Reply With QuoteAlso note that this is a damn dirty hack that will be removed as soon as a newer client supports user-configurable test preferences!
Due to extreme popular demand I've now made it possible to do second-pass tests using a normal user account. So you can get personal user and team credit for your rusting old crunch buckets.
All you have to do is set your username to "usernameQQQsecondpass". Replace username with... your username, of course. In Linux, this is as simple as editing sclient.conf. On Windows it's a bit trickier. The problem is that, unfortunately, there's a length limit on the username field in the GUI. So you'll have to edit the registry manually and change your username there.
Note that the 'QQQ' delimiter is case sensitive. Make sure you enter it right. Normal username, followed by three capital Q's, followed by "secondpass".
Please don't try this unless you know what you're doing. If you mess up the registry and kill your Windows box, it's not our fault!
Also note that this is a damn dirty hack that will be removed as soon as a newer client supports user-configurable test preferences!
Thanks a lot, Dave!
I guess DC tests will skyrocket in the next days.
Thanks big grin from ear to ear.
Go to your resistry in windows
start --> Run type regedit you wil get a registry screen be carefull here, only changes those values relevant to Sb.
Now navigate to the following folder
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE-->SOFTWARE-->LhDn-->sob-->
--------------------
You want to modify the "keyword" that shows your username mine is vjs so simply change your user name to the following.
vjsQQQsecondpass
Great job Dave. Quick and dirty is all that's required right now, and experience shows that sometimes they turn out to be the best.Also note that this is a damn dirty hack that will be removed as soon as a newer client supports user-configurable test preferences!
Thanks for this kugano!!
I am sorry to ask, but with this change, can you tell me which
test exactly are a assigned to supersecret, secret and garbage? I figure these accounts wont get any second pass tests? Is that correct?
with kind regards,
Ola
I guess they will still be able to get those tests as before. But probably everybody currently using secret and supersecret now will prefer switching to their usenameQQQsecondpass stuff, thus not much work being done by secret / supersecret anymore..
Just curious:
Let's say that I have configured the service handler to run 4 clients.
Now, if I change my username to 'xxxxxxQQQsecondpass', would all 4 clients run double checks, or is it a way to configure them to do 2 normal and 2 dc?
If there is any need for it, I can add options to run 'secret', 'supersecret', 'garbage' or 'usernameQQQsecondpass" in my registry-changer tool.
Sceptic
Violently sceptical!
As far as the need is concerned, I do not think there is really much need for significant computing power there. The power coming from the users who are specifically willing to contribute to DC will probably suffice. Still, if one or more of your machines are significantly slow, I think you might consider running that one as second pass cruncher.
How to configure the service handler for that? Sorry, no idea.
We will just have to see what happens, I'm most interested in having people on my team still using P3-500's to prp switching to doublechecks permanently.
Major reason, if that P3 has a k/n pair which is prime... how much longer does it take for that computer to finish it or until it's reassigned to garbage etc? 1 month, etc. During that 1 month 1/10th of the work being done by the total project is sort of wasted due to unnessary k tests... This was my major concern before since we were close to a prime at the time of the gauntlet.
I like the idea of raising the double check floor and determining an actual error rate.
Hopefully once the dust settles we can determine the most efficient double check n compared to main effort. I'm still very curious about the 3M area, I'd both love and hate to find a prime there.
Another thing to consider is by slowing down the advance of the main effort, some time is actually regained by non-prping k/n's eliminated by the sieved and p-1'ed efforts.
Because I'll forget about when I need to switch (and other people might like to know this in the near future).
Wow, thanks!
That must have been a really, really, "damn dirty hack" to have to use such a long clunky username. Like "usernameQQQsecondpass" instead of a simpler "usernameQ2P". Thanks for finding a way to make it work.Originally posted by kugano
Also note that this is a damn dirty hack that will be removed as soon as a newer client supports user-configurable test preferences!
It is nice having a DC that the owners don't ignore you, like so many of the others do. Keep up the good work!
Well, it's too likely that someone has a username in the shortform. What if a Mr. "HQ2P" signed up (whatever that could mean) - he could be mistaken as the user "H" who wants to do double checks (if such a user existed). The longer the added phase, the smaller the change gets that such a thing will happen.Originally posted by zwilnik
That must have been a really, really, "damn dirty hack" to have to use such a long clunky username. Like "usernameQQQsecondpass" instead of a simpler "usernameQ2P". Thanks for finding a way to make it work.
It is nice having a DC that the owners don't ignore you, like so many of the others do. Keep up the good work!
You only have to input that username once (for each computer). Guess it was more work to write that message
Engage!
No, I bet I am right. Just because the change sounds simple, doesn't make it true. I think to change the code; the long username was required. Otherwise it would have been done long before now. It was just the fastest, easiest way to get it working without risking breaking it.Originally posted by wirthi
Well, it's too likely that someone has a username in the shortform. What if a Mr. "HQ2P" signed up (whatever that could mean) - he could be mistaken as the user "H" who wants to do double checks (if such a user existed). The longer the added phase, the smaller the change gets that such a thing will happen.
You only have to input that username once (for each computer). Guess it was more work to write that message
Actually the code change was pretty trivial (about ten minutes of work and an extra ~20 lines of Java code on the server). The "length" was both to reduce the risk of a conflict with a real username and also to allow extensibility in the future.
The server will actually accept any username of the form usernameQQQdirectiveQQQdirectiveQQQdirective... the code to parse this and keep track of all the "directives" is already written. It's just that, right now, the only direcive that has any meaning at all is "secondpass." So the "hack" is kind of a poor man's way of allowing arbitrary information / preferences to be passed in via the username field.
Question about editing registry etc.
BTW nice format for QQQdirective looks like it could be easily implemted in Verion3, check this box and QQQdirective added to username. I wouldn't say it's that dirty I actually think its neat.
