I can't upload completed units or download new units as at 2200 BST 13/07/04. In general, there seems to be many problems. I am going back to classic for now. maybe I am doing something wrong. Any suggestions?

Peter

I'm having the same issues, "schedulers not responding", and I can't upload or download. Seems to run fine for a day or so, then havoc. I really hadn't expected this many problems with boinc, what with the beta testing, having gone 6 to 8 months beyond the proposed release date.

When I get close to running out of WU's, I generally go back to classic SETI. They generally don't explain themselves too well either.

The whole project has been down most of today "for maintenance".
You'll have noticed that you couldn't even get to these forums
to post questions during that time.

Yea, their server is down, they are not sending or reciving work. It will probably be up later today.

> Peter
>
> I'm having the same issues, "schedulers not responding", and I can't upload or
> download. Seems to run fine for a day or so, then havoc. I really hadn't
> expected this many problems with boinc, what with the beta testing, having
> gone 6 to 8 months beyond the proposed release date.
>
> When I get close to running out of WU's, I generally go back to classic SETI.
> They generally don't explain themselves too well either.
>
>

Your right about th elack of info. At least at the predictor project they at least give you some info as to what's going on.

And they're down again, computer #2 has run out of WU's, and is back on Classic, and I should be out on Computer #1 later today. They've also set the WU's time to process to such a high number (so that you can't download too many) that it's ridiculous. These guys are way overmatched with this projuct.

> > Peter
> >
> > I'm having the same issues, "schedulers not responding", and I can't
> upload or
> > download. Seems to run fine for a day or so, then havoc. I really
> hadn't
> > expected this many problems with boinc, what with the beta testing,
> having
> > gone 6 to 8 months beyond the proposed release date.
> >
> > When I get close to running out of WU's, I generally go back to classic
> SETI.
> > They generally don't explain themselves too well either.
> >
> >
>
> Your right about th elack of info. At least at the predictor project they at
> least give you some info as to what's going on.
>
>

> Your right about th elack of info. At least at the predictor project they at
> least give you some info as to what's going on.

The BOINC Devs did the same with the Beta test of BOINC. At this moment they're doing their best to keep the service going, to keep the hardware up and the database running. Hadn't you rather they worked on that instead of writing a daily weblog on what they did and post it on the front page?

Predictor is also a Beta test. Maybe that they will run in the same problems when they go live, or maybe that they keep an eye on the situation here and learn from it.

Seti1 didn't work so spiffingly good for its first 9 months either.

> They've also set the WU's time to process to such a high number (so that you can't download too many) that it's ridiculous.

a) It's your preferences that say how many you want to cache.
b) You can download a maximum of 50 per day per computer.
c) Take a good read through this thread, look for Rom Walton's replies, before you blame the wrong people.

> These guys are way overmatched with this projuct.

I take it that you can do it better?
----------------------
Jordâ„¢

> > Your right about th elack of info. At least at the predictor project
> they at
> > least give you some info as to what's going on.
>
> The BOINC Devs did the same with the Beta test of BOINC. At this moment
> they're doing their best to keep the service going, to keep the hardware up
> and the database running. Hadn't you rather they worked on that instead of
> writing a daily weblog on what they did and post it on the front page?
>
>

I understand and I agree completely. I would rather have them working on the problem than composing a weblog. I'm just saying a short message on teh website would be nice. But I too understand what it is like to be overwhelmed when things just go to hell. So SAH team keep on plugging!!!

> > Your right about th elack of info. At least at the predictor project
> they at
> > least give you some info as to what's going on.
>
> The BOINC Devs did the same with the Beta test of BOINC. At this moment
> they're doing their best to keep the service going, to keep the hardware up
> and the database running. Hadn't you rather they worked on that instead of
> writing a daily weblog on what they did and post it on the front page?
>
> Predictor is also a Beta test. Maybe that they will run in the same problems
> when they go live, or maybe that they keep an eye on the situation here and
> learn from it.
>
> Seti1 didn't work so spiffingly good for its first 9 months either.
>
> > They've also set the WU's time to process to such a high number (so that
> you can't download too many) that it's ridiculous.
>
> a) It's your preferences that say how many you want to cache.

