Yes, from what I understand of the changes, the normal download size and runtime of AP_v6 is still the same. However, they have been working on the splitters to try and reduce the number of '100% blanked' and '30/30 exit' tasks that get sent out.

B3_P1's are still going out for v6. http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=949571942 Can't there just simply be some logic that says "oh, it is B3_P1, skip it and don't bother sending it out." ? B3_P1 has been bad for years with no news of a near-future fix. Can't they just skip it server-side and save the bandwidth and disk space?

---

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

Yes, from what I understand of the changes, the normal download size and runtime of AP_v6 is still the same. However, they have been working on the splitters to try and reduce the number of '100% blanked' and '30/30 exit' tasks that get sent out.

B3_P1's are still going out for v6. http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=949571942 Can't there just simply be some logic that says "oh, it is B3_P1, skip it and don't bother sending it out." ? B3_P1 has been bad for years with no news of a near-future fix. Can't they just skip it server-side and save the bandwidth and disk space?

I think that's one of the improvements in the AP_v6 splitter, and hence (at least partly) the reason for this release. The splitters should spot more of this type of problem before the work gets sent out, and limit the wastage that way.

With those very fast exits, it's mainly the project which suffers (by congestion), not the user. BTW, the B3_P1 channel often fails - strangely, usually at the same time of year - but isn't permanently kaput - it works sometimes. We need, and they should now have, more sophisticated decision-making than that.

I just got the following and given I have specified I don't want AstroPulse v6 in Edit SETI@home preferences why? What do I need to do please?

15/03/2012 00:18:29 | SETI@home | Message from server: Your app_info.xml file doesn't have a usable version of AstroPulse v6.

I just got the following and given I have specified I don't want AstroPulse v6 in Edit SETI@home preferences why? What do I need to do?

15/03/2012 00:18:29 | SETI@home | Message from server: Your app_info.xml file doesn't have a usable version of AstroPulse v6.

I have got the same message, do nothing, you won't get any astropulses V6. However you will get that message frequently.

---

Member of the People Encouraging Niceness In Society club.

I just got the following and given I have specified I don't want AstroPulse v6 in Edit SETI@home preferences why? What do I need to do please?

15/03/2012 00:18:29 | SETI@home | Message from server: Your app_info.xml file doesn't have a usable version of AstroPulse v6.

Wait until testing is complete and the new optimised applications are released.

Heed the warnings that until sufficient stock application users have had their work validated, optimised application users will not only get zero credit for themselves, but will also drag their wingmates down to the zero credit level. Even the regular testers are restricting themselves to the barest minimum of mine-canaries to minimise the risk of offending innocent quorum-partners.

If you'd like to help us with the open Beta testing, please feel free to join the SETI@home/AstroPulse Beta project, which exists for precisely that purpose.

And if you really don't want to run Astropulse, ignore the (perfectly true) message that pops up from time to time, just as the rest of us do.

Though that message is interesting in the first place. I noticed last night when I got rid of my app_info and went stock for v6, when I get "no tasks sent," there is not the red error text saying anything about applications that I have opted not to receive work for. When there is an app_info, it seems the scheduler just kind of ignores what you asked for.

On my single-core machine, the app_info had both MB and AP, and with the preferences being MB-only, it still got an AP a few weeks ago.

When I was AP-only with an app_info, just about every single work request had a message about how I don't have an application for S@H Enhanced. Well yeah.. that's why I didn't choose it in the preferences and why my app_info doesn't have it.

Seems to only affect anonymous platform, but I wonder why? Is it as simple as changing a + to a - or a < to a >, or adding a != in the scheduler configuration, or is it something that will require a major overhaul? Of course, it's not really a huge ordeal, but it would be nice if the preferences were at least taken into consideration for anon. platform.

---

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

I just got the following and given I have specified I don't want AstroPulse v6 in Edit SETI@home preferences why? What do I need to do?

15/03/2012 00:18:29 | SETI@home | Message from server: Your app_info.xml file doesn't have a usable version of AstroPulse v6.

I have got the same message, do nothing, you won't get any astropulses V6. However you will get that message frequently.

Thank you to all and I will just ignore them for now along with the other silly one I keep getting. Once an hour seems a rather too often me though and maybe now AP 6 is here the days of the 400/50 limits are numbered.

15/03/2012 01:07:29 | SETI@home | This computer has reached a limit on tasks in progress
15/03/2012 01:12:50 | SETI@home | Message from server: Your app_info.xml file doesn't have a usable version of AstroPulse v6.

'Once an hour' can be configured.

Tools -> Options -> General -> Notice reminder interval. (Or similar, I'm reading from v7.0.20)

Thank you Richard. Mine was set to 6 hours but there must be a bug as they come far more often than that.

15/03/2012 04:39:48 | SETI@home | Message from server: Your app_info.xml file doesn't have a usable version of AstroPulse v6.
15/03/2012 05:44:09 | SETI@home | Message from server: Your app_info.xml file doesn't have a usable version of AstroPulse v6.
15/03/2012 07:32:13 | SETI@home | Message from server: Your app_info.xml file doesn't have a usable version of AstroPulse v6.

That's the server telling you and showing up in log. The option is whether to be told in the notices tab. (plus all the ballon stuff, if not disabled)

---

I'm not the Pope. I don't speak Ex Cathedra!

That's the server telling you and showing up in log. The option is whether to be told in the notices tab. (plus all the ballon stuff, if not disabled)

Thank you. I guessed that might be the case but I feel they should not be there at all.

