Please reduce the amount of redundancy that is employed as it is depriving other projects of computer time while we are needlessly crunching a qourum of 4 when the absolute max needed is 3. Seti is guilty and so is Einstein. I know its so that they can grant credit faster and delete the unit from their disks but its not justified. In effect for every 100 computers only 25 are doing any real work the others are only duplicating. You need redundancy but not that much.

---

> Please reduce the amount of redundancy that is employed as it is depriving
> other projects of computer time while we are needlessly crunching a qourum of
> 4 when the absolute max needed is 3. Seti is guilty and so is Einstein. I know
> its so that they can grant credit faster and delete the unit from their disks
> but its not justified. In effect for every 100 computers only 25 are doing any
> real work the others are only duplicating. You need redundancy but not that
> much.

Personally, I'd like to see less free advertising in the forums.

In effect, for every 100 computers, 100 are doing real work, because without validation produced by rest of the quorum, the work produced by one machine has to be confirmed -- by re-crunching it on a known machine.

One might argue that Classic didn't do that, and one would be correct, because Classic was mainly a litmus test -- designed to spot work units that warranted extra scrutiny. BOINC produces results that are usable directly.

... but even with all of that said, I don't see any basis for your statement that other projects are being starved. If you read the forums here, you'll see that there is a sizable group who would rather have idle machines than crunch another project. They aren't opposed to other projects, they just don't do work that isn't SETI.

---

> Please reduce the amount of redundancy ... You need redundancy but not that
> much.

Well,

It is a decision made in December 2004 (see news archive).

Here are is one thread and here is another about this.

Cheers
Femue

---

One last point, science is not science when it can only be done once ...

All science is testing, testing again, and testing again ...

We are still repeating expiriments that have been done over the centuries because our ability to measure has improved and because of that we can get more accurate answers than ever before. But we need to make those tests so we can be sure that the anwsers are still correct.

---

> > Please reduce the amount of redundancy that is employed as it is
> depriving
> > other projects of computer time while we are needlessly crunching a
> qourum of
> > 4 when the absolute max needed is 3. Seti is guilty and so is Einstein. I
> know
> > its so that they can grant credit faster and delete the unit from their
> disks
> > but its not justified. In effect for every 100 computers only 25 are
> doing any
> > real work the others are only duplicating. You need redundancy but not
> that
> > much.
>
> Personally, I'd like to see less free advertising in the forums.
>
> In effect, for every 100 computers, 100 are doing real work, because without
> validation produced by rest of the quorum, the work produced by one machine
> has to be confirmed -- by re-crunching it on a known machine.
>
> One might argue that Classic didn't do that, and one would be correct, because
> Classic was mainly a litmus test -- designed to spot work units that warranted
> extra scrutiny. BOINC produces results that are usable directly.
>
> ... but even with all of that said, I don't see any basis for your statement
> that other projects are being starved. If you read the forums here, you'll
> see that there is a sizable group who would rather have idle machines than
> crunch another project. They aren't opposed to other projects, they just
> don't do work that isn't SETI.
>


The signature points to a team albeit a team of one and DC is run on company computers so it has every right to be there so ........

I stand by the statement their is too much redundancy crunching a WU 4 times is at least 1 time too many. Why would the result be any less valid if it were crunched 3 times? That question is also aimed at Paul who seems to think that unnecessary repetition and duplication is good science. Oh, and please, please forgive the sig.

---

it's because it's not unnecissary. You send out 4 copies of the unit, in case one computer has a problem, you use 3+ to validate it, and everyone that crunched the unit gets credit.

Also, you can choose to have your computer crunch for seti only 5% or 2% of the time. if you set it up right, you won't even miss deadlines! Now what's all this talk about wasting time that could be used for other projects?

---

<img border="0" src="http://boinc.mundayweb.com/one/stats.php?userID=567" />
<a href="http://boinc-doc.net/boinc-wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page">BOINC Wiki</a>
<a href="http://www.tamaness.hostrocket.com/BOINC_team.html">Gideontech BOINC team!</a>

> The signature points to a team albeit a team of one and DC is run on company
> computers so it has every right to be there so ........
>
> I stand by the statement their is too much redundancy crunching a WU 4 times
> is at least 1 time too many. Why would the result be any less valid if it were
> crunched 3 times? That question is also aimed at Paul who seems to think that
> unnecessary repetition and duplication is good science. Oh, and please, please
> forgive the sig.

