Can anyone think of a solution for this?
-- David

On 11-Aug-2012 11:40 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> OK, how about this scenario for a problem.
>
> low latency project has a current value of 1 minute for min_rpc_delay.  It
> takes 10 seconds for an RPC.
> SETI@Home is overloaded and takes 90 seconds to respond to an RPD delay.
> Neither is currently handing out work.
>
> Result:  Any host connected to both where both are the top two for work
> fetch is going to have some difficulty fetching work from anywhere else.
>
> jm7
>
>
>
>    From:       David Anderson <[email protected]>
>
>    To:         Richard Haselgrove <[email protected]>
>
>    Cc:         "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>
>    Date:       08/10/2012 03:47 PM
>
>    Subject:    Re: [boinc_dev] Changes to client scheduler from 6.12.33 to 
> 7.0.25?
>
>    Sent by:    <[email protected]>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Projects that use next_rpc_delay need to monitor their server load
> and adjust the value accordingly.
> -- David
>
> On 10-Aug-2012 12:02 PM, Richard Haselgrove wrote:
>> Provided, that is, that the project with the low next_rpc_delay value
> provides
>> sufficient server resources to manage the workflow expeditiously.
>> I've been noticing recently that the SETI servers can commonly take up to
> 90
>> seconds to respond to a routine RPC. While waiting for that reply, the
> client
>> appears to be inhibited from initiating an RPC to another project.
>> Nobody would suggest that SETI should ever consider going low-latency,
> but I'm
>> using the example to question whether the combination of low-latency and
> a
>> sluggish server could lead to the sort of problems for other projects
> that John
>> described.
>>
>>      *From:* David Anderson <[email protected]>
>>      *To:* [email protected]
>>      *Sent:* Friday, 10 August 2012, 19:43
>>      *Subject:* Re: [boinc_dev] Changes to client scheduler from 6.12.33
> to 7.0.25?
>>
>>      There's nothing wrong with a small next_rpc_delay value, e.g. 1
> minute.
>>      This will have no effect on other projects.
>>
>>      The semantics of this are:
>>      - the client issues a scheduler RPC to the project every 1 minute
>>      - If the project has the highest scheduling priority,
>>         this RPC will include work requests for resource types
>>         that are not above the max buffer limit
>>         (regardless of per-resource backoff).
>>
>>      It a project (like Patricio's) has sporadic job availability,
>>      then it will typically have highest scheduling priority.
>>      However, as it processes jobs the priority will decrease,
>>      so it won't block out other project.
>>
>>      -- David
>>
>>      On 10-Aug-2012 7:36 AM, Richard Haselgrove wrote:
>>       > I would hope, and expect, that if anyone set an extreme
> low-latency value
>>       > like a next_rpc_delay of 1 minute or less on a public-facing
> volunteer
>>       > project, peer pressure from other projects would rapidly force
> them to change
>>       > their mind.
>>       >
>>       > But as the front page of the website makes clear, BOINC is also
> designed to
>>       > work as a virtual campus supercomputer centre, or as a company
> desktop grid.
>>       > Under those circumstances, the risk of blocking other projects is
> lessened,
>>       > and I think BOINC should work as described in the Wiki.
>>       >
>>       >
>>       >> ________________________________ From: "[email protected]
>>      <mailto:[email protected]>"
>>       >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> To:
> Patricio
>>      Vidal <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]
>>>
>>       >> Cc: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]
>> ;
>>      [email protected]
>>      <mailto:[email protected]> Sent:
>>       >> Friday, 10 August 2012, 15:27 Subject: Re: [boinc_dev] Changes to
> client
>>       >> scheduler from 6.12.33 to 7.0.25?
>>       >>
>>       >> There is still no point in the connection if the client is not
> going to
>>       >> ask for work from the project anyway.
>>       >>
>>       >> The observation is that it would only take a very small number of
>>       >> low-latency projects to starve all other projects of connections
> if the
>>       >> connection period to the server is short enough.
>>       >>
>>       >> For example, if a connection takes 15 seconds and there are 4
> projects
>>       >> with a server specified connection period of a minute, then no
> other
>>       >> projects will ever be contacted for anything as there will always
> be a
>>       >> pending connection to a low-latency project.  If these
> connections only
>>       >> happen when the client would ask for work from the project if it
> were
>>       >> contactable, then the situation improves greatly.  It can still
> be the case
>>       >> where all 4 rise to the top of the list of projects from which
> the client
>>       >> wants work - in that case, the client will get no work from
> anywhere else
>>       >> until one of these projects has supplied work.
