What is the status of the new application - when can we expect it to be released ?

What is the status of the new application - when can we expect it to be released ?

It's basically finished to my knowledge. We're just doing some final testing. We will be releasing the source for viewing on this application to everyone.

---

Dave Przybylo
MilkyWay@home Developer
Department of Computer Science
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Crunch3r, when you optimise it, will you make it available for the project devs to validate it scientifically and if it is all OK then release it for everyone to use? (please)

Live long and BOINC!

---

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

If You're Not Outraged, You're Not Paying Attention.

??

---

Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?
If it makes sense, DON'T do it.

??

Good question. I'll talk to Travis and see what's going on.

---

Dave Przybylo
MilkyWay@home Developer
Department of Computer Science
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Heh, I'm glad someone has about the same patience as me. I was going to make a post Monday afternoon with pretty much the same "??", but got busy and forgot until now.

---

From Travis on 19 Aug 2008

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),

http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/forum_thread.php?id=386&nowrap=true#4830

Did that "mess" really slow it down this much?

---

Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?
If it makes sense, DON'T do it.

So... ??

---

Airport timing -- you know, the plane is going to board in 20 minutes, you come back in 20 minutes and ask, and you get told it hasn't changed, the plane will board in 20 minutes.

Who knows, this might be the application to nowhere. To which we will be compelled to reply, thanks but no thanks. (and then download it like mad to be consistent).

So... ??

---

For not getting any reply for this long, why couldn't cruncher's application have been tested and used? So much more info could have been processed.

Seems like MW won't be around for very long.

---

Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?
If it makes sense, DON'T do it.

For not getting any reply for this long, why couldn't cruncher's application have been tested and used? So much more info could have been processed.

Seems like MW won't be around for very long.

This project is in an alpha state. At this point we don't really care how fast information gets processed. We are concerned with the accuracy of the results. Last wednesday there were still some bugs in the application. I haven't received any updates since then.

---

Dave Przybylo
MilkyWay@home Developer
Department of Computer Science
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

This project is in an alpha state. At this point we don't really care how fast information gets processed. We are concerned with the accuracy of the results. Last wednesday there were still some bugs in the application. I haven't received any updates since then.

Yes I know. But instead of taking ~6-10 hours for one result it would only be ~6-10 min.

---

Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?
If it makes sense, DON'T do it.

This project is in an alpha state. At this point we don't really care how fast information gets processed. We are concerned with the accuracy of the results. Last wednesday there were still some bugs in the application. I haven't received any updates since then.

Yes I know. But instead of taking ~6-10 hours for one result it would only be ~6-10 min.

What Dave is saying is that the more important thing is making sure that the results are accurate as possible. This would typically mean running a few tasks where the outcome is known and validating that the application generated the expected results. Optimization should always come after getting the calculations accurate...

That said though, if it was known "last Wednesday" that there were bugs, all it would've taken would've been a post here like:

"We are testing the new application. We have run into a few bugs that we want to correct before releasing it to the public."

That took less than a minute to type up, as I type at around 50 wpm... I know people are busy and what not, but when you state that you are going to get an update, get the update and post it in a timely fashion. Going on 2 weeks does not seem to be a "timely fashion", but I don't know what all has been happening behind the scenes.

The results were made longer because most people wanted longer units to do. Not to increase the accuracy. Now it may have changed as a result of that though.

Why not decrease the length of the current units so that the tests would go quicker?

That is more/less what I ment to say.

---

Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?
If it makes sense, DON'T do it.

What!!??

The only comment I read from project principals stated that the increased runtime for the new work was to:

1.) Take traffic load off the backend servers so they don't grind to halt from an operational POV on a regular basis (good for participants).

2.) Allows for greater precision in the science result output (good for the project from a basic science POV).

Personally, I can't ever remember seeing the participants asking for longer, 'tougher' work on any project (at least the ones I run and/or follow).

Alinator

What!!??

The only comment I read from project principals stated that the increased runtime for the new work was to:

1.) Take traffic load off the backend servers so they don't grind to halt from an operational POV on a regular basis (good for participants).

2.) Allows for greater precision in the science result output (good for the project from a basic science POV).

Personally, I can't ever remember seeing the participants asking for longer, 'tougher' work on any project (at least the ones I run and/or follow).

Alinator

Bump...

What!!??

The only comment I read from project principals stated that the increased runtime for the new work was to:

1.) Take traffic load off the backend servers so they don't grind to halt from an operational POV on a regular basis (good for participants).

2.) Allows for greater precision in the science result output (good for the project from a basic science POV).

The precision of the results is somehow limited by a bug of the application in the moment. I opened a thread in the code discussion part of the forum about this.

Concerning the WU length, I think they are quite short already when calculated with a proper application as Crunch3rs results show. No need to change something.

Well the tasks I'm getting now are exceeding the cpu time limit, so perhaps that could be changed! Aborting all the rest and setting to nnw for now.
(Intel mac host, 6.x client)

What is the status of the new application - when can we expect it to be released ?

I would appreciate a view on that question, which I assume is when an optimised client might be released?

What is the status of the new application - when can we expect it to be released ?

I would appreciate a response, as I assume this is about an optimised Milkyway client?