Martin wrote:

Antonis Markouizos wrote:
[...]

Download workunits for 4-5 weeks and let it go.
(dialup? 56k? you should let it download for the whole 
night, and as many as it gets. i.e. set it to 500, and 
on the morning set it to "finish" one or two "after" 
those it got down)

_BIG_ QUEUES ARE BAD FOR SETI@HOME!!!

unsupportable conclusion

If your queue delays you returning the result for a WU 
from the TIME OF DOWNLOADING THAT WU for too long, that 
result is near useless. 

Not necessarily true ... that "late" WU result could be 
the tie-breaker.  

(And very expensive electricity to just increment your 
WU count.)

Also, the s@h server must keep a pool of WUs that matches 
the pool of WUs temporarily lost in everyone's queues, to 
then later check if enough results have been returned 
before clearing a particular WU from the pool. 

False.  The S@H WU server does not wait for any results 
before clearing a WU -- it sends each WU to several clients 
initially.  This has been known for about 2 years.  

Big user queues increase the workload on the s@h database 
and server.

False ... no evidence for this conclusion.  

As to how big a queue is reasonable?...

Nobody knows.  

Keep crunchin'
(with a reasonable queue size for your WU crunching rate)
Martin

--
----------
- Martin -
- 53N 1W -
----------

-- 
Martin G. Diehl

Reality -- That which remains after you stop thinking 
about it.  

All replies and comments accepted and considered.  
Adoption of your suggestions are at my sole discretion.  
Award criteria are unpublished and are considered to 
be a trade secret.  As such, awards for your responses 
cannot be guaranteed.  Incoming flames may be stored 
for use during severe winters or may be circulated for 
deep analysis, peer review, and/or literary criticism.