Derek Lyons wrote:

"~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.

Then your methodology for reaching conclusions is seriously flawed,
unsurprisingly after what you've said in this thread. I've been building my
own computers (and computers for others) since the 486 days and owned them
before then. I have my own LAN and a small SETI farm. I realise that
quadrupling the load is quite a bit but then they did release it to the
public didn't they? My point is I'm surprised that it was only quadrupled,
and they weren't even prepared for that.

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.

For sure. But it makes a lie of your statement that "Technology is
absolutely meaningless".
--
~misfit~