[zombie67]

If I understand correctly, the old optimized apps still work with MB WUs. Some have said that they sometimes fail to validate. But that may just be FUD to make people stop using them. Real info here would be good!

Here is the real issue as I see it: The current/old optimized apps, including chicken *and* alexkan's, all now over-claim credits. S@H now use a multiplier that has been reduced with the standard MB app. By doing nothing, we are now "cheating". So, we can continue to use the latest AK app, and be called cheaters, or use the stock app. The stock app is supposed to be optimized using some of chicken and AK optimizations, but not as much as a processor/OC targeted app.

For now, I updated my PCs to use chicken 2.4. And my macs are not running S@H for now. But they will in the future, so I am looking for TEAM guidance here.

[Elphidieus]

Somehow I raised this question on the SETI@home forum, comparing credit claims from AK's optimised clients against stock 5.27 clients running both BOINC clients version 4 and 5. In fact, I was recommended to continue using AK's optimised apps, as long as WUs are validated. It's not that we're cheating or anything, because the credit granted will be on the lower end of the quorum, thus the only thing we have to worry about is the decrease of RAC. People accusing others of cheating are most probably the same kind of credit whore who would start another round of credit war.

So I guess I'm waiting patiently for Alex's next release....

EDIT: typo error

[zombie67]

Originally Posted by Elphidieus 

Somehow I raised this question on the SETI@home forum, comparing credit claims from AK's optimised clients against stock 5.27 clients running both BOINC clients version 4 and 5. In fact, I was recommended to continue using AK's optimised apps, as long as WUs are validated. It's not that we're cheating or anything, because the credit granted will be on the lower end of the quorum, thus the only thing we have to worry about is the decrease of RAC. People accusing others of cheating are mostly probably the same kind of credit whore who would start another round of credit war.

So I guess I'm waiting patiently for Alex's next release....

Yup. I saw that. But there is another Rosetta War (at a minimum) coming our way. We need our team to have a unified front.

It would be a GOOD thing for AK to step up soon...

[jedimstr]

Originally Posted by zombie67 

Yup. I saw that. But there is another Rosetta War (at a minimum) coming our way. We need our team to have a unified front.

It would be a GOOD thing for AK to step up soon...

Didn't you get your answer from Alex in the other thread:
http://forums.macnn.com/72/team-macn...tibeam-worker/
He said he preferred us going back to the standard MB app until he can get the new ones out to prevent any credit "issues"

[zombie67]

D'oh! Complete brain fart! It's true what they say about hitting 40. Now, where did I leave my pants?

[jedimstr]

Pants? I don't even want to know...

BTW - since we last talked on this forum, you've like doubled your output and I have no chance of catching you? What'd you do? Commandeer a few IBM Blue Gene boxes while I was away?

[zombie67]

I added an 8-way mac, and 2x 8-way windows boxes. Oh yeah, and an OC quad. These Core 2 chips are awesome!

[beadman]

Was just checking and discovered a major drop in RAC. I'm using Alex's seti_enhanced-i386-v7.2-coreduo-nographics client on a Core Duo Intel MacBookPro. A "standard" WU was taking around 6800 cpusec for 62 credits; the MBP is currently taking around 8800 cpusec, claiming 63 credits, and receiving 54 credits. That's 33% longer to compute, and 13% less credit for a net drop in expected RAC of 43%!

beadman
<edited my percentages>

[Knightrider]

As I see it, we have a good record with regard to claimed credits. Alex worked with the SAH team to get it right, and hopefully he is doing the same for the MB's. The only advantage of using optimized apps is speed. We can do more work, more credit is the result of that, in spite of the penalty of lower credit for faster work done.

Chicken has a new worker ready to release and Alex has said he is working to get one out for Mac's.

So I think we have to say that there are transitional issues for optimized workers that are being addressed and new workers will be issued soon.

K.

[jedimstr]

Speaking of the MB WUs and Alex' app... now that the MB WUs are in the wild any word from the man himself on when we can expect the new v8 release? Ballpark figure? Anything other than "when its done" would be nice

I know some of his optimizations made it into the new Berkeley 5.23, but it almost feels like my BOINCfarm is slacking. I wanna whip those lazy cpu cycles back into shape.

[Knightrider]

Originally Posted by jedimstr 

I know some of his optimizations made it into the new Berkeley 5.23, but it almost feels like my BOINCfarm is slacking. I wanna whip those lazy cpu cycles back into shape.

Well your BOINC Farm won't be slacking for much longer, On my Mac, with enhanced 5.22 the running times are between 55 to 121 hours, and creeping up on my PC. That will surely cut down on sah server traffic and cover the outages.

K.

[alexkan]

[I am currently unable to post to the main SETI boards because my RAC is too low, so if someone could link to this post in one of the relevant discussions on the main boards, that would be fantastic. In the meantime, I'm working on getting my RAC above the required threshold.]

