Perhaps the glass is neither "1/2 full" or "1/2 empty". Maybe it's just twice the size it should be.

LOL...

The case for 2/2 summed up in twenty words or less! :-D

Alinator

Me & another user got dudded by someone using old ver:4.45 see the results.

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=123891006

not happy.

---

Now this is interesting.

The 4x'er stocker was the last result back, so I'm not 100% certain what happened here.

The only thing I can think of is the Coop 2.2B which was second back was not strongly similar to the 5x stocker which was first, so the result validated on the stockers and thus was granted the low claim from the 4x'er.

I don't think the validator backlog played a role here, since if all three had gone to validation at the same time, then it should have granted the 5x stocker's claim, since it was the middle result in terms of claimed credit. If I understood the Wiki correctly, the validator will use all the results present when it runs, even if it's more than the minimum.

<edit> DUHHHHH.... Alinator! Scratch that. :-(

Since when does 13=12 (give self slap on head)!

Alinator

Since when does 13=12 (give self slap on head)!

Well, if you were to take the Calendar class in Java and use a Hebrew calendar, due to how the months are 0-based, whenever you had a 13th month its' integer value would be 12 as defined by the class...

...but I digress... :-)

Seriously though, a 16-20 point "short-change" in credit if it happens 2-5 times a day (entirely possible for fast hosts, even if it is thought to be not likely) would start causing some serious angst again on the fora. I think you mentioned something about using the 5.x client for credit granting if a 4.x was in the mix. That would probably be great, but the better thing would be to stop accepting 4.x. I vaguely recall something was holding up doing that, perhaps the Mac client???? (not sure)

Brian

---

IIRC, the main reason was/is proxy problems with 5x in some environments.

Another possibility which may or may not apply any more is there is no official 5x CC for SPARC/Solaris. It might not be considered politically correct to cut off the hosts of a major corporate sponsor. ;-)

I know I'd think twice about that. :-)

Alinator

Is the target to go for 2/2 for the quorum?

Yes, but probably not until we have multibeam workunits (or astropulse workunits) to send out as well. 3/2 is a good "bridge" until then.

Matt, you've certainly got more patience than me, both for the sys admin and the PR!

I wish I had all the time in the world to address all the questions. One thing is for certain: If I'm writing on the message boards, I'm procrastinating. All least it's productive procrastination.

- Matt

Thanks a lot Matt.

regards Mike

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

[Seriously though, a 16-20 point "short-change" in credit if it happens 2-5 times a day (entirely possible for fast hosts, even if it is thought to be not likely) would start causing some serious angst again on the fora. I think you mentioned something about using the 5.x client for credit granting if a 4.x was in the mix. That would probably be great, but the better thing would be to stop accepting 4.x. I vaguely recall something was holding up doing that, perhaps the Mac client???? (not sure)

Brian[/quote]

I managed to get into the above situation. I got 10 WUs all of which posted a credit of 61.24 but along comes someone running Linux with a 4.43 client and only claims a credit of 34.83. Personally, I think there is something wrong with this picture. Probably what I would do is let the other two computers hash it out and see what the result is before proceeding to process that work unit so I make sure I'm not burning coal at the power plant for peanuts. I've seen a few others and now I know what to watch for.

Here is the work unit: http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=123867717

IIRC, the main reason was/is proxy problems with 5x in some environments.

Another possibility which may or may not apply any more is there is no official 5x CC for SPARC/Solaris. It might not be considered politically correct to cut off the hosts of a major corporate sponsor. ;-)

I know I'd think twice about that. :-)

Alinator

It must be the proxy issue because according to Available Applications, there is a 5x Solaris client...

I would strongly reccommend that the project staff either look into the issue or prepare themselves for a bout of angst from some participants.

---

Yes I know there is a science app for Solaris, but there is no official Core Client/Manager for it.

In any event, that's BOINC Dev Team problem not a SAH Team one, and I seem to recall talk there would be a Solaris 5x coming but apparently that's been abandoned since it's not listed over on the BOINC site as even supported anymore.

Alinator

IIRC, the main reason was/is proxy problems with 5x in some environments.

Another possibility which may or may not apply any more is there is no official 5x CC for SPARC/Solaris. It might not be considered politically correct to cut off the hosts of a major corporate sponsor. ;-)

I know I'd think twice about that. :-)

Alinator

It must be the proxy issue because according to Available Applications, there is a 5x Solaris client...

I would strongly reccommend that the project staff either look into the issue or prepare themselves for a bout of angst from some participants.

The page you've linked refers to the SETI science applications, and yes, it does indeed list a v5.15 (enhanced) SETI app.

The problem under discussion is old versions of the BOINC client/manager: for those, you have to look at Stefan Urbat's site or the SOLARIS@x86 site. Not so clear here, but the former, at least, seems to have some 5.x clients.

The slight quibble doesn't invalidate your suggestion that we all (staff and volunteers) prepare for a bout of angst - the messages have already started.

<snip>
The slight quibble doesn't invalidate your suggestion that we all (staff and volunteers) prepare for a bout of angst - the messages have already started.

LOL....

Agreed, we get angst over in NC due to changes in the phase of the moon, let alone changes in the way the project works! ;-)

Alinator

Folks, I was trying to be sincere. Sorry you took it differently. (Except my crack about Pappa, who seems to me to have started this e-tussle.)

@Ned: I'm not sure what it is in what I originally posted "calls the decision process into question", at least in a negative way. I was asking two objective questions ( 1. what is the anticipated (quantitative) benefit, and 2. what are the anticipated side-effects and possible omissions; again with a quantitative estimate.). I suppose I asked implicitly a third question (why not make the project leaders' reasoning visible- quantitatively with a minimum of hand waving). So I think your conclusion about my intentions and the like is wrong. And the good news is there was some good discussion and illumination of the points as a result of my question.

@Martin: I wonder who (you or me) comes across as more supercilious. But it doesn't matter to me if you think I'm the best.

A better board would be filled with objective analysis of the issues, rather than amateur psycho-analysis, emotional demagoguery, and hand-waving argumentation. Let's all just try to be better engineers and scientists.

The trouble is that we are not all "engineers and scientists"but we are all volunteers

---

Old enough to know better(but)still young enough not to care

The problem under discussion is old versions of the BOINC client/manager: for those, you have to look at Stefan Urbat's site or the SOLARIS@x86 site. Not so clear here, but the former, at least, seems to have some 5.x clients.

Yes, I saw those while looking around earlier... The question that comes to my mind is thus:

Should the project continue to backward-support very old custom binaries?

I don't think I'm qualified to answer that, so I won't... (but you can guess my opinion)... :-)

---

A short bit of history.

When initial replication 4 with quorum 3 was instituted, 25 to 40% of all tasks were not returned due mostly to download errors, and 3 were required to validate in all cases. The download problems are (apparently mostly) gone, and there is now the possibility of validating with 2, but sometimes 3 are still required.

---

BOINC WIKI

With the 4.x clients still being allowed, perhaps it could be set up so that if the claimed credits differ by more than .01 that the third result be required for validation? Odds are that third client would be a 5.x client and then proper credit could be granted.

---

Join Team Starfire
BOINC Chat