>>       >>
>>       >> jm7
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >> |------------> | From:      | |------------>
>>       >>>
>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>>       >>
>>       >>>
>>      |Patricio Vidal <[email protected]
>>      <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>                                                                         |
>>       >>>
>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>>       >>
>>       >>>
>>      |------------>
>>       >> | To:        | |------------>
>>       >>>
>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>>       >>
>>       >>>
>>      |<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>
> |
>>       >>>
>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>>       >>
>>       >>>
>>      |------------>
>>       >> | Date:      | |------------>
>>       >>>
>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>>       >>
>>       >>>
>>      |08/10/2012 10:04 AM
>>                                                                         |
>>       >>>
>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>>       >>
>>       >>>
>>      |------------>
>>       >> | Subject:  | |------------>
>>       >>>
>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>>       >>
>>       >>>
>>      |Re: [boinc_dev] Changes to client scheduler from 6.12.33 to 7.0.25?
>>                                                                         |
>>       >>>
>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>>       >>
>>       >>>
>>      |------------>
>>       >> | Sent by:  | |------------>
>>       >>>
>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>>       >>
>>       >>>
>>      |<[email protected]
>>      <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>
> |
>>       >>>
>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>>
>>      In my previous email I meant to say ".. we can't have clients waiting
>>       >> hours..."
>>       >>
>>       >> I just found in the wiki that the next_rpc_delay is exactly
> designed for
>>       >> my purpose: http://boinc.berkeley.edu/trac/wiki/LowLatency#
>>       >>
>>       >> Based on the wiki it seems to me the clients should contact the
> server
>>       >> using the rpc_delay regardless they have work from the project.
>>       >>
>>       >> Patricio.
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >> yoyo <yoyo@mailueberfall .de> To Patricio Vidal 08/10/2012 01:21
> AM
>>       >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
> cc
>>      [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>>       >>
>>       >> Subject Re: [boinc_dev] Changes to client scheduler from 6.12.33
> to
>>       >> 7.0.25?
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >> The client doesn't wait for hours if the server has work. Even
> not if the
>>       >> workunits are very short. Before the client runs out of work it
> fetches
>>       >> new ones. Additional you can configure on the server, that the
> client
>>       >> should periodic, e.g. every hour, connect to the server. I use it
> and let
>>       >> the client connect at least every 5h. Was this next_epc_delay
> removed from
>>       >> trunc? I use the client connect to check if a workunit which is
> in the
>>       >> queue of the client can be deleted.
>>       >>
>>       >> yoyo
>>       >>
>>       >> Patricio Vidal schrieb: Yes, we need that functionality. Our jobs
> last from
>>       >> minutes to few hours so we can have the clients waiting hours to
> contact
>>       >> the server.
>>       >>
>>       >> Is there a reason why the client blocks the other projects if it
> has a
>>       >> very short request cycle and it does not have work? I would think
> that if
>>       >> it doesn't has work it should jump to the next project in the
> list.
>>       >>
>>       >> This functionality is critical for any project that has relative
> short
>>       >> (few hours) jobs and it needs the results back as soon as
> possible. I
>>       >> guess this usage is more typical of Boinc projects deployments in
> private
>>       >> networks.
>>       >>
>>       >> Would it make sense to add another option to the configuration
> file for
>>       >> this behavior? Something like <next_work_request_rpc_delay> ? Or
> just
>>       >> restore part of the behavior of  <next_rpc_delay> ? The old
> behavior has
>>       >> been that way for years, right? Is it a issue with other projects
> so that
>>       >> the behavior was changed?
>>       >>
>>       >> Patricio.
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >> John.McLeod@sybase. com To 08/09/2012 04:50 PM        yoyo
>>       >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> cc
>>      [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>,
>>       >>
>>       >> [email protected]
>>      <mailto:[email protected]>, Patricio Vidal
>>       >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>       >>
>>       >> Subject Re: [boinc_dev] Changes to client scheduler from 6.12.33
> to
>>       >> 7.0.25?
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >> They want the clients not to "go to sleep" for a long time if
> there is no
>>       >> work for a bit.  Trickle messages only work if there is work from
> that
>>       >> project actually on the client.
>>       >>
>>       >> There are some problems with contacting projects constantly under
> certain
>>       >> circumstances.  If there is no work on the client from the client
> and the
>>       >> client is not interested in fetching work from that project, then
> there is
>>       >> no point in a contact at all.  There would be nothing that the
> server
>>       >> could legitimately do.  In this case, it is just taking up
> bandwidth that
>>       >> some users pay for by the byte or have caps on usage.