A single result may contain errors from the FPU on your particular machine, or it may contain errors because you overclocked the machine, or it may contain errors because your CPU fan quit and the thing is running way too hot, or you've got a little bit of bad RAM, or your system builder is less than honest and your machine isn't entirely stable.

Or a dozen other reasons.

Running the same work unit on different machines is necessary to confirm the validity of the results.

On the subject of advertising:

I did not question your right to advertise a "service" -- I simply stated that in my opinion, it is inappropriate. You are promoting gambling, and in some jurisdictions, minors are not allowed to gamble -- and there are no age restrictions here.

I assume from the business name that you cover tracks in the U.K. and I am outside your service area -- as are the vast majority here.

So, no, I will not forgive the signature. I'll tolerate it, and as long as the forum administrators allow it, I'll expect you to tolerate my opinion that it is inappropriate. Fair enough?

---

> > The signature points to a team albeit a team of one and DC is run on
> company
> > computers so it has every right to be there so ........
> >
> > I stand by the statement their is too much redundancy crunching a WU 4
> times
> > is at least 1 time too many. Why would the result be any less valid if it
> were
> > crunched 3 times? That question is also aimed at Paul who seems to think
> that
> > unnecessary repetition and duplication is good science. Oh, and please,
> please
> > forgive the sig.
>
> A single result may contain errors from the FPU on your particular machine, or
> it may contain errors because you overclocked the machine, or it may contain
> errors because your CPU fan quit and the thing is running way too hot, or
> you've got a little bit of bad RAM, or your system builder is less than honest
> and your machine isn't entirely stable.
>
> Or a dozen other reasons.
>
> Running the same work unit on different machines is necessary to confirm the
> validity of the results.
>
> On the subject of advertising:
>
> I did not question your right to advertise a "service" -- I simply stated that
> in my opinion, it is inappropriate. You are promoting gambling, and in some
> jurisdictions, minors are not allowed to gamble -- and there are no age
> restrictions here.
>
> I assume from the business name that you cover tracks in the U.K. and I am
> outside your service area -- as are the vast majority here.
>
> So, no, I will not forgive the signature. I'll tolerate it, and as
> long as the forum administrators allow it, I'll expect you to tolerate my
> opinion that it is inappropriate. Fair enough?
>

WOW Did you lot even read my post???

I didn't say that redundancy wasn't necessary. If you crunch a WU unit 3 times on different computers and they come up with 3 valid identical results what makes you lot think it will be different if you crunch it a MILLION TIMES.

Oh and Timothy, what has my post got to do with resource share or credit??? Here comes the sig...

---

> WOW Did you lot even read my post???

Actually, I did.

Your original post says "In effect for every 100 computers only 25 are doing any real work"

Now, I admit that I don't speak the "Queen's English" but it seems pretty clear even to an American that you think that 3 out of 4 of us are wasting our CPU time.

... and while my signature will also appear, it mentions the team I crunch for only. That organization is a not-for-profit, and they have the largest on-line database about the AIDS virus -- accessable for free.

---

> > WOW Did you lot even read my post???
>
> Actually, I did.
>
> Your original post says "In effect for every 100 computers only 25 are doing
> any real work"
>
> Now, I admit that I don't speak the "Queen's English" but it seems pretty
> clear even to an American that you think that 3 out of 4 of us are wasting our
> CPU time.
>
> ... and while my signature will also appear, it mentions the team I crunch for
> only. That organization is a not-for-profit, and they have the largest
> on-line database about the AIDS virus -- accessable for free.
>
>
>

OK lets put it this way; using the present system to get 25 results seti have to send the work to 100 computers or it takes 100 computers to complete and validate 25 results.

As I have already CLEARLY stated in my ORIGINAL post, that LEVEL of redundancy is unnecessary and NOT that redundancy is unnecessary.

For all that, all you can see is the sig at the bottom of the post which as I have also clearly stated links to a team page. I am fully aware of the demographics of this forum and would not waste my time trying to gain commercial advantage from what is a predominantly American forum.

(EDIT
In addition, you don't have to click on it, it's a free country, at least the one I live in is.

---

> OK lets put it this way; using the present system to get 25 results seti have
> to send the work to 100 computers or it takes 100 computers to complete and
> validate 25 results.
>
> As I have already CLEARLY stated in my ORIGINAL post, that LEVEL of redundancy
> is unnecessary and NOT that redundancy is unnecessary.

The key word is "validate" -- you can't send a result once and have anything to compare it to.

If two are sent, and don't match, you don't know enough to tell which is better.

