A missed deadline has always been considered a failure, though of course
it's the failure with maximum latency. Also note the "host punishment"
terminology emerged first in the new credit design, so what we're discussing
here is sort of only applicable to SETI Beta now and other projects in
future.
As an example of a condition the redesigned code ought to avoid, Travis'
example is certainly useful, so trying to understand it is certainly on
topic.
--
Joe
On 28 May 2010 at 7:14, Paul wrote:
> As Travis has noted he has a host that is basically obtaining tasks and
> not returning them at all ... this too needs to be considered as a failure
> and I don't think that never returned tasks are considered to be failed.
>
>
> On May 27, 2010, at 7:32 PM, Lynn W. Taylor wrote:
>
> > Seems to me that the really fast methods of catching a broken host
> > aren't very good, and the good methods aren't very fast.
> >
> > Does BOINC need fast?
> >
> > On 5/27/2010 7:19 PM, Josef W. Segur wrote:
> >> I certainly agree, and even were it a perfect method of finding problem
> >> hosts the best method of minimizing their damage to the project is
> >> uncertain. Your inputs along that line have seemed very good to me.
_______________________________________________
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.
