John Clark wrote:

In article <bm0bbu$165$3@sparta.btinternet.com>, 
Bob <none@none.none> writes

Michael D. Ober wrote:

This doesn't answer the question about the biggest use of 
SETIQueue - namely, allowing a single machine on the 
network to act as a proxy.

Mike.

BOINC Announcement

http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/boinc_transition_plan.html

[snip]

You can see the BOINC transition announcement, specifically on 
the use of SETI Queue, now, not only included the above 
"no-proxy facility" announcement, but has a pointer to a URL 
where a download of FreeProxyV3.5 can be obtained.

My reading of this is FreeProxy can be considered, by the 
BOINC people, to be a network proxy, as we use Queue [you 
mean SETIqueue, right?] now with S@H Classic?

Do people agree or disagree?

I expect some problems ... 

(1) data blocks (both work units and results) will certainly be 
a different size, and probably coded in a new way.  

(2) administrative data (application distribution, client mix 
preferences, ...) will be an entirely new set of information to 
be handled by a queue mechanism external to BOINC.  

I have downloaded, and saved it, ready for when we move over 
toBOINC/S@H 2. However, I am assuming it will complement the 
caching capability given by the BOINC application.

Good idea to get ready.  OTOH, expect many _surprises_.  <g>  

I see we will be running a GUI S@H 2 client first, with the 
CLI coming later. Back to shutting down and blanking screen 
savers!!

--
John Clark

-- 
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Award criteria are unpublished and are considered to 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.