Re: [boinc_dev] [Fwd: Re: [BOINC] #139: Project-by-project network disable (similar to communications deferred)]

2009-08-16 Thread Maureen Vilar
On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:00 PM, David Anderson da...@ssl.berkeley.eduwrote: I changed the file-transfer giveup time from 14 to 90 days. -- David Ticket 919 could now be closed: http://boinc.berkeley.edu/trac/ticket/919 ___ boinc_dev mailing list

Re: [boinc_dev] [Fwd: Re: [BOINC] #139: Project-by-project network disable (similar to communications deferred)]

2009-08-16 Thread Kathryn Marks
I just closed it, referencing r18845 in the comment. On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 8:50 PM, Maureen Vilar mavi...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 8:00 PM, David Anderson da...@ssl.berkeley.edu wrote: I changed the file-transfer giveup time from 14 to 90 days. -- David Ticket 919

[boinc_dev] [Fwd: Re: [BOINC] #139: Project-by-project network disable (similar to communications deferred)]

2009-08-14 Thread David Anderson
I don't see why this is needed. If communication (RPC or file transfer) with a project is failing, the client's backoff mechanisms should kick in and it should stop trying to connect to that project. If these mechanisms aren't working right, let's fix them instead of adding a workaround. If a

Re: [boinc_dev] [Fwd: Re: [BOINC] #139: Project-by-project network disable (similar to communications deferred)]

2009-08-14 Thread Nicolás Alvarez
El Vie 14 Ago 2009 15:04:51 Lynn W. Taylor escribió: It seems to me that the big fear is the two-week timer: if a work unit can't be uploaded in two weeks, it's going to be thrown away, causing irreparable harm to the project and a tragic hit to the cruncher's RAC. It'd probably help to make

Re: [boinc_dev] [Fwd: Re: [BOINC] #139: Project-by-project network disable (similar to communications deferred)]

2009-08-14 Thread David Anderson
I changed the file-transfer giveup time from 14 to 90 days. -- David Lynn W. Taylor wrote: It seems to me that the big fear is the two-week timer: if a work unit can't be uploaded in two weeks, it's going to be thrown away, causing irreparable harm to the project and a tragic hit to the

Re: [boinc_dev] [Fwd: Re: [BOINC] #139: Project-by-project network disable (similar to communications deferred)]

2009-08-14 Thread Richard Haselgrove
Lynn W. Taylor wrote It seems to me that the big fear is the two-week timer: if a work unit can't be uploaded in two weeks, it's going to be thrown away, causing irreparable harm to the project and a tragic hit to the cruncher's RAC. CPDN CM3-160 models can run for 4 months or longer. Losing

Re: [boinc_dev] [Fwd: Re: [BOINC] #139: Project-by-project network disable (similar to communications deferred)]

2009-08-14 Thread Lynn W. Taylor
Richard, You're agreeing with me. There is a widespread perception that a lost upload causes irreperable harm to the project, but as you point out, the work unit will just be reassigned. It's a waste of resources, and where possible waste *should* be avoided, but it the error is handled

Re: [boinc_dev] [Fwd: Re: [BOINC] #139: Project-by-project network disable (similar to communications deferred)]

2009-08-14 Thread Martin
Lynn W. Taylor wrote: [...] As for the fact that the full upload has to complete before the error comes back, that's as much an artifact of HTTP as anything else, and can't be fixed without using something other than HTTP. Include some mechanism to automatically break up large transfers into