But others have directed you to the other threads where this was discussed, and four copies are sent out because it made a vocal group of users happier.

Free country, democracy and all that -- this decision was made because users wanted it. So, you have your one vote -- which appears to also be the number of members in your team.

---

> > OK lets put it this way; using the present system to get 25 results seti
> have
> > to send the work to 100 computers or it takes 100 computers to complete
> and
> > validate 25 results.
> >
> > As I have already CLEARLY stated in my ORIGINAL post, that LEVEL of
> redundancy
> > is unnecessary and NOT that redundancy is unnecessary.
>
> The key word is "validate" -- you can't send a result once and have anything
> to compare it to.
>
> If two are sent, and don't match, you don't know enough to tell which is
> better.
>
> But others have directed you to the other threads where this was discussed,
> and four copies are sent out because it made a vocal group of users happier.
>
> Free country, democracy and all that -- this decision was made because users
> wanted it. So, you have your one vote -- which appears to also be the
> number of members in your team.
>

You're just rehashing what you've already said and I agree to the extent that 1 WU is sent out to 3 hosts te ensure accuracy. By your own admission the 4th is only sent out to satisfy "a vocal group of users" impatient to have their credit awarded quickly.

I would call that a waste of computer resources, wouldn't you?

---

> I didn't say that redundancy wasn't necessary. If you crunch a WU unit 3 times
> on different computers and they come up with 3 valid identical results what
> makes you lot think it will be different if you crunch it a MILLION TIMES.

If you are the expert on the level of redundancy needed for this kind of work, I'd suggest you put in an application for a position with the development team: they apparently are in dire need of your expertise.

The "MILLION TIMES" redundancy is a straw man argument. The level they've decided on at the lab is 4. That doesn't deprive any other project of CPU time, unless you're counting on SETI running out of work by crunching more units. From what I've read, that's not likely to happen any time soon. The other projects will continue to get the percentages of computer time that the individual users have allocated, so long as everybody has work to allocate and the projects stay on-line (not always a good bet!)

> Oh and Timothy, what has my post got to do with resource share or credit???
> Here comes the sig...

As to that, if the sig itself made apparent mention of a SETI@Home team, there might be less flack about it. I wouldn't bother to click on it, as it appears completely commercial, which is outside the norms for this forum.

---

> > I didn't say that redundancy wasn't necessary. If you crunch a WU unit 3
> times
> > on different computers and they come up with 3 valid identical results
> what
> > makes you lot think it will be different if you crunch it a MILLION
> TIMES.
>
> If you are the expert on the level of redundancy needed for this kind of work,
> I'd suggest you put in an application for a position with the development
> team: they apparently are in dire need of your expertise.
>
> The "MILLION TIMES" redundancy is a straw man argument. The level they've
> decided on at the lab is 4. That doesn't deprive any other project of CPU
> time, unless you're counting on SETI running out of work by crunching more
> units. From what I've read, that's not likely to happen any time soon. The
> other projects will continue to get the percentages of computer time that the
> individual users have allocated, so long as everybody has work to allocate and
> the projects stay on-line (not always a good bet!)
>
> > Oh and Timothy, what has my post got to do with resource share or
> credit???
> > Here comes the sig...
>
> As to that, if the sig itself made apparent mention of a SETI@Home
> team, there might be less flack about it. I wouldn't bother to click on it, as
> it appears completely commercial, which is outside the norms for this forum.
>

Your post leads me back to:

Please reduce the amount of redundancy that is employed as it is depriving other projects of computer time while we are needlessly crunching a qourum of 4 when the absolute max needed is 3. Seti is guilty and so is Einstein. I know its so that they can grant credit faster and delete the unit from their disks but its not justified. In effect for every 100 computers only 25 are doing any real work the others are only duplicating. You need redundancy but not that much.

---

> You're just rehashing what you've already said and I agree to the extent that
> 1 WU is sent out to 3 hosts te ensure accuracy. By your own admission the 4th
> is only sent out to satisfy "a vocal group of users" impatient to have their
> credit awarded quickly.
>
> I would call that a waste of computer resources, wouldn't you?

SETI has an embarrassing abundance of computer resources.

You seem to imply that, by not wasting that resource, it would be available to other projects for their valuable use.

We just saw a four day outage, where everything but the SETI forums were down. The SETI project officially told users to investigate other projects so they could keep crunching.

Read the forums and see what the response was: most said "but I don't want to crunch anything but SETI."

... and the statistics sites don't show a big influx of users at E@H or anyplace else.