NOPE, SORRY, it's not my preferences that say how many you want to cache. When my computers can crunch a WU in 3 to 5 hours, and I have my pref's set at enough for 5 to 7 days, I get wu's that are set to completion between 19 hours plus to 41 hours plus. Should I reset my pref's to 5 to 7 weeks of WU's.

> b) You can download a maximum of 50 per day per computer.

LET'S see, 50 WU's per day times 41 hours to completion is about 85 DAYS of work. Sounds like a reasonable number to me, huh?

> c) Take
> a good read through this thread, look for Rom Walton's replies, before you
> blame the wrong people.

I UNDERSTAND that everybody is working hard to correct the problems, but I'm a volunteer too, and my computers have been running non-stop (only shut down for power outages or lack of WU's) for three years and part-time for a couple more.
If not "them", who didn't do their homework?? If you can't do it right, don't do it at all.

>
> > These guys are way overmatched with this projuct.
>
> I take it that you can do it better?

OH, GIMME a break, please!
> ----------------------
> Jordâ„¢
>
>
>

Boy, you need to learn to edit posts... you already managed to post the answers to the questions, but why do I need all the rest including my signature at the bottom? Answer the questions, kid, for I know what I wrote. And else I can quickly scroll up again.

> > a) It's your preferences that say how many you want to cache.
>
> NOPE, SORRY, it's not my preferences that say how many you want to cache.
> When my computers can crunch a WU in 3 to 5 hours, and I have my pref's set at
> enough for 5 to 7 days, I get wu's that are set to completion between 19 hours
> plus to 41 hours plus. Should I reset my pref's to 5 to 7 weeks of WU's.

The large hour WUs have been explained all over this forum, it might be time for you to learn how to use the search option on these forums.

But to give you the quick answer, it was one person who set those amounts, without asking the others. Your units will still run in the time they normally do, thus once you reach your low-water mark, which is set by the MINIMUM of DAYS you set your cache for, you will get new units. If and when the server is up&running and you haven't been out-cached by people. For then you will run into the server errors saying "No work available".

Hope that answers you b) as well.

> If not "them", who didn't do their homework??

You didn't. You compare BOINC/SAH2 with SAH Classic. Let's call it "a classic mistake". The only resemblance you have between the two is that you are looking for ETI. BOINC is new, the SAH2 client, albeit using the 3.08 name, is new. Even the workunits you are crunching are new. Even more than half the team developing the new system is new.

You blaming just about everyone but yourself makes yourself the easiest target. Since you didn't make your homework on this project you can only blame yourself.

----------------------
Jordâ„¢

> Boy, you need to learn to edit posts... you already managed to post the
> answers to the questions, but why do I need all the rest including my
> signature at the bottom? Answer the questions, kid, for I know what I
> wrote. And else I can quickly scroll up again.
>
> > > a) It's your preferences that say how many you want to cache.
> >
> > NOPE, SORRY, it's not my preferences that say how many you want to cache.
>
> > When my computers can crunch a WU in 3 to 5 hours, and I have my pref's
> set at
> > enough for 5 to 7 days, I get wu's that are set to completion between 19
> hours
> > plus to 41 hours plus. Should I reset my pref's to 5 to 7 weeks of WU's.
>
> The large hour WUs have been explained all over <a> href="http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/sah/forum_forum.php?id=10">this
> forum[/url], it might be time for you to learn how to use <a> href="http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/sah/forum_text_search_form.php">the
> search option on these forums[/url].
>
> But to give you the quick answer, it was one person who set those amounts,
> without asking the others. Your units will still run in the time they normally
> do, thus once you reach your low-water mark, which is set by the MINIMUM of
> DAYS you set your cache for, you will get new units. If and when the server is
> up&running and you haven't been out-cached by people. For then you will
> run into the server errors saying "No work available".
>
> Hope that answers you b) as well.
>
> > If not "them", who didn't do their homework??
>
> You didn't. You compare BOINC/SAH2 with SAH Classic. Let's call it "a
> classic mistake". The only resemblance you have between the two is that you
> are looking for ETI. BOINC is new, the SAH2 client, albeit using the 3.08
> name, is new. Even the workunits you are crunching are new. Even more than
> half the team developing the new system is new.
>
> You blaming just about everyone but yourself makes yourself the easiest
> target. Since you didn't make your homework on this project you
> can only blame yourself.
>
> ----------------------
> Jordâ„¢


OK, Ace, you win. My dad told me never to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.


>
>