Should be fairly quick, i.e. less than an hour, unless there's some kind of problem (you enter in a different e-mail address, etc., - anything that requires human intervention to fix).

- Matt

Doh! Having a bunch of email addresses can cause problems. I did, in fact give a different address. Oh well, I guess I'll just have to be patient.

It's called inflation.

Back in my day, a work unit was worth somethin'! A few honest hour o' crunchin' might earn ya 30, 40 sometimes near 50 credits fer yer troubles. But nowadays, them wippersnapper validators gettin' all cheap. No respect. No respect at all I tell ya! Why, I've got half a mind to walk right on down there and tell them validators what they can do with their precious formulas and hokus-pokus and whatnot. Can't believe it! I...

What was I talking about?

Right! Those bank tellers! I had an account with that bank for fifty-three years if it was a day, and this little snot-nosed kid wants to see my ID??? It's an outrage...

I have calculated my average granted credits over 145 send wu’s and I find it very low.
For those 145 wu’s I have claimed 6403,84 credits and I have only received 3690,52 granted credits , this is just a average off 57,6 %. Is this common ?. I find it quite low.

IMHO, 25.28 CREDITS/WU seems about right to me. I figure the average wu is worth about 25 credits. The credits you claimed of 44.16 CREDITS/WU seems a bit high to me. Or maybe I am expecting too little :D

If anyone has an opinion on how many credits an average WU is worth, I'd be glad to hear it.

-Mark

Should be fairly quick, i.e. less than an hour, unless there's some kind of problem (you enter in a different e-mail address, etc., - anything that requires human intervention to fix).

- Matt

For the record, I plan to go back at "star" people who donated before 9/1/2005 - it's just that we didn't have this system in place and confirming e-mail addresses, etc. is a bit difficult. But it'll happen.

- Matt

Wow a few of us are old-timers on this thread:
Shaktai Joined: Jun 16, 1999
Reid Joined: Jun 2, 1999
ChadHampy Joined: May 17, 1999
mmarrs Joined: Jan 10, 2001

Don't forget me! :)

Deleting 15% of the dangling results should have had an impact on the WFV number, as that should take the the dangling result number back below what it was in early August.

There's a problem here which UCB isn't making public. But the numbers speak for themselves!

Orphaned files were deleted from 15% of the DIRECTORIES involved. I assume that is approximately 15% of the files... but even in the BEST case, it means that validation is now "faster" for at most 15% of the pending (and ever-incoming) results. Saying that deleting orphans would change the NUMBER in the WFV queue is totally unsupportable, as the numbers are unrelated - it changes the RATE OF CHANGE of the WFV queue. As it has obviously been well over 15% "too slow", the BEST we could hope for at this point is that the rate of increase will slow down a bit. I expect no _downward_ trend in the WFV count until somewhere between 50 and 80% of the orphans have been deleted. Without running a trend analysis on the data going back much farther than the Scarecrow has been tracking it, that's just a "gut feel" from prior experience. If someone wanted to run the numbers, they could, with several hours work, come up with a much closer estimate of when the trend will reverse...

Done a bit more number-crunching here. Extrapolating from yesterday's tech news, there were originally about 5.4 million "antique" or "orphan" files. Add to this the 1.3 million results waiting for validation. That is our "overhead", call it 6.7 million files. (There is some unknown number that will be there even when WFV is zero - possibly the 1 million "in progress"? None? I don't know...) Assume (famous last words...) that the validator was "barely able to keep up" when there were 5 million files in the directories, which would have been around the first of the month. No way to know now exactly what the "critical point" was, but that just "sounds" about right. Using that, we must delete 1.7 million files _more_ than are coming in for validation before we "turn the corner". Heck, they have to delete at least 1.3 million before we even reach "before problem was visible". At 1/2 million per 3-hour outage, that means at LEAST 4 more outages before the WFV queue starts going down, and it gives an "upper bound" of WFV results - if WFV hits 5 million before starting down, then only an extended outage will allow the system to catch up.

I am now much less worried about a mere 1.3 million backlog, and a lot more confident that the way they're doing this is the best possible approach.

I'll try to re-figure all this if they give us more numbers today...

Maybe we should make sure that all software written still work on every computer all the way back to the 8088's. It would only be fair. Why should those computers be relegated to the closet shelf?

I'll agree with this one... I have 5 computers crunching for Boinc and 2 for classic. The 2 crunching classic don't support Boinc, should that preclude them from helping?

It would be nice if everyone would just move over to BOINC/SETI.

The bad part is that a lot of machines just can't handle BOINC/SETI.

It will be a shame to see those folks have to quit.

Go 2 billion!

They are running and validating... It is just the the incoming rate for processed results is faster than the validators can churn through.

When the incoming rate settles back down to a normal load, the validators will catch up.