>>       >>
>>       >> The code was modified so that no contact would be made if there
> was no
>>       >> work on the client from the project.  It could be modified so
> that the
>>       >> client would talk to the project on the period specified if it
> either had
>>       >> work from that project, or was interested in work from that
> project.  i.e.
>>       >> The queue is not full and that project was currently the top of
> the list
>>       >> for work fetch.  The problem with this is if this project has a
> very short
>>       >> request cycle and it does not have work, it will block the client
> from
>>       >> asking any other projects for work and the client would go idle
> as a
>>       >> result.
>>       >>
>>       >> jm7
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >> |------------> | From:      | |------------>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>      |yoyo <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>       >> |
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>      |------------>
>>       >> | To:        | |------------>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>      |Patricio Vidal <[email protected] <
> mailto:[email protected]>>
>>       >> |
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>      |------------>
>>       >> | Cc:        | |------------>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>      |<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>,
>>      <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>,
>>       >> <[email protected]
>>      <mailto:[email protected]>> |
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>      |------------>
>>       >> | Date:      | |------------>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>      |08/09/2012 03:37 PM
>>       >> |
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>      |------------>
>>       >> | Subject:  | |------------>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>      |Re: [boinc_dev] Changes to client scheduler from 6.12.33 to
>>       >> 7.0.25? |
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>      For what reason should the client contact the server so often?
>>       >> You just can use trickle messages to be sent by the client.
>>       >>
>>       >> yoyo
>>       >>
>>       >> Patricio Vidal schrieb: Yes, for our project we need the clients
> to contact
>>       >> the server every few minutes. We send jobs that last from 20
> minutes to few
>>       >> hours. If the clients don't contact the server for several hour
> then we are
>>       >> in trouble.
>>       >>
>>       >> Regards, Patricio.
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >> John.McLeod@sybase.
>>       >>
>>       >> com
>>       >>
>>       >> To 08/09/2012 11:21 AM        Patricio Vidal
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>       >>
>>       >> cc
>>       >>
>>       >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>,
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >> [email protected]
>>      <mailto:[email protected]> Subject Re: [boinc_dev]
> Changes to
>>       >> client scheduler from 6.12.33 to 7.0.25?
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >> It was removed in order to avoid hammering projects from clients
> that were
>>       >> not going to ask for work and had no work they were working on.
>>       >>
>>       >> Perhaps, the code could be modified slightly again.  Only ignore
> the
>>       >> setting for contact server every X if the client has no work from
> the
>>       >> server and the client would not ask for work from the project.
>>       >>
>>       >> BTW, a really short contact period will play havoc with multi
> project
>>       >> clients as they will not be able to get work from elsewhere while
> you have
>>       >> no work.
>>       >>
>>       >> jm7
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >> |------------> | From:      | |------------>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>      |Patricio Vidal <[email protected] <
> mailto:[email protected]>>
>>       >> |
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>      |------------>
>>       >> | To:        | |------------>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>      |<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>       >> |
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>      |------------>
>>       >> | Date:      | |------------>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>      |08/09/2012 11:00 AM
>>       >> |
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>      |------------>
>>       >> | Subject:  | |------------>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>      |[boinc_dev] Changes to client scheduler from 6.12.33 to
>>       >> 7.0.25? |
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>      |------------>
>>       >> | Sent by:  | |------------>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>      |<[email protected]
>>      <mailto:[email protected]>>
>>       >> |
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>      Hello,
>>       >>
>>       >> I noticed a change in the client scheduler when moving from
> 6.12.33 to
>>       >> 7.0.25: I have the <next_rpc_delay> set 180 in the config.xml.
>>       >>
>>       >> For 6.12.33 the clients contact the server even if there is no
> work, which
>>       >> is our desired behavior:
>>       >>
>>       >> 8/8/2012 11:39:09 PM | AlgoGrid | Requesting new tasks for CPU
> 8/8/2012
>>       >> 11:42:12 PM | AlgoGrid | Requesting new tasks for CPU 8/8/2012
> 11:45:15 PM
>>       >> | AlgoGrid | Requesting new tasks for CPU 8/8/2012 11:48:18 PM |
> AlgoGrid |
>>       >> Requesting new tasks for CPU
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >> For 7.0.25, when there are available task the scheduler contacts
> the
>>       >> server as expected:
>>       >>
>>       >> 8/8/2012 9:26:33 PM | AlgoGrid | Requesting new tasks for CPU
> 8/8/2012
>>       >> 9:27:10 PM | AlgoGrid | Requesting new tasks for CPU
>>       >>
>>       >> ... but when there is no tasks it starts delaying the request
>>       >> exponentially:
>>       >>
>>       >> 8/8/2012 9:49:45 PM | AlgoGrid | Requesting new tasks for CPU
> 8/8/2012
>>       >> 10:08:23 PM | AlgoGrid | Requesting new tasks for CPU 8/8/2012
> 10:32:36 PM
>>       >> | AlgoGrid | Requesting new tasks for CPU 8/8/2012 11:37:35 PM |
> AlgoGrid |
>>       >> Requesting new tasks for CPU 8/9/2012 2:59:13 AM | AlgoGrid |
> Requesting
>>       >> new tasks for CPU 8/9/2012 10:41:06 AM | AlgoGrid | Requesting
> new tasks
>>       >> for CPU
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >> Is there a new option to force the rpc call even if there is no
> tasks
>>       >> available? We need this behavior because our boinc project needs
> a quick
>>       >> response from the clients when we schedule a job (we have
> workunits of
>>       >> about 1 min processing time and we schedule thousands at a time).
