Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: is there a virus that eats Seti WUs?




  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    1,636

    Default

    Well Im glad to report that overriding the files with a new copy worked.
    Seems that something got into those suckers and submitted BAD WUs. I wonder if I got credit for them or not? Now I know that all is well. but still makes me wonder WHAT exactly did that.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    662

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kane2g
    ... I went to overclockers.com and found out that most farms use both SETIDriver and SETIQue to store WUs. Pretty much store WUs in Driver for one day and store a week in SEITQue.
    I decided to do the same thing. I was amazed how simple it is. Now 1 system uploads all WUs.
    Does SETIQue require a bonified server? I seem to remember one of those programs relying on having a server based network.

    I, for one, do not have a server on my network.

    BTW, Glad you seem to have gotten your WU issues resolved.
    :-(

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    1,636

    Default

    what is a bonified server?

    I have just a regular peer to peer network. nothing fancy.
    Ran SETIQueue install, configured for how many WUs I want to have stored, lowered the #of WUs in SETIDriver into single digits. and enabled Proxy in SetiDriver to the IP of the system with SETIQueue, which is also my gateway (192.168.0.1)
    and put in the default port number.


    Pretty much now SETIDriver connectst to SETIQueue instead of Berkley. It gets its new WUs from it, and submits its finished ones.
    Than when I go online (im on dialup) I just make the SETIQueue connect to submit the finished WUs and DL new ones if needed. I think this can be automized, but I dont have it turned on as it takes out fun from submitting WUs :D
    I also get whole bunch of cool info out of it.
    I added some infro about SETIQueue to my link, so ya might want to check it out.
    I think this is a better way to go in a farm than SETIDriver alone, as I know that all the WUs are submitted and I dont have to VNC over to every single system to check if there is 1 or 2 WUs that didnt get uploaded.

    Im still going throught all the stuff this program can do, and I really like what I see!! :thumb:
    Hope that answers your question.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    662

    Default

    I'm not all that server savy, for one thing. The problem I see is due to my router-based network, which assigns IP addresses to machines as they come online. If the machine with SETIQueue is restarted, it will be assigned a new IP address and I suspect the SETI Driver clients(?) won't know where to connect. I may be all wet here or if it is a problem, I may just have to set fixed IP addresses, which I suppose is possible to do.

    When I get a chance I'll install SETIQueue and see how it goes. Thanks again. :thumb:
    :-(

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    1,636

    Default

    Thats all true, BUT.
    I share my dialup, so my main machine automatically gets 192.168.0.1 IP. No matter what. But if you dont want to install it on you main, You can put the name of the system into the same field and it will find the IP.
    It also doesnt use any resources. mine is using 752KB of memory!!!!
    It also makes my life easier, as I can see which systems submited their WUs and when, etc. So i know that one of the systems is down.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    662

    Default

    I was beginning to wonder if there may be a problem with the recording of completed WUs as this thread states. Regarding Elrado Coin's contribution, I recently observed a delay in reporting completed units. Since that is a single 400 MHZ PII machine and it takes about 12 hours/WU, I have plenty of time to observe events. I noticed that SETILog indicated that 4 WUs had been completed, and none were needed to be returned, however the SETI@home User page indicated that only 3 had been completed. I was a bit concerned for a while, but after the 5th unit was completed and swapped out, the User page jumped to the correct amount of 5. I can't explain the delay in the official reporting, but I am glad to say that everthing eventually worked out ok.
    :-(

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    1,636

    Default

    I noticed that the website stats were down for few hours, so maybe thats what caused the wrong results?
    But checking the SETILog would be the easiest way to tell you if it has completed. :thumb:

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    662

    Default

    That occured several days ago. There were no issues with the SETI@home pages at thte time.
    :-(

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •