original wingmate, there'll be two v5.00 invalids.

//Sami.
...

I've seen 4.x vs. 5.00 validations go both ways, but I'd expect at least weakly similar results in most cases so all might be granted credit.

                                                                 Joe

So, indices.txt is 26.9kB. What's the spread for weakly similar? My other laptop has or had one with a 98 kB indices.txt.

And, Happy Thanksgiving to all across the Pond. Eat well and enjoy your football featuring the... Lions??!
Yes, I know they traditionally play on Thanksgiving Day, but come on...

Edit - What I actually meant to ask about was the runtimes. First v5 task was 61k seconds with empty indices.txt. This one projects to 64.3k seconds at 46.1% with that 26.9 kB indices.txt. Are these connected or is there something else at play?

---

at last had the time to download opt AP v5.00 and split and merge the info files together, question is, i did not stop the boinc when i was doing it, i stopped afterwards boinc and open it up again, it is running like before, but was there something else i had to do to get AP units, so far haven´t seen any,ok i just did it like five minutes ago, hjälp please
(found out that you should have stopped boinc, and not open it before you have done the SPLIT, otherwise you have to do it again, but my version just might work too, cause i went to see the app. info and it was allright, merged as should, maybe everything is ok)(except my rac has gone down last week or so,but that has to be something else)

seems like everything is allright, got first AP unit, shows for crunch time
29 hours, now i just have to wait cause it is in bottom of pile
(takes something like 60h to get there)

Cruiser's compiled results so far:

Main:
368768645 (Validated) - 0.008021076 credits per CPU second
368768653 (Validated) - 0.008183099 credits per CPU second
368496971 (Pending) - 0.008235288 credits per CPU second
368768654 (Validated, canonical result) - 0.008136883 credits per CPU second
368768675 (Pending) - 0.008161555 credits per CPU second
368768681 (Validated) - 0.008024405 credits per CPU second
369656439 (Pending) - 0.007830532 credits per CPU second
349739781 (Validated) - 0.008531656 credits per CPU second

368418713 (v4.37, Pending) - 0.006726898 credits per CPU second

Beta:
1563494 (Validated) - 0.009484371 credits per CPU second
1565756 (Validated) - 0.009705443 credits per CPU second
1564992 (Validated) - 0.009227865 credits per CPU second
1565745 (Pending) (Task details) - 0.009846161 credits per CPU second
1565021 (Pending) (Task details) - 0.009777995 credits per CPU second
1565898 (Pending) (Task details) - 0.009551190 credits per CPU second

For comparison:
Shorty Multibeam (16.84 credits): 0.007037046 credits per CPU second
Average Multibeam (44.12 credits): 0.008375063 credits per CPU second
Long Multibeam (63.86 credits): 0.010619245 credits per CPU second

---

Cruiser
Gateway GT5692 L-f-S Edition
-Phenom X4 9650 CPU
-4GB 667MHz DDR2 RAM
-500GB SATA HD
-Vista x64 SP1
-BOINC 6.2.19 32-bit client
-SSE3 optimized 32-bit apps

Josef W. Segur wrote in the Astropulse FAQ thread:

When 5.00 starts up, it checks the data in the WU to see what parts look like radar noise which needs to be removed. It creates an indices.txt file in the slot directory to save that information. Some WUs have no noise to be removed, indices.txt is zero bytes in size, and the 5.00 processing will be identical to 4.36 so should validate. Some WUs may only have a few spots where 5.00 will replace the original data with random numbers, but it replaces nearly a third of a second worth of data for each one. The more that's replaced, the less likely a 5.00 result will match a 4.36 result.

I had read that, but didn't remember about it yesterday when writing this:

...
Decided to start running this task. If the user in the initial replication manages to return his result before me and validates against his original wingmate, there'll be two v5.00 invalids.

//Sami.
...

I've seen 4.x vs. 5.00 validations go both ways, but I'd expect at least weakly similar results in most cases so all might be granted credit.

                                                                 Joe

So, indices.txt is 26.9kB. What's the spread for weakly similar? My other laptop has or had one with a 98 kB indices.txt.

And, Happy Thanksgiving to all across the Pond. Eat well and enjoy your football featuring the... Lions??!
Yes, I know they traditionally play on Thanksgiving Day, but come on...

Edit - What I actually meant to ask about was the runtimes. First v5 task was 61k seconds with empty indices.txt. This one projects to 64.3k seconds at 46.1% with that 26.9 kB indices.txt. Are these connected or is there something else at play?

The more I learn about the blanking the more I regret saying "most cases" should be at least weakly similar. "Some cases" would be better, and I really can't estimate what fraction. A 26.9kB indices.txt might be applying blanking to all the data, or as little as 2% or so, though either extreme is almost impossible.

During a full-length run, the app will be dealing with about 57.4 million chunks (each 32K samples). For each chunk it checks the blanking indices to see if it should be replaced. I estimate 383 indices in your case (the verbose format in the file gives about 75 to 80 bytes per index), so there's a lot of checking which is bound to add some time. I don't know if that's enough to account for the projected 5%+ increase. There is some small variation in the linearity of the progress which can also affect projection of total time from current time and progress, perhaps that is involved too.

                                                                Joe

Thanks for the info Joe

---

Cruiser's compiled results so far:

Main:
368768645 (Validated) - 0.008021076 credits per CPU second
368768653 (Validated) - 0.008183099 credits per CPU second
368496971 (Pending) - 0.008235288 credits per CPU second
368768654 (Validated, canonical result) - 0.008136883 credits per CPU second
368768675 (Pending) - 0.008161555 credits per CPU second
368768681 (Validated) - 0.008024405 credits per CPU second
369656439 (Pending) - 0.007830532 credits per CPU second
349739781 (Validated) - 0.008531656 credits per CPU second
369656217 (Pending) - 0.008278782 credits per CPU second

368418713 (v4.37, Pending) - 0.006726898 credits per CPU second

Beta:
1563494 (Validated) - 0.009484371 credits per CPU second
1565756 (Validated) - 0.009705443 credits per CPU second
1564992 (Validated) - 0.009227865 credits per CPU second
1565745 (Pending) (Task details) - 0.009846161 credits per CPU second
1565021 (Pending) (Task details) - 0.009777995 credits per CPU second
1565898 (Pending) (Task details) - 0.009551190 credits per CPU second
1628888 (Pending) (Task details) - 0.009486180 credits per CPU second

For comparison:
Shorty Multibeam (16.84 credits): 0.007037046 credits per CPU second
Average Multibeam (44.12 credits): 0.008375063 credits per CPU second
Long Multibeam (63.86 credits): 0.010619245 credits per CPU second

---

Cruiser
Gateway GT5692 L-f-S Edition
-Phenom X4 9650 CPU
-4GB 667MHz DDR2 RAM
-500GB SATA HD
-Vista x64 SP1
-BOINC 6.2.19 32-bit client
-SSE3 optimized 32-bit apps