The goal is to not feed work to "broken" CPUs or GPUs. What about this:
Each day, keep track of validations. If a work unit validates, and no invalid work is received, raise quota. If no work is validated that day, quota stays unchanged. If no valid work is received, and invalid work is received, leave the quota unchanged. I think that mixed results for a day (some valid, some invalid) should leave the quota unchanged. That would keep a long string of SETI -9's from killing the quota -- it'd take days of sustained badness to stop a broken host. -- Lynn On 5/24/2010 2:55 PM, Richard Haselgrove wrote: >>> Allowing a 'bonus' on quota for a validated task gets round the >>> astronomical >>> numbers that can be processed by "successful, but idiotic" reports such >>> as >>> SETI overflows on faulty GPUs. >> >> Such results will be returned, but NOT validated. So they don't recive >> "validation bonus". > > Exactly. that's why it gets round - i.e. solves or avoids - the problem that > could be caused by an inflated general quota figure. > > > _______________________________________________ > boinc_dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev > To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and > (near bottom of page) enter your email address. > _______________________________________________ boinc_dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and (near bottom of page) enter your email address.
