Usually a wu takes about 13,000 secs. this one took 60,000. the other two results were around this normal time. Any ideas?

19218003 366775 27 Nov 2004 16:00:03 UTC 28 Nov 2004 13:09:49 UTC Over Success Done 10,402.99 42.44 42.44
19218004 195004 27 Nov 2004 16:00:05 UTC 29 Nov 2004 19:37:32 UTC Over Success Done 60,001.03 225.21 42.44
19218005 314945 27 Nov 2004 16:00:18 UTC 28 Nov 2004 22:25:51 UTC Over Success Done 13,855.44 28.80 42.44

On my old slow windows box I am attached to two projects. It will switch back and forth between the two projects but keep the one not currently running in memory. There is a bug where the one not running still thinks it is building up CPU time. (A quick check shows it is really not consuming cpu cycles.) By the time the workunit is finished, it appears to have taken a very very long time and claims a very very high amount of credit. My guess is that this is what happened here.

---

> On my old slow windows box I am attached to two projects. It will switch back
> and forth between the two projects but keep the one not currently running in
> memory. There is a bug where the one not running still thinks it is building
> up CPU time. (A quick check shows it is really not consuming cpu cycles.) By
> the time the workunit is finished, it appears to have taken a very very long
> time and claims a very very high amount of credit. My guess is that this is
> what happened here.
>
>
>

Sounds like Win98 must be your OS. For some reason, the seti science pack does not pause well under Win98.

---

<img src="http://www.boincstats.com/stats/teambanner.php?teamname=GasBuddy"> <img src="http://www.boincstats.com/stats/banner.php?cpid=84c0cf7846cbf28338406e54b3eb8a83">

> Sounds like Win98 must be your OS. For some reason, the seti science pack
> does not pause well under Win98.
>
I suspect there might be a BOINC/SETI CPU time problem on Win98. It almost looks like elapsed time is being used instead of processor time. I recently had an application go into a 100% processor loop when it was ending. I didn't notice this until the next day as it had closed all windows. Since the application was running at a higher priority than SETI, SETI didn't get any processor time during the period, however BOINC showed CPU time accumulating. This was on Win98 but SETI is the only BOINC application running on this system so BOINC was not pausing SETI to switch between projects.

BOINC Version 4.13
SETI Version 4.08

A very good sugestion for cheating ;-)

Peter

I'm quite certain that on Win98 BOINC is using elapsed time, not CPU time. I've reported this, but nobody seems interested.

---

------- Tom Gutman

Yes it is elasped time, but i think it's on the back burner for now.

---

<a href="http://www.timtaylor.net/kwsn"><img border="0" src="http://www.boinc.dk/auto.php?user=916957&amp;project=sah&amp;input=&amp;layout="></a>

> I'm quite certain that on Win98 BOINC is using elapsed time, not CPU time.
> I've reported this, but nobody seems interested.
>

Win98 only has elapsed time a process has been running available for checking. It is a limitation of the OS (Win95/98/98se/ME) and not the BOINC implementation. To be able to read a process's actual cpu time, you need to change operating systems. Try WinNT/2000/XP, or one of the *nix OS's (Linux, Mac OSX, etc.) if you are that concerned about it.

[EDIT] - Come to think of it, Win9x is a garbage OS, so switching to something newer would definitely be to your advantage anyway.

> > I'm quite certain that on Win98 BOINC is using elapsed time, not CPU
> time.
> > I've reported this, but nobody seems interested.
> >
>
> Win98 only has elapsed time a process has been running available for checking.
> It is a limitation of the OS (Win95/98/98se/ME) and not the BOINC
> implementation. To be able to read a process's actual cpu time, you need to
> change operating systems. Try WinNT/2000/XP, or one of the *nix OS's (Linux,
> Mac OSX, etc.) if you are that concerned about it.
>
> [EDIT] - Come to think of it, Win9x is a garbage OS, so switching to something
> newer would definitely be to your advantage anyway.
>
I have Win XP installed with a dual boot. I prefer to work in Win98 -- I have better tools there.

---

------- Tom Gutman