We don't do any redundancy checking here -- so there's no way for us to know if his results are correct or not. In the future we plan on doing some server-side rechecking of weird looking results, but this isn't a big priority because it doesn't really effect the science we're trying to do.

So anyone can pump in whatever looks like a result and get credit for it??

If they want to waste their CPU cycles doing nothing, I guess that's their prerogative. It wont hurt the science, but it won't help it either. Why even bother signing up for BOINC then? The credit monopoly money? However, with the new changes they won't be getting excessive amounts of credit for it.

We really want to stay away from using redundancy because it's really not required (if we get bad results our search methods basically ignore them), and if we even bump redundancy up to 2, we're basically halving the amount of work that gets done, and doubling the time it takes to get results.

using redundancy + using Crunch3r's code still makes at least 5x more science done.
(given the results are valid)

Or we could use optimized apps and get 10x science done. Either way, the focus right now isn't to get the apps running as fast as possible - we're still working on the next iteration of the application which will allow us to get more science done and model more complicated pieces of the galaxy. We'd rather have the code doing what it's supposed to be doing then optimize it, then spend time optimizing old code which will just be thrown out in the next version of the application. There's only two of us working on the code right now (Nate and myself), and there are only so many hours in the day; so we have to prioritize.

That being said, in the next week or so we should have a new application out (it would have been sooner but I had to deal with this mess), and it will be openly available for everyone to optimize if they want to. Hopefully if people do that they'll share their work with us so we can make it freely available to everyone and test it to make sure it's running correctly.

I've been looking at our project stats and they don't seem to be changing -- have they been getting updated?

I keep looking and really don't see any option for a per-core WU limit. Theres basically one option in the config file that is max_wus_in_progress which basically says how many workunits per machine are allowed. I've sent an email to Dave about what I can do about this.

I'm going to try and increase the max_wus_in_progress back to 20, and lower the deadline to a day for the workunits and see if this helps you guys out any.

Travis,would it be possible to make that deadline 2 days? That way my hosts won't be running in high priority constantly....just on occasion,and internet service/server problems would be less of an issue.

Right now a 372 can take 12hrs on a P4 ...so a 1 day deadline is cutting it pretty close.Also a 1 day deadline would effectively cut out all P3 types from running this project.

ok i've changed the deadline to 2 days.

I keep looking and really don't see any option for a per-core WU limit. Theres basically one option in the config file that is max_wus_in_progress which basically says how many workunits per machine are allowed. I've sent an email to Dave about what I can do about this.

I'm going to try and increase the max_wus_in_progress back to 20, and lower the deadline to a day for the workunits and see if this helps you guys out any.

3 Gazillion errrrr Million ... :)

No they have not been extended again. The 3720282 and 3721282 are the long WUs from when I first increased it, but after that they have only been shortened. The 3730382 and 3731382 should run between half and a quarter of the time of those above.

Is the plan to only run with the 373's from now on?

I've been getting a mixture of flavours, but less 371s and 372s - Are these just reissued WUs or are they still being generated?

I only ask because my slowest host really isn't suitable for the long WUs and could be more usefully utilised on another project.

The medium WUs are OK by me - Longer than I usually like, but I can live with it at the moment :)

Al.