Message boards :
Number crunching :
Naming Convention Problem??
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
Send message Joined: 24 Feb 09 Posts: 620 Credit: 100,587,625 RAC: 0 |
I just noticed a bunch of WUs going through with a slightly changed file name convention. I have no idea if it makes a difference when piecing this lot together ..... but highlighted below just in case the slightly different name standard makes live "exciting" trying to piece the jigsaw together :) Recent: ps_separation_81_DR8_rev_3_1_1372784654_16035748_0 Another more normal name convention: ps_separation_83_DR_8_rev_3_2_1372784654_16032005_0 Note no underscore between the "R" and "8" in the first WU. There are a lot of: "ps_separation_80_DR8...." "ps_separation_81_DR8...." "ps_separation_82_DR8...." around, so if it does make a difference ... needs nipping in the bud. |
Send message Joined: 19 Jul 10 Posts: 578 Credit: 18,845,239 RAC: 856 |
Either it's intentional or it doesn't matter. The work units validate OK, so nothing that needs to be fixed probably. When the runs are completed, they can rename them to whatever they want in their database anyway. |
Send message Joined: 30 Aug 07 Posts: 2046 Credit: 26,480 RAC: 0 |
Either it's intentional or it doesn't matter. The work units validate OK, so nothing that needs to be fixed probably. When the runs are completed, they can rename them to whatever they want in their database anyway. The only thing that matters server side is the first couple characters of the workunit. If it starts with "ps" its for particle swarm, "de" for differential evolution, etc.. After that, if things are messy it's just because the astronomers aren't using a well defined naming scheme or their runs. |
©2024 Astroinformatics Group