Let me start by apologizing for putting all you Mac crunchers in the uncomfortable position of having to choose between an optimized app with an outdated multiplier and a stock app whose multiplier was even more inflated. Had I recognized this earlier, I would have realized that merely asking everybody to revert to stock and wait for me to release v8 (especially given its current state) was not the right course of action.

The right thing to do, which is what I'm doing now, would have been to rev all the existing apps to use the new multiplier first:

ppc-v7.1mb-g4-nographics
ppc-v7.1mb-g5-nographics
i386-v7.2mb-coreduo-nographics
i386-v7.2mb-core2-nographics

The stderr output from these updated apps will have an extra "mb" in their version number, and will print the value of LOAD_STORE_ADJUSTMENT in use. As an extra measure of future-proofing, these apps will respect the per-WU <credit_rate> tags, if present. Sources for both v7.1mb and v7.2mb have been posted as well, in case people want to check my implementation of this feature for correctness.

As for v8...if I had a firm date for when it'll be done, I would have told everyone. I have been trying to finish up the remaining non-Core2 development and benchmarking recently, though.

[adream]

well done alex for coming to our rescue !

there was a small panic going on with some mac users :-)

we just need to communicate with the users of the v8 pre release to get em to revert to the new mb app asap to stop the bleating over in the seti forums he heh

thanks alot for your continued support and effort for us mac users

regards

adream

[arkayn]

Of course it has to re-download all my work as he changed the option to 5.27 instead of 5.23.

Oh well, at least I am not on dial-up anymore!!

[kennet]

Alex:

It appears to me that these new versions (with Boinc 5.10.7) seems to work with multibeam, or am I being blinded by something.

When I reupped these new 7.2mb versions, Boinc 5.10.7 resent the ‘lost result’ as per below copied text messages
from the Boinc Client. These were originally downloaded with 523 multibeam enabled (without your optimizations and
verified as multibeam). I now have increased speed on the workunits (both resent and downloaded after your latest optimization
was enabled). I take it the MB in the version number means multibeam?

Wed 22 Aug 01:26:25 2007|SETI@home|Message from server: Resent lost result 16fe07ac.8543.9070.14.5.171_1
Wed 22 Aug 01:26:25 2007|SETI@home|Message from server: Resent lost result 16fe07ac.10133.12342.15.5.241_0
Wed 22 Aug 01:26:25 2007|SETI@home|Message from server: Resent lost result 13fe07aa.13636.3753.5.5.39_1
Wed 22 Aug 01:26:25 2007|SETI@home|Message from server: Resent lost result 13fe07aa.13636.17659.5.5.138_1

Thank you for your contributions, past, ongoing and future.

Kenn

[jedimstr]

I'm not Alex, but I think I know what's going on here.

Alex's new clients state it as v. 5.27 in the app_info.xml.
The current stock for Mac's use v. 5.23 (and Windows uses 5.27) so the Mac Stock is a little behind.

When the anonymous platform's client support version is different, it resends the results that were downloaded for 5.23 prior to the switchover just in case those shouldn't be processed by a client based on 5.27.

Same thing happened to me when I updated all my Macs on the boincFarm.

And yes, I do believe that MB does mean Multibeam supported.

Originally Posted by kennet 

Alex:

It appears to me that these new versions (with Boinc 5.10.7) seems to work with multibeam, or am I being blinded by something.

When I reupped these new 7.2mb versions, Boinc 5.10.7 resent the ‘lost result’ as per below copied text messages
from the Boinc Client. These were originally downloaded with 523 multibeam enabled (without your optimizations and
verified as multibeam). I now have increased speed on the workunits (both resent and downloaded after your latest optimization
was enabled). I take it the MB in the version number means multibeam?

Wed 22 Aug 01:26:25 2007|SETI@home|Message from server: Resent lost result 16fe07ac.8543.9070.14.5.171_1
Wed 22 Aug 01:26:25 2007|SETI@home|Message from server: Resent lost result 16fe07ac.10133.12342.15.5.241_0
Wed 22 Aug 01:26:25 2007|SETI@home|Message from server: Resent lost result 13fe07aa.13636.3753.5.5.39_1
Wed 22 Aug 01:26:25 2007|SETI@home|Message from server: Resent lost result 13fe07aa.13636.17659.5.5.138_1

Thank you for your contributions, past, ongoing and future.

Kenn

[kennet]

That is what I believe as well, but like to have it confirmed. I’ve been burnt by assumptions in the past.

