"~misfit~" <misfit61nz@yahoo-mung.co.nz> wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:

"~misfit~" <misfit61nz@yahoo-mung.co.nz> wrote:

As much as I don't like the idea of knocking the folks at Berkeley
too much. C'mon! BOINC *should* be doing better than SETI classic
did at start-up. They've had five years of experience with
distributed computing plus an extensive period of beta-testing with
BOINC with thousands of people partaking in the testing.

The beta had around 2-5,000 people in it.  At last report SETI-BOINC
had over 20,000 users.  That's a huge jump and huge lump of traffic.

No. That's only four times the users they had beta testing. I'm surprised
they're even having any trouble.

I can only conclude then that you just got a computer about two weeks
ago.  Quadrupling the load on a server/DB system is a huge jump,
you'll learn that over time.

It's an enormous strain on the hardware available as the bulk of the
hardware is still allocated to SAH Classic.  It's an enormous strain
on entirely new software.

Also, technology has progressed in leaps and bounds in five years.

Technology is absolutely meaningless to the problems at hand - bugs in
custom written software.

In at least three instances in the last few weeks Berkeley have blamed
either hardware/bandwidth/ and I/O problems. That's technology related don't
you think?

And in multiple other instances the problems have been laid at the
feet of the software.  Even where there have been problems, those
experienced with such things know that new installation always have
teething problems, especially at the size level of this project.

D.
-- 
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.