After looking at the error codes for your 2 crashes.

The first was already partially crunched - maybe your update caused it to fail somehow.
The second was reported as bad WU header - probably not due to problem your end.

Are you crunching OK now? If so then all should be fine.

EDIT - I have just seen you have finished an MB WU and it has validated OK. Hopefully your next AP will be OK too.

Could someone look into this one
I think my wingman has a problem and I get goose eggs. I'm not the only one who's gonna get screwed on this.

---

The other person is using:
<core_client_version>4.43</core_client_version>

This is an old version of Boinc that has issues and can result in what you have seen. The only cure is to try to get that person to upgrade the version of Boinc they're using.

-Dave

---

I sent the following message to the user. Maybe it'll work.

Please upgrade your BOINC core client to the latest version. This computer is claiming zero credits a great percentage of the time. That's alot of credit for you and others that is being denied.
You can download the latest version here

---

Good luck, hopefully it will!

-Dave

---

The powers that be here at SETI need to do something here. I know that occasionally the client reports a good result, however, most of the time it doesn't. Is there a way that if one machine reports a good result and claims credit and the wingman reports a good result but claims zero that the task will be sent out to a third machine? It's either that or block clients older than x.x.x. The way that credit here is dropping it seems to me that something HAS to be done.

---

Although they could limit sending out work to clients that meet a minimum version, the thought on this one is that the work returned is valid so there's no real reason not to include the older clients. It sucks when you get paired up with one, but eventually it happens to most participants, so it tends to equal out in the end.

-Dave

---

How does it ever equal out? The credits are gone. The work was done but no credit awarded. I don't think that somewhere down the line SETI is going to give anybody credits out of the blue. Something needs to be done about it. Just because it happens to everybody sooner or later doesn't make it right.
Im not talking about limiting work to clients that don't keep up with the minimum version. I mean stopping the work to them. It's not so unlike when SETI switched from Classic to BOINC. You either upgraded or you were out. IF the users of the older clients want to waste their electricity, fine, let them leave the lights on somewhere in the house but don't allow them to waste ours.

---

How does it ever equal out? The credits are gone. The work was done but no credit awarded. I don't think that somewhere down the line SETI is going to give anybody credits out of the blue. Something needs to be done about it. Just because it happens to everybody sooner or later doesn't make it right.
Im not talking about limiting work to clients that don't keep up with the minimum version. I mean stopping the work to them. It's not so unlike when SETI switched from Classic to BOINC. You either upgraded or you were out. IF the users of the older clients want to waste their electricity, fine, let them leave the lights on somewhere in the house but don't allow them to waste ours.

How is it not right? The project is still receiving valid work from those clients even if the credit is incorrect. From a science perspective, to stop sending work to all those clients is a potential loss in computing capacity that is providing valid results. From a social perspective, its nothing more than a minor annoyance.

Or are we trying to start the whole "Credits are my only pay and I want all of them!" debate again?

---

So, your official stance is , it's ok for this client to properly report only 10% of it's work as long as it validates? It's ok for 90% of the people this wingman is paired with to be awarded zero credit for their contribution to the project? Not everybody here does this for the science Ozz.I bet that anybody running an AP task that happened to get paired with a wingman claiming zero is really gonna agree with you.
Maybe the way that credit is awarded should be changed. Quorum of 3 and award the median.

---

... Maybe the way that credit is awarded should be changed. Quorum of 3 and award the median.

Now that really *would* waste electricity for no gain to the science.

F.

---

Not everybody here does this for the science Ozz.

The project is doing it for the science.

---

...
I bet that anybody running an AP task that happened to get paired with a wingman claiming zero is really gonna agree with you.

I've gotten burned by that a few times before (4.36>5.0 change-over, anyone?). Eric's override script helped out a few times, but outside of that, I've gotten zero credit on at least 20 APs since AP started.

Yeah it doesn't seem fair somewhere along the line, but the work was valid, and that's what the project is about, is valid work.

