Ok, guess, I didnt Know It.

Since Seti Give a 4 week "limit" before deactivating you, I thought that may
be something similar for the work units.
It seems that things have changed.....

Well, Shouldnt be developed a "system of "tracking"  the WUs?
I mean, since a member is continiusly returning some results per week, if he
downloads 50-60 WU (1-2 weeks "job" for a  2 pc system), isnt really
possible that he will return 'em? The WU have I think something to identify
them. If I download some of them ie from one "number" to one other, and I'm
returning results from that "collection" Its really possible that I'll
return 'em all
(using something like SetiGate)
Ok, I guess that here are people returing 60-600wu per day, and for them its
like kiding saying for my 2-8 results per day) but I believe the most of the
people dont belong to these Seti User "Class". I also know that a system
like this will also require some more cpu power, that Seti team may find
difficult to find, But It would set the numper current numper of the active
users really more efficient.Since there are people that may find difficult
to sit down and watch out the pc when it I'll finish to sent the results,
(I'm working, and I'm using the seti on the two pc's home. Since the
connection is a dialup with a really limited bandwith and a per hour cost, I
have to download the WUs the time I really dont use connection nor the
telephone, but I'm home and on the Pc after 10p.m., and I dont have to wake
up next morning before the sun does.)

well is just some thoughts. any answers are appreciated

A.



(as u may have noticed, I'm not a proffessor on English Philology....)


? "Martin" <ml_news@ddnospamddml1dd.co.uk.dd> ?????? ??? ??????
news:5r6Wa.1750$yl6.710@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...

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!!!


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

server.

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

Various vague comments have been made in the past. There seems to be a
concensus that you should have you queue store no more than 1 week's
supply of WUs.

My opinion is that you should store no more than two day's supply of WUs
to allow for the rare occasion that s@h's servers are offline over a
weekend.


The recent reobservations WUs appear to have caused a bit of a glitch in
WU distribution... (Users preferentially queuing reobservation WUs into
big queues? (;-))


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

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