I wonder, do systems such as http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/show_host_detail.php?hostid=6311481 get similar messages telling them to update to a sensible version of BOINC? If not then they should!

That's the server telling you and showing up in log. The option is whether to be told in the notices tab. (plus all the ballon stuff, if not disabled)

Thank you. I guessed that might be the case but I feel they should not be there at all.

I wonder, do systems such as http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/show_host_detail.php?hostid=6311481 get similar messages telling them to update to a sensible version of BOINC? If not then they should!

They get an entry in the message log saying 'A newer version of BOINC is available', periodically.

And the message log is more visible in that version - no simple view, no separate page. But do you honestly think the owner ever looks at it? Machines like that probably run headless in service mode - I doubt BOINC Manager ever gets opened.

That's the server telling you and showing up in log. The option is whether to be told in the notices tab. (plus all the ballon stuff, if not disabled)

Thank you. I guessed that might be the case but I feel they should not be there at all.

I wonder, do systems such as http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/show_host_detail.php?hostid=6311481 get similar messages telling them to update to a sensible version of BOINC? If not then they should!

Maybe send an email in the vain hope that they actually check that, which also supposes they are using the same email addy they signed up with. A long shot but you never know

---

BOINC blog

Thank you Richard. Mine was set to 6 hours but there must be a bug as they come far more often than that.

15/03/2012 04:39:48 | SETI@home | Message from server: Your app_info.xml file doesn't have a usable version of AstroPulse v6.
15/03/2012 05:44:09 | SETI@home | Message from server: Your app_info.xml file doesn't have a usable version of AstroPulse v6.
15/03/2012 07:32:13 | SETI@home | Message from server: Your app_info.xml file doesn't have a usable version of AstroPulse v6.

If you didn't have an app_info and didn't have the AP v6 switch selected, you would get a message saying 'there is AP v6 work available, but your preferences are set to not accept it',
it's just the server's way of saying why you didn't get that task it could have sent you,

Claggy

Maybe send an email in the vain hope that they actually check that, which also supposes they are using the same email addy they signed up with. A long shot but you never know

Already did as noted here.

---

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

I have two questions for those in the know about the new V6 AP apps.

1. Will there be an AP_V6 stock version available shortly for 32-bit Linux to go along with the Windows version?.

2. I see there is a beta version of the 64-bit Linux AP_v6 version now (R546). Once it leaves beta status, will there be a version compiled for 32-bit Linux based of the same source code, or alternatively, will a tarball be made available for Linux users to compile their own?

I have two questions for those in the know about the new V6 AP apps.

1. Will there be an AP_V6 stock version available shortly for 32-bit Linux to go along with the Windows version?.

According to the Applications page, both Linux/x86 (32 bit) and Linux/x86_64 are already installed and available as stock apps. You can be the first to try them!

2. I see there is a beta version of the 64-bit Linux AP_v6 version now (R546). Once it leaves beta status, will there be a version compiled for 32-bit Linux based of the same source code, or alternatively, will a tarball be made available for Linux users to compile their own?

I'm Windows only, I'm afraid. I haven't seen anything from the linux guys yet - which isn't to say they haven't posted, just that I may have missed it in the rush. I'll ask them in their coding dungeon, and see if I can entice them to post here.

Speaking of coming builds, am I to assume Windows will be like last time where there's just a 32-bit build with only SSE, or will there be more options this time around? I would be curious to see if there is any measurable (>2.5%) gain from either 64-bit and/or SSE2/3. I was in touch with Jason about a year ago regarding maybe digging up the r409 code and building an SSE3 version of it, but the GPU builds were the priority at the time so it got put on the back-burner.

---

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

Speaking of coming builds, am I to assume Windows will be like last time where there's just a 32-bit build with only SSE, or will there be more options this time around? I would be curious to see if there is any measurable (>2.5%) gain from either 64-bit and/or SSE2/3. I was in touch with Jason about a year ago regarding maybe digging up the r409 code and building an SSE3 version of it, but the GPU builds were the priority at the time so it got put on the back-burner.

We'll be having two builds, 32 bit only (I think there was some general problem with 64 bit and we are rushing this release. We've also run into other hiccups).
One build, dynamically linked libs SSE.
One build statically linked libs SSE2 and AVX enabled.
(the dynamical build has AVX as well but is slower)
we tested a SSE3 build but couldn't really see a speed advantage, we don't know what's up with that one - might be released separately.
The static link has a measurable gain, but whether that's due to SSE or libs is anyones guess.

---

I'm not the Pope. I don't speak Ex Cathedra!

We'll be having two builds, 32 bit only (I think there was some general problem with 64 bit and we are rushing this release. We've also run into other hiccups).
One build, dynamically linked libs SSE.
One build statically linked libs SSE2 and AVX enabled.
(the dynamical build has AVX as well but is slower)
we tested a SSE3 build but couldn't really see a speed advantage, we don't know what's up with that one - might be released separately.
The static link has a measurable gain, but whether that's due to SSE or libs is anyones guess.

Sounds good enough for me. I wouldn't really expect 64-bit to have much of a measurable gain, but I know SSEx extensions can make a huge difference.

There was a time a while back where on AMD, SSE2 seemed to do much better than 3, while on Intel, SSSE3 does much better than regular 3. That's mostly why I was asking if it would be going past 1 this time around.

---

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