CyberGoyle,

I hope you took my post as why I do it not to complain about you
I envy you and wish I could have a farm like yours.

I have grumbled in the past but I did not call Berk/Seti team names, I did use the s**t word once but not at S/B. I roll with the punches and yes it is disappointing to loose credits.

I do get irritated when I read the posts and hear the whines rants and threats.
I have defended this project and the teams.

If a user wants to quit I wish them well but JUST GO!
Don’t bother with snide comments, Come back some other time.

Timmy

</img>

---

>
> Only feedback from the project is what is needed. It doesn't seem that
> complex to me. Maybe I'm missing something?
>

That's all everyone is asking for.

> I see two possible causes for increased processing time - the new client is
> performing more calculations (very likely), or the new client indeed is less
> efficient. If the latter is true, perhaps the developers are busy fixing the
> problem, explaining their absence from these forums, and if its the former,
> then everyone is in a snit for no reason at all....
>
>

If it is indeed the "former" than why don't they tell us this. There would be a lot less complaining if the dev team would keep us up-to-date of what is going on. If v4.05 is indeed doing more calculations, why not tell us so that we don't ask "Why are my WUs taking so much longer....?".

L8R....

---




Rick A. - BOINCing right along now.... It can only get better!

"There is no fate except that which we create for ourselves."

Live Long and Prosper....

OK, lets look at it another way. Say your computer is capable of crunching a work unit in 3 hours. In one year, you could crunch 8 WU's per day in 365 days or 2920 WU's per year. Now lets say the same work unit takes 6 hours. You could now crunch 1460 WU's per year. What's the difference, you say? Well,, you could leave your computer powered off for half a year at the 3 hour rate and still accomplish the same amount of science. And you would use half the electrical energy to do that work.

Now keep in mind, if the new WU's under 4.05 do more intense or different processing for a scientific reason, fine. That's a whole different situation. We haven't seen anything from the Boinc Set Admin. that says that. If it's a mistake or just a strategy to relieve the network load, it's wrong. Just tell us to back off until hardware/software problems are solved. Or stop the down loadable WU's.

We were told Boinc Seti was ready to transfer to (from Seti Classic). I still have Seti Classic on my machines and Will be glad to switch back if that would help. Only feedback from the project is what is needed. It doesn't seem that complex to me. Maybe I'm missing something?

I guess it's like using a 120 watt light bulb where a 60 watt bulb would suffice.

> All of us who don't have 36 machines and aren't in the top 25
> would care, If you were penalized credit be cause you are a hi end cruncher
> you would complain.
>
>
> We do it for some kind of competition, bragging rights etc.
> We learn from doing it.
> We all are searching for E.T.
> We don't do this for money.
> We do it for science.
> We learn from doing it
> We need goals and accomplishments.
> We love to crunch and complain when we don't get the credit
>

I appreciate the need for goals and rewards, and I am fortunate to have many PC's at my disposal. That said, I have lost quite literally thousands of WU's since the start of BOINC. Read through every post I have made - not once have I criticized the project and/or its developers. I have simply waited patiently along with everyone else until the 'issue of the moment' is worked out.... it really isn't that hard to do.


<a>

> I see two possible causes for increased processing time - the new client is
> performing more calculations (very likely), or the new client indeed is less
> efficient. If the latter is true, perhaps the developers are busy fixing the
> problem, explaining their absence from these forums, and if its the former,
> then everyone is in a snit for no reason at all....
>
>
> <a>
>
Well, what does "more calculations" mean? Berkeley certainly hasn't owned up to this. If those "more calculations" are machine cycles wasted on debugging code that was accidentally left turned on, then it is indeed your "former" scenario, but everyone is quite justified in being in a "snit" for a stupid coding mistake like that.

So again, it seems that Berkeley really owes us the courtesy of a simple answer. It wouldn't take that long for them to be polite. The developers wouldn't lose that much time from being "busy fixing the problem".

How about it Berkeley???????


--Bill Z.

>Can anyone explain to me why this is important?

All of us who don't have 36 machines and aren't in the top 25
would care, If you were penalized credit be cause you are a hi end cruncher
you would complain.


We do it for some kind of competition, bragging rights etc.
We learn from doing it.
We all are searching for E.T.
We don't do this for money.
We do it for science.
We learn from doing it
We need goals and accomplishments.
We love to crunch and complain when we don't get the credit

</img>

---

> It makes a difference if you are running several projects. Any wasted cycles
> on SETI will impact the time spent on the other projects. Science or credit,
> both are impacted on multi-project BOINC machines.
>

Then choose the project that maximizes your cycles and stick with it. As for me, I have a particular fondness for Seti, so I devote all CPU cycles to it. Everyone has finite CPU cycles to offer - choose the science that performs to your own expectations and quit the moaning and groaning.

BTW, my reply was not to you personally Purple Rabbit, it is a general expression of my growing annoyance at the lack of patience poeple exhibit in these forums.


<a>

It makes a difference if you are running several projects. Any wasted cycles on SETI will impact the time spent on the other projects. Science or credit, both are impacted on multi-project BOINC machines.

Size doesn't matter ;)

Actually, if all 3 systems (used to verify result is good) were similar CPUS and took same ammount of time...it would not matter.

Credit_claimed = * * cpu_time_spent.

No, the issue is that previous WUs were taking xx time on peoples machines and now they take xx+yy time.

Is the WU different, nobody in authority has said "were sending out more complex WUs...they will crunch for longer". So people suspect the newest WU crunching code has some coding flaw. And if true then less science is being done, than could be done.

I see two possible causes for increased processing time - the new client is performing more calculations (very likely), or the new client indeed is less efficient. If the latter is true, perhaps the developers are busy fixing the problem, explaining their absence from these forums, and if its the former, then everyone is in a snit for no reason at all....


<a>

> 2 hours, 4 hours, 8 hours, who cares? Can anyone explain to me why this is
> important? If Berkeley released jumbo WU's that took 5 days to process on high
> end CPU's, would everyone abandon Seti?
>
>
> <a>
>
If the science is what's important, then efficiency is also important. People (including me) seem to be concerned that machine cycles are being needlessly wasted.

Berkeley could easily clear this up by simply answering all the queries about what's really going on!!


--Bill Z.

2 hours, 4 hours, 8 hours, who cares? Can anyone explain to me why this is important? If Berkeley released jumbo WU's that took 5 days to process on high end CPU's, would everyone abandon Seti?


<a>