Wasn't Boinc written with Seti and astro-pulse as the core projects that were tested in the betas?


How come predictor is doing so well and seti is doing so poorly?

Not that I may quaify for replying to your question, BUT.....the amount of active users on the predictor project, is but a drop in the bucket compaired to the S@H users all trying to dwn load work at the same time.....and IMHO seti boinc is doing fine, for being as "YOUNG" as it is. Take a look at the early history of S@H classic, back in 1999, its all still up on the website.
<p>

> Wasn't Boinc written with Seti and astro-pulse as the core projects that were
> tested in the betas?
>
>
> How come predictor is doing so well and seti is doing so poorly?

The problems we are seeing aren't really with BOINC, but with the support infrastructure. (servers/splitters/validators/etc...)

As deej mentioned, there aren't as many people currently running P@H, but we also don't know what the server differences may be. Scripps may have more money for support gear than S@H does.

<a> [/url]

> Scripps may have more
> money for support gear than S@H does.
>
>
>

Heffed....They must have to, just think of the cost for the real estate alone...........lol
<p>

> > Scripps may have more
> > money for support gear than S@H does.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Heffed....They must have to, just think of the cost for the real estate
> alone...........lol
> <p>

Scripps has people running the system that know what they're doing and live in the real world! Seti has kids earning college credits for their work.

I think the biggest single reason is the transfer of the user database. Seti went from having about 20,000 users with about 5,000 active in the beta test to having about 4,000,000 users with about 50,000? active. Predictor did not have that massive jump so they are able to ramp up a bit smoother. They also have lower user numbers in general.

John Keck
BOINCing since 2002/12/08

Predictor pretty much has the luxury of gearing up at a more leisurely pace, at the moment. I also think that they did the smart thing in declaring the "public project" alpha status, so some of the expectations aren't quite as high.

Overall, though, it is the volume of users (as stated above) that makes the difference. Within 3 months though, I doubt that many will remember SETI-BOINC's startup problems or really care. Most will just be happy to crunch.


The best Macintosh team ever assembled.

Despite having a 80:20 S@H:P@H split I've ended up almost entirely runing P@H units for over a week.

While P@H has has a few small outages the units have kept flowing, while S@H the server are up and down more times than a tarts knickers!

Come on sort this cr*p out.

This is assuming the science or process hasn't changed for the process, if it has then the post below won't apply probably.

There is no "crap" to sort out as you put it. You are comparing oranges to apples. SETI WUs process in a matter of hours vs weeks with Climate Prediction. You don't have thousands of users trying to get more work every hour on Climate Prediction. ;)

Now, I'd like to see some comparasions of Folding@home with SETI. Folding doesn't have the raw numbers as SETI either, but they have a rather significant base nonetheless.

~David

> Wasn't Boinc written with Seti and astro-pulse as the core projects that were
> tested in the betas?
>
>
> How come predictor is doing so well and seti is doing so poorly?
>
You can never pacify a complainer, for they live to complain and complain to live... me
Seti@Home, it is really about the science, isn’t it!!