>>       >>
>>       >> Thank you, Patricio.
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >> The server  made the following annotations
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>      This message contains information that may be privileged or
>>       >> confidential and is the property of Beckman Coulter, Inc.  It is
> intended
>>       >> only for the person to whom it is addressed.  If you are not the
> intended
>>       >> recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy,
>>       >> disseminate, distribute or use this message or any part thereof.
> If you
>>       >> receive this message in error, please notify the sender
> immediately and
>>       >> delete all copies of this message.
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>      _______________________________________________
>>       >> boinc_dev mailing list [email protected]
>>      <mailto:[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.
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >> The server  made the following annotations
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>      This message contains information that may be privileged or
>>       >> confidential and is the property of Beckman Coulter, Inc.  It is
> intended
>>       >> only for the person to whom it is addressed.  If you are not the
> intended
>>       >> recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy,
>>       >> disseminate, distribute or use this message or any part thereof.
> If you
>>       >> receive this message in error, please notify the sender
> immediately and
>>       >> delete all copies of this message.
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>      _______________________________________________
>>       >> boinc_dev mailing list [email protected]
>>      <mailto:[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.
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >> -- Rate Me,  MySkype (yoyo_rkn)Skype Me?! , myICQ 139003243 ,
> myIRC
>>       >> Rechenkraft.net e.V. - Verein zur Förderung von Bildung,
> Forschung und
>>       >> Wissenschaft durch Einsatz vernetzter Computer weitere
> interessante
>>       >> Projekte und Hilfe auf unserer Webseite www.Rechenkraft.net und
> im Chat
>>       >> Rechenkraft.net e.V.  - Non-profit association for the promotion
> of
>>       >> education, research and science through the use of networked
> computers
>>       >> other interesting projects and help on our website
> www.Rechenkraft.net and
>>       >> on IRC
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >> The server  made the following annotations
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>      This message contains information that may be privileged or
>>       >> confidential and is the property of Beckman Coulter, Inc.  It is
> intended
>>       >> only for the person to whom it is addressed.  If you are not the
> intended
>>       >> recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy,
>>       >> disseminate, distribute or use this message or any part thereof.
> If you
>>       >> receive this message in error, please notify the sender
> immediately and
>>       >> delete all copies of this message.
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>      _______________________________________________
>>       >> boinc_dev mailing list [email protected]
>>      <mailto:[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.
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >> -- Rate Me,  MySkype (yoyo_rkn)Skype Me?! , myICQ 139003243 ,
> myIRC
>>       >> Rechenkraft.net e.V. - Verein zur Förderung von Bildung,
> Forschung und
>>       >> Wissenschaft durch Einsatz vernetzter Computer weitere
> interessante
>>       >> Projekte und Hilfe auf unserer Webseite www.Rechenkraft.net und
> im Chat
>>       >> Rechenkraft.net e.V.  - Non-profit association for the promotion
> of
>>       >> education, research and science through the use of networked
> computers
>>       >> other interesting projects and help on our website
> www.Rechenkraft.net and
>>       >> on IRC
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >> The server  made the following annotations
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>      This message contains information that may be privileged or
> confidential
>>       >> and is the property of Beckman Coulter, Inc.  It is intended only
> for the
>>       >> person to whom it is addressed.  If you are not the intended
> recipient,
>>       >> you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate,
>>       >> distribute or use this message or any part thereof.  If you
> receive this
>>       >> message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete
> all
>>       >> copies of this message.
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>       >>
>>      _______________________________________________
>>       >> boinc_dev mailing list [email protected]
>>      <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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.
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
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.

Reply via email to