Kenn

[Knightrider]

Originally Posted by kennet 

Wed 22 Aug 01:26:25 2007|SETI@home|Message from server: Resent lost result 16fe07ac.8543.9070.14.5.171_1
Wed 22 Aug 01:26:25 2007|SETI@home|Message from server: Resent lost result 16fe07ac.10133.12342.15.5.241_0
Wed 22 Aug 01:26:25 2007|SETI@home|Message from server: Resent lost result 13fe07aa.13636.3753.5.5.39_1
Wed 22 Aug 01:26:25 2007|SETI@home|Message from server: Resent lost result 13fe07aa.13636.17659.5.5.138_1

Is this 're-sent' or is it resent? as in

resent /rzent/ v. L16. [Fr. resentir (now ress-), f. re- RE- + sentir feel.] I 1 v.t. Feel, experience (an emotion or sensation). L16-M18. 2 v.t. Feel (something) as a cause of depression or sorrow, feel deeply or sharply; refl. have a feeling of pain, feel distress or regret. E17-E18. b Repent, regret (an action). M-L17. 3 v.t. Feel injured or insulted by (an act, circumstance, etc.); be aggrieved at, esp. through jealousy; begrudge; feel bitterness or indignation towards (a person). Also, show dipleasure or anger at. E17. 4 v.t. Take or receive (an action etc.) in a certain way or with certain feelings, respond to. M17-M18. b Take favourably, approve of. rare. Only in M17. 5 v.t. Appreciate, be grateful for (a favour etc.). M17-M19.

---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from Oxford Talking Dictionary
Copyright © 1998 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

I have to say that I understood it to be as defined above, and have always 'resented' the comment as petulant.

petulant /petjl()nt/ a. & n. L16. [(O)Fr. petulant f. L petulant-, -lans rel. to petere seek, aim at: see -ANT1.] A adj. 1 Immodest; wanton, lascivious. Now rare. L16. 2 Pert; insolent; rude. Now rare. E17. 3 Exhibiting peevish impatience and irritation, esp. over trivial matters. M18. B n. A petulant person. L17.petulance n. ( a ) the fact or quality of being petulant; ( b ) (now rare) a pert or insolent remark: M16. petulancy n. = PETULANCE (a) M16. petulantly adv. E17.

---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from Oxford Talking Dictionary
Copyright © 1998 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

K.

[gorbag]

Originally Posted by Knightrider 

Is this 're-sent' or is it resent?

Your petulance is resented.

[kennet]

This is my favourite definition of resent:

2. To give forth an odor; to smell; to savor. [Obs.]
[1913 Webster]

The judicious prelate will prefer a drop of the
sincere milk of the word before vessels full of
traditionary pottage resenting of the wild gourd of
human invention. --Fuller.
[1913 Webster]

Kenn

[anders n]

Is there a problem with the new core2 app?

Se this thread for more info.

BTW nice forum you have here.

Anders n

[arkayn]

I have not seen it on my iMac, but I also have over 5000 pending right now.

[anders n]

Originally Posted by arkayn 

I have not seen it on my iMac, but I also have over 5000 pending right now.

I took a look at your computer on SETI and it's the same for you, result no 3 is issued. Se here

Anders n

[arkayn]

The problem with that one was my wingman was using Boinc Manager 4.45, it does not work properly for the new stuff.

[anders n]

Hmm how about this one?
Wingman using 5.8.16

[kennet]

My pending is at 5,200 credits at the moment for my iMac as well.

[jedimstr]

ugh... here's mine:
Pending credit: 27,919.34

[arkayn]

Pending credit: 5,794.30, most of that is off the iMac. I also have my laptop running as well.

[Elphidieus]

I think the failed validation issue had gone a little bit serious here:

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum...d.php?id=41953

Perhaps the result differences generated from the optimised clients explains the recent increase of pending credits...?

Where's Alex when we need him....?

[QSilver]

Another question I have re: the current crop of AK-optimized apps: Do they work with 10.3.9 or are they Tiger-only?

I remember seeing somewhere when I first started to use an AK app that they could be used on with OS 10.3.9 and newer but don't recall having seen anything re: OS requirements lately.

QS

[beadman]

Originally Posted by QSilver 

Another question I have re: the current crop of AK-optimized apps: Do they work with 10.3.9 or are they Tiger-only?...QS

They don't work on my iMac G3 333MHz machine. The stock SETI client runs onit, but I only get around 20 credits per day. The same machine running the Einstein stock client gets around 50 credits per day. One WU takes around 9 days on Einstein, but it runs and it validates.

beadman

[QSilver]

Originally Posted by beadman 

They don't work on my iMac G3 333MHz machine. The stock SETI client runs onit, but I only get around 20 credits per day. The same machine running the Einstein stock client gets around 50 credits per day. One WU takes around 9 days on Einstein, but it runs and it validates.

beadman

I don't think AK's optimized have ever had G3 compatibility. I've only seen G4, G5, and Intel flavors.

I'm more interested in clarifying the minimum OS requirement.

QS

[beadman]

Originally Posted by QSilver 

I don't think AK's optimized have ever had G3 compatibility. I've only seen G4, G5, and Intel flavors.

I'm more interested in clarifying the minimum OS requirement.

QS

Ah...sorry about that; I mis-read your post. My G3 is running 10.3.9, all my other machines are 10.4.8 or later.

beadman

[arkayn]

See the optimized thread for a update on the app.

http://forums.macnn.com/72/team-macn...6/#post3471614