• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Wow, Orange Kid's SETIQ server already has 309 WU results queued

S

Sukhoi

Elite Member
That's quite impressive considering how many of those probably would have been lost if Orange Kid's server wasn't running. I think as soon as SETIQ gets out of beta (any word from Ken Reneris on this?), we need to get a TA SETIQ server, and round robin set up. 🙂 Has Mika said if his server could handle maybe 1000 WU/day, and if he'd be willing to be the main server that all the round robin proxies connect to?
 
Wiz also volunteered his services as another team proxy...

I'd love to do it as well, if I wasn't stuck with this pathetic dial-up... 🙁
 
ive got 40 left.. one days worth on that queue..thank goodness its back up 🙂

For people with firewalls, we need a Port 80 proxy...
 
I'm willing to check it out, I dunno if I have the required base and I need to know what kind of traffic to expect and all the details. Where do I go for info?
 
Well, if you were running the entire team server (I dunno if Mika will be or not), you could probably expect 1000 WU/day after a few months. That's about 350 KB both downloading and uploading for each WU. Assuming I did the math right (I'm tired 🙂), it's around 350 MB/day each way.

I really have no knowledge in this area, but I'd guess that disk I/O would be the limiting factor in a SETIQ server. I have no idea how much processing is needed to do the SETIQ stats.
 
Robor, I thought that at first too, but it's not true. Think of it this way.

The SETIQ server has to DL a WU which is 350 KB, then it has to upload the same 350 KB WU to the client. So it's actually using twice as much bandwith as you would think.
 
Ok I didn't really read what you said (was in a hurry) only Robor's assumption that the result files were smaller (which they are). I too was only thinking of the data transfer from SetiQ to the Seti Servers and not SetiQ to the client. 😱
 
the result file is tiny, its the WUs themselves that take up the bandwidth. if i take one computer out from behind the firewall i think i have a static IP, so i could host some. i'm on some weird shared T1 setup right now. i'd DMZ the computer but i think my roommate has already done that for his computer.
 
For the record, the bandwidth's there. We have a 10Mb/sec connection to the internet, so it would take about 4 mins to push the entire day's worth of WUs. Once SETIQ goes final(or at least a proven stable beta) we'll install it; assuming bandwidth memory, IO, ect; isn't a problem.
 
So are we going to share this task among a few of us with dedicated bandwidth?
I'm willing to if it is to be shared, I don't think it's wise to funnel it all through one team setiQ though, remember there is a reason why distributed tasks make sense?
Maybe I just don't quite understand, if not someone enlighten me.
 
Thanks for the info ViRGE. 🙂

I suggest we set up the SETI proxy system similar to the DNet system.

Have a main proxy running on Mika's that would be setiproxy.teamanandtech.com or something like that. Then have a round robin set up at seti.teamanandtech.com. All users would connect to the round robin. Then Mika's would only have the round robin proxies connecting which would lower the load a lot, but we'd still have all our stats at a central location. 😀
 
I would certainly be willing to host a SetiQ server on the Team server. However, I would like if Orange Kid were able to admin it. OK already has the experience with the SetiQ and is more in tune with Seti in general. I like Sukhoi's suggestion of using a round-robin of Seti proxies similar to what we have for the D.net projects. 🙂

Mika
 
I would be happy and honored to admin the seti proxy🙂

At this time I think we should wait just a bit as SetiQ is still a little unsettled and Ken is still adding features and I would like to see some more usable things added myself🙂

For a Team proxy I would like to see some more flexibility in connection times(multiple), or an hour setting for connects(ie-every 2hrs,4hrs). Mabe a batch could be written to do this, haven't tried that. Hate to have a crash and loose a lot of WU's though this has not yet happened here🙂

I currently have 29 users on this Q and 2200 WU's(an overkill, I know, but I'm still learning what the best settings are)and it is using up a little over a gig of HD space. This gives you an idea of the space needed as the minimum settings for caching are for 2.4 WU's per users per Q.
If we are doing 1500WU's a day that would be 3600WU's in the Q at a minimum, plus the results files that have not been sent. If a user has different clients (windows,solaris,linux,etc) each client sets up its own Q under that particular users name.(something that would be nice to alleviate)

For the Team SetiQ I would recommend that it be more of a central stats place and less of an actual WU queue for users.
The idea of a round robin could be a problem as everytime a user is sent to a new Q, an accout would be set up at that Q and he/she could have an over-abundance of WU's sitting everywhere. Large caching would have to be done by the user(except maybe in extenuating circumstances)much as is done now.

Enough rambling, but these are some things to think about🙂

😎 😎
 
Orange Kid, queue sizes for the round robin may not be a problem depending on how SETIQ sets up the queue. If it bases it on average production, then we should be fine. If there are 5 round robin proxies, then you'd connect to each one an average of every 5 days. So the individual proxies would think you're doing 1/5 of the work you actually are. Right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top