does current version of SetiQueue need proxy_server=shserver2?

Ben98SentraSE · Jan 15, 2001

proxy_server=shserver2.ssl.berkeley.edu in Qseti.txt

Has anyone tested this yet? I know it's a "little" thing, but has anyone been successful in making this change yet? On one hand I don't want to change it and have it not work, on the other I want to be prepared for when all the old Seti clients, meaning shserver.ssl.berkeley.edu DNS entry goes bye-bye.

Let me know...

Assimilator1 · Jan 15, 2001

Ahh ,maybe we should toss a coin between us to see who should do it!

Ben98SentraSE · Jan 15, 2001

Ah hell. My output is jack right now anyways. Take a look at my last several days of production:

1/11 Thu 7:37pm 3a5e51e7 qresult.1761 38h51m38s ip205-166-132-178
1/11 Thu 11:10pm 3a5e8399 qresult.1762 63h34m44s BOX
1/12 Fri 5:27am 3a5edc21 qresult.1763 42h16m38s 192.168.0.2
1/12 Fri 8:06am 3a5f0138 qresult.1764 24h32m40s demotte-hyper-2-129
1/12 Fri 2:49pm 3a5f5fbd qresult.1765 30h47m55s me
1/13 Sat 2:18am 3a60014d qresult.1766 37h55m32s MOMDAD
1/13 Sat 2:53am 3a600978 qresult.1767 43h36m31s SETIBOX1
1/13 Sat 10:02am 3a606e10 qresult.1768 34h52m24s BOX
1/13 Sat 5:38pm 3a60d8e8 qresult.1769 35h57m23s 192.168.0.2
1/13 Sat 7:17pm 3a60f01a qresult.1770 24h24m20s heb-noc-198-163
1/13 Sat 10:29pm 3a611d17 qresult.1771 30h17m14s me
1/14 Sun 10:32pm 3a626f38 qresult.1772 20h58m02s demotte-hyper-4-197
1/15 Mon 12:19am 3a628845 qresult.1773 45h25m12s SETIBOX1
1/15 Mon 2:01am 3a62a04a qresult.1774 39h58m18s BOX
1/15 Mon 4:46am 3a62c6f4 qresult.1775 30h00m02s me
1/15 Mon 12:07pm 3a632e51 qresult.1776 42h15m05s 192.168.0.2

I guess I should be the one to do it since it wouldn't hurt output as much as someone else. Plus how hard would it be to change it back and restart SetiQ?

Doing it now...

Ben98SentraSE · Jan 15, 2001

It works. Just changed it and here's what SetiQueue did after I restarted it:

Seti Queue. Revision .78b Courtesy of: Ken Reneris
1/15 Mon 2:01pm INI report_stats=yes
1/15 Mon 2:01pm INI work_unit_adjust=14
1/15 Mon 2:01pm INI username=Ben Davis <bendavis@sr20de.cioe.com>
1/15 Mon 2:01pm INI sync_hour=22:36
1/15 Mon 2:01pm INI queue_depth=5 days
1/15 Mon 2:01pm INI ave_over=3 days
1/15 Mon 2:01pm INI max_poll=11 minutes
1/15 Mon 2:01pm INI proxy_server=shserver2.ssl.berkeley.edu:80
1/15 Mon 2:01pm INI log_filesetiq.log hours=1
1/15 Mon 2:01pm ave me 30h21m43s
1/15 Mon 2:01pm ave MOMDAD 37h55m32s
1/15 Mon 2:01pm ave SETIBOX1 44h30m51s
1/15 Mon 2:01pm ave BOX 37h25m21s
1/15 Mon 2:01pm ave 192.168.0.2 39h06m14s
1/15 Mon 2:01pm ave heb-noc-198-163 24h24m20s
1/15 Mon 2:01pm ave demotte-hyper-4-197 20h58m02s
1/15 Mon 2:01pm wu (rpd=4) Min:10 Max:14 Queued:22
1/15 Mon 2:01pm SRV connecting to seti@home server
1/15 Mon 2:01pm SRV Send qresult.1773 (size: 3749)
1/15 Mon 2:01pm SRV connecting to seti@home server
1/15 Mon 2:01pm SRV Send qresult.1774 (size: 4197)
1/15 Mon 2:01pm SRV connecting to seti@home server
1/15 Mon 2:01pm SRV Send qresult.1775 (size: 4405)
1/15 Mon 2:01pm SRV connecting to seti@home server
1/15 Mon 2:01pm SRV Send qresult.1776 (size: 5849)
1/15 Mon 2:01pm SRV connecting to seti@home server
1/15 Mon 2:01pm SRV send setiq stats

So it sends WU's just fine.