It is said that "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." and I think that applies equally in Britain.

---

> Please reduce the amount of redundancy that is employed as it is depriving
> other projects of computer time while we are needlessly crunching a qourum of
> 4 when the absolute max needed is 3. Seti is guilty and so is Einstein. I know
> its so that they can grant credit faster and delete the unit from their disks
> but its not justified. In effect for every 100 computers only 25 are doing any
> real work the others are only duplicating. You need redundancy but not that
> much.

Please show exactly how a quorum of 4 in SETI and Einstein deprives the other projects of computer time. Your statement of 25 out of 100 computers doing work is irrelevent, as those 100 computers would be doing SETI anyway, on other open work units. How is it depriving CPDN, ProteinPredictor, LHC, or other future projects that users may not be signed up for?

If you don't like the policies, you always have the option of dropping the offending projects and focusing your CPU time on those you find more worthy.

---

> > You're just rehashing what you've already said and I agree to the extent
> that
> > 1 WU is sent out to 3 hosts te ensure accuracy. By your own admission the
> 4th
> > is only sent out to satisfy "a vocal group of users" impatient to have
> their
> > credit awarded quickly.
> >
> > I would call that a waste of computer resources, wouldn't you?
>
> SETI has an embarrassing abundance of computer resources.
>
> You seem to imply that, by not wasting that resource, it would be available to
> other projects for their valuable use.
>
> We just saw a four day outage, where everything but the SETI forums were down.
> The SETI project officially told users to investigate other projects so they
> could keep crunching.
>
> Read the forums and see what the response was: most said "but I don't want to
> crunch anything but SETI."
>
> ... and the statistics sites don't show a big influx of users at E@H or
> anyplace else.
>
> It is said that "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."
> and I think that applies equally in Britain.
>

So basically, you're saying we'll waste it because we have it to waste. In fact, much the same attitude America has to every resource on this planet.

---

>
> Your post leads me back to:
>

which has been shown to be false.
which leads <B>ME[/b] back to: without SETI@Home, we would not HAVE boinc, and the other projects would be getting next to 0secs of crunching time.
it wasn't until my switching to BOINC after 5years of SETI Classic crunching that i gave ANY crunching time to ANYONE else.
so if SETI devs think that 4 is appropriate, that is fine by me. personally, i don't like when a WU gets validated with only 2 valid results. i would rather 3 vaild.
again (every post so far :) i find myself agreeing with Ned Ludd, you have had your one vote, i just had mine. we have each explained our viewpoint. now let it drop.
constantly rehashing your exact same argument in 10 posts helps no one. least of all you.

happy crunching
Micah

---

S@h Berkeley's Staff Friends Club

> > Please reduce the amount of redundancy that is employed as it is
> depriving
> > other projects of computer time while we are needlessly crunching a
> qourum of
> > 4 when the absolute max needed is 3. Seti is guilty and so is Einstein. I
> know
> > its so that they can grant credit faster and delete the unit from their
> disks
> > but its not justified. In effect for every 100 computers only 25 are
> doing any
> > real work the others are only duplicating. You need redundancy but not
> that
> > much.
>
> Please show exactly how a quorum of 4 in SETI and Einstein deprives the
> other projects of computer time. Your statement of 25 out of 100 computers
> doing work is irrelevent, as those 100 computers would be doing SETI anyway,
> on other open work units. How is it depriving CPDN, ProteinPredictor, LHC, or
> other future projects that users may not be signed up for?
>
> If you don't like the policies, you always have the option of dropping the
> offending projects and focusing your CPU time on those you find more worthy.
>

I was wondering when the "if you don't like it you can leave" argument would surface.

---

> >
> > Your post leads me back to:
> >
>
> which has been shown to be false.
> which leads <B>ME[/b] back to: without SETI@Home, we would not HAVE boinc, and
> the other projects would be getting next to 0secs of crunching time.
> it wasn't until my switching to BOINC after 5years of SETI Classic crunching
> that i gave ANY crunching time to ANYONE else.
> so if SETI devs think that 4 is appropriate, that is fine by me. personally, i
> don't like when a WU gets validated with only 2 valid results. i would rather
> 3 vaild.
> again (every post so far :) i find myself agreeing with Ned Ludd, you have had
> your one vote, i just had mine. we have each explained our viewpoint. now let
> it drop.

It certainly has not been shown to be false!
> constantly rehashing your exact same argument in 10 posts helps no one. least
> of all you.
>
> happy crunching
> Micah
>
It certainly has not been shown to be false!

---