Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

What am I doing wrong?

I finally got around to downloading the G4-v8 version and every time I try to download WUs, I get computation errors within a second or two on all of them. I've heard that this happens sometimes due to access rights or ownership issues. I checked the access on the Alex's app itself and it looks OK (755). The owner is me and the group was admin. I looked at the 7.1mb folder and everything was the same except for the group. I did a chgrp to 'staff,' but the next WU batch errored out the same way.

What am I missing?

QS

Happened to me a while ago but can't remember the exact circumstances. Couple of options:

Dump the contents of the S@H folder, put all files from Alex's folder again and see what happens.

If that doesn't help, re-install BOINC and proceed from there.

If all fails, dump the whole BOINC data folder and start all over from scratch.

The user should be boinc_master and the group should be boinc_project.

The easiest way to make sure all the permissions are set correctly in the Boinc Data folder is to reinstall Boinc Manager (there's a new dev version 5.10.28 available at Berkeley).

Just got five validation errors - first ones I've had in ages. Running BOINC 5.10.20 and Alex's V8 on MBP Core Duo. WUs are

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/resul...ltid=645225100
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/resul...ltid=645085501
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/resul...ltid=644889888
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/resul...ltid=642986388
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/resul...ltid=642986386

Any ideas?
beadman

I use this method:

(quit BOINC)
cd /Library/Application\ Support/BOINC\ Data/projects/setiathome.berkeley.edu/
sudo chown boinc_master:boinc_project *
(restart BOINC)

Yup, that works too
Easiest method, not the only method (easiest in terms of serving the command line challenged as well as the "vi-forever" contingent).

Don't suppose anybody would be up to writing a 'n00b FAQ' on how to get going with SETI BOINC and how to install the optimized client?

We wrote one awhile back. It's somewhat dated, in that it doesn't consider the modern SETI versions. It does cover most of the steps.

Note, if you use that guide, do NOT install the special BOINC compiles it links to. Those don't work right any more. Today, we use optimized workers instead of optimized BOINCs.

I PM'd this to a cruncher on the main SETI site.

It's not too easy to find his client on the Seti site.

More continued proof of Alex's excellent 8.0 client.

I hit 1105 rac this morning on the G5.

The increase is gradual but noticeable.

Cool.

It would help if the pending was not so high as well, I figure that my iMac would be over 2000 if not for the 5300 in pending I have right now.

My iMac C2D 2,13 GHz hit 1600 RAC today. What can I expect when SETI is not running 100% of the time? I often quit it for gaming or video rendering.

The theoretical RAC is easy to calculate. Take the time in seconds that a given work unit uses, call it "S"; the credit earned for that work unit "C", the number of processors you are using "P".

Potential RAC = P * 86400 / (S/C)

For each hour you are NOT running SETI, subtract 1/24 of the potential RAC.
beadman

Keep in mind that not all WUs are crunched with equal performance. Some have a higher yield in credits/second than others.

HTH,

Ron

Well, if you're going to be picky about it <grin>, Ron, then a sample on work units, say 100 so as to be statistically significant, should be picked, each one run through the formula, and then determine the mean and standard deviation of the result.

Having said that, yes of course. For example, here's a sample of 5 of my WU crunched on my MBP:

rac sec cred
1266 7400 54.23
1588 8226 75.61
1072 4818 29.89
1328 2516 19.33
1087 2634 16.57

This small sample has a mean of 1268 and a standard deviation of 210. So, for the non-statistical person, this just indicates that the best average RAC I can expect is around 1268, plus or minus 210. So if I was really lucky and received mostly the 75 credit WU, I'd have a really high RAC, and if I'm unlucky and receive mostly the 29 credit or 16 credit WU, I'll have really low RAC. Again, this assumes uninterrupted crunching 24/7. Since I carry my MBP back and forth between home and work, and on frequent travel, my current actual RAC of 1121 says I'm below the theoretical average, part of which is due to only running 22 hours per day (reduction of 106) , and part of which is a slightly higher count of low-credit WU.

Now aren't you glad you asked the question? <grin>
beadman

Just for fun, I deleted A Kan's v8 and ran the "5.28 enhanced" version from the seti site. On my iMac Core Duo the time for a standard 63.98 credit WU went from a time of 9,711.88 to 13,477.11 sec., an increase of 39%. On a non-standard 52.25 credit WU, the "5.28 enhanced" application took an astounding 15,863.07 sec. to complete. Isn't it time that A. Kan's application became the "standard" Macintosh application on Seti? The "result" says something about the application coming from Apple? How does that work?

In the past the Seti folk were not necessarily happy about huge amounts of fast
enhanced crunchers because they only had so many work units to distribute and
thus some work units were crunched multiple times by multiple parties.

With multibeam, I'm not entirely sure if this is an issue anymore. The stock clients
have always been slower/less efficient.

That being said, I'm sure there are people out there who could be achieving
significantly better performance than they are but are unaware that there are
enhanced clients to do so.

Sorry, but I couldn't care less about mathematical estimation. I want real world facts. Topped 1702 RAC today, which I think is good because I sometimes kill SETI to do some renderings etc.