Now what WOULD be interesting would be to run 3.0, even maybe older clients, and set the proxy to shserver2, or just that IP, 128.32.18.166, and see if it will still accept 3.0 or older WUs.

Assim1, wanna try that, in the name of, experimentation?

Assimilator1 · Jan 15, 2001

I would be interested too but I'm somewhat uneasy about doing that! ,would sending old client results to their new server 'mess up' their data?

Ken g6 · Jan 15, 2001

Well, my friend Scott has been submitting 3.0 WUs for the past few days through my SetiQ, which is rigged that way, and I don't plan to tell him to upgrade unless/until he has to.

I'm sure it wouldn't accept pre-3.0 WUs, but I'm thinking S@H may only be able to block WUs by primary version number. (I hope

)

Ben98SentraSE · Jan 15, 2001

Hmmmm... well you know SOME people are going to be doing it, and if it works they will have one up on everyone else. This is a really tough issue.

On one side, one could say since the average Seti@home Windows user will just upgrade and let her run as the good old screensaver, the bandwidth used from them will greatly decrease, giving hardcore Seti@home teams space to keep pumping in the WUs.

On another side, if all the teams get "greedy" and run the 3.0 client thru shserver2, it may defeat Seti@home's work to decrease the bandwidth they use with the 3.03 client. This sort of falls in the realm of car radar detectors, overclocking, things like that. Can't come up with a perfect analogy at the moment though...

On another side, we don't know if getting 3.0 or older results will mess up the back-end processing or not. From the article that someone posted last month, Seti@home is getting ready to do some major back-end processing, which one would assume that there will be a LOT of old client-processed WUs getting worked on. I didn't realize v1.01 was still good, but my friend just had to upgrade from 1.01 to 3.03 a few days ago according to the message he got from Seti@home, so apparently they were even accepting 1.01 client WUs as well.

Will running 3.0 screw up their back-end processing? IMO, I doubt it, but it is possible. Will it defeat the purpose of limiting incoming data bandwidth? I don't know. Whoever talks on newsgroups or wherever with the Berkeley Seti@home folks, please bring this up. We KNOW people are going do it, we just need to learn if it is "OK" to do it or not. If it is "OK," then we SHOULD all do it, I think...

Ken g6 · Jan 15, 2001

Remember: I'm still not sure it's possible. Since SETI can send messages to our 3.0 clients telling us to upgrade, they should (you'd think) be able to block our 3.0 WUs as well. So this whole thread may be moot.

Assimilator1 · Jan 15, 2001

I'm assuming that when they kill the old server that is the cut offline for v3.0 & earlier ,that's when I'll change .

Ben....98

v1.01! Jesus thats a muesem piece!lol ,do you think you could get it for me? ,I seem to be collecting old clients!

Poof · Jan 15, 2001

From what I understand from a post way back from Matt Lebofsky on alt.sci.seti, they would be doing a 2-prong approach... one with the DNS (mainly to keep old 1.x clients from DDoSing their servers) and the other via version filtering. Now whether the version.sah file is involved in that, I don't know (aside from checksums on it, I would think that it would be vunerable to tampering, which is perhaps why a 3.03 might create a checksum-based version.sah that ties in with the result.sah and the key.sah files).

The issue with the 1.x clients is mostly a windud thing. Most if not all of the other platforms were forced to at least 2.x sometime last spring, ie., none of my linux 1.xs were accepted after their cutoff date and my NetBSD was obsoleted upon the upgrade to the 2.x clients. Even with 3.00, my x86 Linux clients (and the Macs) were FORCED from 2.x to 3.x. No 2.x x86 linux clients nor Mac clients are accepted now...

