Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here UFOs | Paranormal | Area 51 People | Places | Random Top 100 | What's New Catalog | New Books Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Our Bookstore is OPEN Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1999 -> Jun -> Here

From: Jacques Poulet <jpoulet@chucara.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 1999 06:52:34 -0400
Fwd Date: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 14:13:36 -0400
Subject: Re: SETI@home Project Erroneously Sending Same


>Date: Sun, 13 Jun 1999 11:47:09 -0500
>To: updates@globalserve.net
>From: Donnie Shevlin <donnies@codamc.com>
>Subject: Re: SETI@home Project Erroneously Sending Same Packets

>>Date: Fri, 11 Jun 1999 02:02:41
>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>From: Stig Agermose <stig.agermose@get2net.dk>
>>Subject: SETI@home Project Erroneously Sending Same Packets Of Data

>Hi all, EBK, Stig...

>Well now, finally something right up my alley. Being a project
>manager over software development, I feel his pain. I understand
>exactly what is happening there. Low end computers, short on
>availability of computers and overwhelming demand from the end
>user, I've been there too many times to count.

>What I don't understand is why they only converted days 1/7/99
>and 1/8/99. I know the data is large for a full day, but why
>only the two days? The size of the work_unit.txt file is only
>384K. And how may seconds of data in a work file, 107 seconds?
>So that would be;

>((48hrs x 60min)x60sec) / 107sec = roughly 1600 files@384K


I think you should go to the seti@home site and read carefully
the process involved. the 107 seconds you get is for a 10KHz
bandwidth. I don't remember the exact figures but there are
quite a few 10KHz bandwidth "packets" for every 107 second
period. So you're too low by a factor of 100 or so...


>Now 1600 files at 384K is just little over 600 megabytes of
>data. In these days of cheap high capacity hard drives, that's
>not a lot of data.

>Secondly, the 'parceling the raw data' process should be fairly
>easy. The files are small so the process must be quick. I have
>written applications that can turn 200 megabytes of processed
>data out over a 6 hour period. So they could easily had turned
>out plenty of data over a two week plus period. So why only two
>days? Are there problems in the raw data files? I hope not.

The amount of calculation involved is not only a matter of data
processing per say, it's a matter of calculating _all_
possibitities. A rather bigger task.

>Why didn't they just tell us there was a problem and to hold on
>processing until the problem was corrected? Anyone who deals
>with software would know that the end users time is valuable. To
>waste their time will make them unruly and question your ability
>to deliver.

I can agree on this one.

	Bye


Jacques Poulet
Phone: (514) 913-0274

http://www.chucara.com/

Fortean Files CDROM   http://members.tripod.com/jpoulet/

CHUCARA
Box 61
La Prairie, Qc
Canada  J5R 3Y1