setiQ question

[bot2600]

I am playing around with setting up a setiq. would there be any advantage of stacking 2 seti q's on one machine and pointing one to the other and then the second to berkley? the q in the middle could store extra units to feed the q that the users are pulling from, the only disadvantage I see is that users wouldnt be able to see how many of their units are store in the middle q waiting to go to berkley. I was just thinking of the problems that were showing up with signing up new users, the q was still needing to get their first wu from berkley, is that still the case or is that different in the last release? then again, I have never set up a q before, so my whole thought process could just be whack

that and its after 2am

bot

 

[JWMiddleton]

Hi Bob,

I see no benefit in doing the nested queues. Each one would have to keep WUs for EACH SETI ID, they would basically be a mirror of each other. I can only guess that you were thinking that the fisrt one would have a big stash of generic WUs and the other would draw from those, but, sorry to say, it doesn't work that way.

Hope the first week with M$ was great, even if it was training!

 

[bot2600]

ah, see I was thinking that the second would only have to have one que of units and that would be for 'its' one client which was the other que...oh well, I tried

 

[bot2600]

oh, and work was actually not to bad...for work that is

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Actually it would create a bigger "buffer" of WUs wouldn't it?

Ex:
Q1 is "inside"(internal clients get WUs from it) and Q2 is "outside"(gets units from bezerkly)
Q1 keeps a 20day(max?) supply of WUs Queued up for each of the indivual clients and likewise Q2 would do the same. So if WU "xyz" was downloaded to Q2 it would sit there until Q1 called for it, once Q1 grabbed WU "xyz" from Q2, Q2 would download a new WU which would sit there until called for by Q1. So the actual WUs wouldn't be mirrored, thus making it a 2 tier cache system. So wouldn't you have a ~40 day supply?
/Ex:

Does that make sense? I suppose you could also just set your caches to a high # if you use SetiDriver or a different cache app.

CADkindaGUY

 

[Smoke]

I am about to try an experiment ... maybe some of you have already tried this so let me know if I have something or I'm just wasting my time.

I am(maybe) going to install a second instance of SetiQueue. I am going to have only one "customer" ... Cobra! When necessary, I plan on doing a Cut/Paste of WUs from the TeAm Smokeball Q to the Cobra Q.

You may be wondering why am I going to the trouble of installing a second SetiQueue when as JWM told me earlier that any new SETI EMAIL CUSTOMER would have his/her own Qxxxx and I could service them both with just one installation. Well, I have found by examining not only the TS Q but other Qs that there seems to be a delay downloading WUs because of the way Berk kicks you out off after getting one WU and puts you to the end of the line (so to speak - thank you Poof).

By having two different installations of SetiQueue I will be having in effect two different individuals standing in line and should therefore (all things being equal) be able to download twice the number of WUs.

/OK, I am now folding my arms over my head as I prepare for the replies. LOL

 

[JWMiddleton]

Smokeball,

Go for it and let us know if it makes that much difference! I can see a big need in your case while trying to help Cobra, et al.

CADkindaGUY,

Your logic sounds fine. When I said the two queues would be mirrored, I meant the structure (clients and queues) not the actual data. The waiting WUs on the 1st Queue would be unique. The Pending WUs on the 1st queue would be the waiting and pending WU on the 2nd queue. Wouldn't the "insane" option allow you to get the higher counts that you are looking for and only have one queue?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: JWMiddleton
CADkindaGUY,

Your logic sounds fine. When I said the two queues would be mirrored, I meant the structure (clients and queues) not the actual data. The waiting WUs on the 1st Queue would be unique. The Pending WUs on the 1st queue would be the waiting and pending WU on the 2nd queue. Wouldn't the "insane" option allow you to get the higher counts that you are looking for and only have one queue?

No prob

I've tried that "insane" thing but it still only seems to let me keep 20 day supply(max) - am I doing something wrong? How exactly is that setting accomplished again?

Thanks,

CADkindaGUY

 

[Confused]

The insane option is if your 20 day store will be over 800 WUs based on your daily production

What Greg is suggesting is essentially a great plan, try getting 2 queues to connect at a time rather than just one.

I have an idea, which is loosly based on that principle, for sharing out all users to many queues, by them only using one address, sorta like the RC5 pproxy. This is in VERY early alpha stage of planning in my head, and a bit of testing will happen, but i'll say now that if it works then it could solve our problem of one queue getting saturated!

Garry


/me goes off to that great abyss that is Garry's mind to do some of this "thinking" malarky

 

[muttley]

I was just thinking the same thing about 2 instances of SETI QUEUE running at the same time.

Also what happens when you move queues around? or are they generic until they are sent to a computer from the queue?

muttley

 

[JWMiddleton]

A thread about insane!

It must work as IJ has over 2,500 in his queue! :Q