Basically, the only cutoff dates that weren't followed up on were for the win clients...

Even if you did the workaround with Setiqueue (I didn't even bother with the "proxy" line, I just put the new servername in my hosts file), the version filter would surely refuse any old client results.

Poof · Jan 15, 2001

Assim1 - I still have my linux 1.x clients...(setiathome-1.3.i386-pc-linux-gnulibc1) and a NetBSD one too (setiathome-1.2.i386-unknown-netbsd1.4)...

Hell... I just checked and I even still have a windud 1.x client (setiathome_win_1_06.exe)

You want a copy of 'em???? For posterity's sake? LOL

Assimilator1 · Jan 15, 2001

LOL ,I already have the .exe for v1.06 ,but not the instalable version.
Damn I just remembered I deleted v2.00,2.02 & 2.03 GUI installa while ago! ,what HAVE I done!?

Hehe I'll have them from you! ,just ICQ me ,if you ever authorise me that is!

I still really want v1.01 ,thats gotta be a collectors item in a few years!

Ken g6 · Jan 15, 2001

Assim1, I have the installable 1.06 .exe if you want it. I might also like the 1.01 client, too.

Edit: I'll take Poof's cue and PM you where to get them.

Poof · Jan 15, 2001

Assim1 - sorry for the delay... I was lost up in that "Thievery" thread... LOL

Since I have so few windoze machines here, the one that I had ICQ on (which was installed thanks to TwoFace when I first starting posting here...

), has hosed it...

I could PM you my FTP server address and you can pick them up that way if you want...

Let me know...

Hellburner · Jan 15, 2001

setiathome_win_1_0.exe, any takers?

Sorry, I wasn't part of the beta testing...

Ken g6 · Jan 15, 2001

I'm sure anyone who wants 1.01 will want 1.0, too. That includes me.

We should start a new thread: SETI clients for sale/trade!

Sukhoi · Jan 15, 2001

Ken, how are you getting that "G-22" text with a yellow backround in your sig?

Orange Kid · Jan 15, 2001

just an FYI

I have the win gui versions
1_0
1_05
1_06
2_0
2_01
2_02
2_04
2_70
2_71
2_73
2_74
2_76
3_0
3_01
3_03

Anybody wanting to send me ones i am missing would be greatly appreciated

edit --- also have some old mac, linux, and for some reason sparc-sun

Assimilator1 · Jan 16, 2001

Orange Kid

Damn! your collection smokes mine!

Any chance you'd be willing to let me have some of those?

I didnt even know GUI v2.01 was released!
Anyone got v2.66?

HB
gimme.gimme,gimme!

KenG6

ROFL! ,what do we trade for them? Beer?

Ken g6 · Jan 16, 2001

Beer?! :Q Heck, no, I'm underage!

I actually meant, like, trading 1.3 GUI for 1.3 CLi.

But now that you mention it, how many WUs would you have traded for those clients?

P.S. Sukhoi, I [[/b]H]ighlighted them.

But now the highlighter color is black

.

Orange Kid · Jan 16, 2001

ken_g6

to late for trades, ive given mine away freely as is the TA way

e-mail me if you want the list

edit--my CLI versions for windows are;
2.0
2.4
2.4 nonintel
3.0
3.03

Sukhoi · Jan 16, 2001

Ah, very clever Ken.

Assimilator1 · Jan 17, 2001

Orange Kid

My breathemail account has gone dead

(Breathemail recently were taken over!) ,I'll send you a PM for another E mail account.

does current version of SetiQueue need proxy_server=shserver2?

Senior member

Elite Member

Senior member

Senior member

Elite Member

Programming Moderator, Elite Member

Senior member

Programming Moderator, Elite Member

Elite Member

Diamond Member

Diamond Member

Elite Member

Programming Moderator, Elite Member

Diamond Member

Senior Member <br>Elite Member

Programming Moderator, Elite Member

Elite Member

Elite Member

Elite Member

Programming Moderator, Elite Member

Elite Member

Elite Member

Elite Member