The credits are just an add-on that shows your overall contribution. Remember, it's equal-opportunity here..nobody's going to point and laugh at you if your credit total is lacking those credits from a zero-credit task. Actually, we would have had no idea that you got zero credit until you pointed it out. :p Small joke.

---

Linux laptop:
record uptime: 1511d 20h 19m (ended due to the power brick giving-up)

Pretty sure I will get a 0 on this AP WU. Three others have a no reply and his computer has only retured one or two of the 478 tasks it downloaded.

---

Pretty sure I will get a 0 on this AP WU. Three others have a no reply and his computer has only retured one or two of the 478 tasks it downloaded.

Worry not (yet). It can go out up to 10 times before it is ditched.

F.

---

Pretty sure I will get a 0 on this AP WU. Three others have a no reply and his computer has only retured one or two of the 478 tasks it downloaded.

Worry not (yet). It can go out up to 10 times before it is ditched.

F.

I thought it was 5 :) I don't like getting a 0 credit, but I kind of half expect it when an AP work unit slips though to one of my computers.

---

Pretty sure I will get a 0 on this AP WU. Three others have a no reply and his computer has only retured one or two of the 478 tasks it downloaded.

Worry not (yet). It can go out up to 10 times before it is ditched.

F.

I thought it was 5 :) I don't like getting a 0 credit, but I kind of half expect it when an AP work unit slips though to one of my computers.

I'm doing Astropulse almost exclusively. If AP was frequently "0" credit, my RAC would be under 100.

It's five errors, or ten total attempts, whichever comes first, and unless I'm missing something, none of the other machines has returned the work unit, in any form.

---

Pretty sure I will get a 0 on this AP WU. Three others have a no reply and his computer has only retured one or two of the 478 tasks it downloaded.

Worry not (yet). It can go out up to 10 times before it is ditched.

F.

I thought it was 5 :) I don't like getting a 0 credit, but I kind of half expect it when an AP work unit slips though to one of my computers.

I'm doing Astropulse almost exclusively. If AP was frequently "0" credit, my RAC would be under 100.

It's five errors, or ten total attempts, whichever comes first, and unless I'm missing something, none of the other machines has returned the work unit, in any form.

I did assume that a "No Reply" does not equate to an "Error" - so 10 attempts. No?

F.

---

Pretty sure I will get a 0 on this AP WU. Three others have a no reply and his computer has only retured one or two of the 478 tasks it downloaded.

Worry not (yet). It can go out up to 10 times before it is ditched.

F.

I thought it was 5 :) I don't like getting a 0 credit, but I kind of half expect it when an AP work unit slips though to one of my computers.

I'm doing Astropulse almost exclusively. If AP was frequently "0" credit, my RAC would be under 100.

It's five errors, or ten total attempts, whichever comes first, and unless I'm missing something, none of the other machines has returned the work unit, in any form.

I did assume that a "No Reply" does not equate to an "Error" - so 10 attempts. No?

F.

Yes, and I'm agreeing with you. :-)

It's only five if they're returned as errors.

---

So, your official stance is , it's ok for this client to properly report only 10% of it's work as long as it validates?

Yes.

It's ok for 90% of the people this wingman is paired with to be awarded zero credit for their contribution to the project? Not everybody here does this for the science Ozz.I bet that anybody running an AP task that happened to get paired with a wingman claiming zero is really gonna agree with you.

Since when is this a popularity contest, where whoever has the most people that agree with them win? Its not what we want or what is best for us. What matters is whats best for the project. You can set whatever priorities and goals you want, and you can even be in it for the credit all you want - but the project is in it for the science and the results.

Maybe the way that credit is awarded should be changed. Quorum of 3 and award the median.

So you want to have 3 computers spend all that electricity crunching the same result just so you can have your credit? You're willing to sacrifice the environment for a valueless number? What benefit would that bring the science?

---