Here is the Scenario,
A user is half way through their test, and they decide to start doublechecking with their slow machine. Rather than waiting for the current test to end they simply edit the username "usernameQQQsecondapss" and restart the old n=7+M test.
They should pick-up a secondpasstest for their next k/n pair, correct!?!
The old block will continue processing from where it left off but will it lead to problems for that test...
I know the server will not assign credit if the block is transfered between user names not assigned etc. But since this is really just a tag, and the username doesn't change... will there be any problem you can think of... user losing credit, result being ignored, the m=7+M test being considered a double-check, etc.
Thanks in advance...
Nooo!!! It may be clever, but it's dirty and evil and must not be kept in version 3. The proper way to do this to have an entirely separate mechanism which the client can use to send "drectives" to the server. There is no excuse for piling this stuff onto the username field in a well-designed system.BTW nice format for QQQdirective looks like it could be easily implemted in Verion3, check this box and QQQdirective added to username. I wouldn't say it's that dirty I actually think its neat.
No, there's no problem. As far as the server is concerned, "someoneQQQsecondpass" and "someone" are the exact same user in every way. One is expressing a preference for second-pass tests and the other is not. Your scenario is correct -- if you tack on "QQQsecondpass" in the middle of a test, the current test will finish normally (no stats will be lost) and the next test retrieved will be a double check.I know the server will not assign credit if the block is transfered between user names not assigned etc. But since this is really just a tag, and the username doesn't change... will there be any problem you can think of... user losing credit, result being ignored, the m=7+M test being considered a double-check, etc.
In case one doesn't empty the cache during the name change, that is.Originally posted by kugano
Your scenario is correct -- if you tack on "QQQsecondpass" in the middle of a test, the current test will finish normally (no stats will be lost) and the next test retrieved will be a double check.
I use supersecretQQQsecondpass as username...
wbr, Me. Dead J. Dona \
Actually I think it was brought up (for windozes only) that you can't change your username to usernameQQQsecondpass using the client window. I havn't verified this but I'm pretty sure it's a registry only "hack".Originally posted by Mystwalker
In case one doesn't empty the cache during the name change, that is.
Is there an artificially shorted server timeout on these double check tests?
I remember something like a 24-hour timeout being applied some time ago, but that was when n was very low. I suspect this is still in place, since I have a slow PC that was turned off for a day or so, and the test disappeared from my pending test list.
I suspect that such a quick timeout doesn't make sense any more, especially since we are trying to encourage 'old rust buckets' to come on board.
Yeah, the timeout is still set at 24 hours for n < 3,000,000 and 30 days for n >= 3,000,000. You're probably right, 24 hours seems too short. I'll check with Louie and maybe raise it to something like a week. Thanks for pointing it out.
Ah, you're right!Originally posted by vjs
Actually I think it was brought up (for windozes only) that you can't change your username to usernameQQQsecondpass using the client window. I havn't verified this but I'm pretty sure it's a registry only "hack".
I forgot about this (after having changed the name via registry...).
Thanks for pointing out!
Yes, that is very short. I am surprised your cutoff point is so high, 3000000, around that point even middle of the road PCs could not be able to finish a Wu in a day.Originally posted by kugano
Yeah, the timeout is still set at 24 hours for n < 3,000,000 and 30 days for n >= 3,000,000. You're probably right, 24 hours seems too short. I'll check with Louie and maybe raise it to something like a week. Thanks for pointing it out.
You also may investigate changing the time out for the first pass que once an error rate has been determined.
On your large color graph it looks like alot of tests are reassigned after 30 days but it's difficult to tell how many... I suppose you've already looked at how many tests correctly finish after 30days and have already based the 30 days accordingly.
I suppose queing programs are not helping this issue.
AFAIK they don't have to finish the test before the timeout, just report in with an intermediate block.Originally posted by zwilnik
Yes, that is very short. I am surprised your cutoff point is so high, 3000000, around that point even middle of the road PCs could not be able to finish a Wu in a day.
Joe O
What sort of n value should these double check tests have?
allio@zinger:~/sob $ ./sb
[Sat Jan 15 18:19:30 2005] client process [v2.3.0] invoked
[Sat Jan 15 18:19:30 2005] priority set to idle
[Sat Jan 15 18:19:30 2005] connecting to server
[Sat Jan 15 18:19:30 2005] logging into server
[Sat Jan 15 18:19:30 2005] requesting a block
[Sat Jan 15 18:19:32 2005] got proth test from server (k=10223, n=7984709)
[Sat Jan 15 18:19:32 2005] server packet cached to disk
[Sat Jan 15 18:19:32 2005] Intel Pentium II or Pentium II Xeon processor detected. Enabling cpu specific optimizations.
Am I crazy or is that a normal test? My username is set to exactly 'allioQQQsecondpass'.
EDIT: I'm stupid, I was editing the conf in the directory instead of /etc. All working fine now
Last edited by allio; 01-15-2005 at 12:25 AM.
Do dropped DC tests now get into the second-pass queue again?Code:second-pass 95065 1280311 4999946 157 +-5367
Or is there another reason for this?
Yes, they do. Dropped tests are now returned to the queue they came from rather than "dropped-tests."
Huh ?
I am using my standard nick (Bier) and I got a n value of 1296298
My mistake or servers mistake ?[Thu Jan 20 22:32:42 2005] connecting to server
[Thu Jan 20 22:32:43 2005] logging into server
[Thu Jan 20 22:32:43 2005] requesting a block
[Thu Jan 20 22:32:44 2005] got proth test from server (k=55459, n=1296298)
The German DC Community : Team Rechenkraft.net - Join now !Rechenkraft.net
Probably a doubly-dropped test. The first drop would have set the source queue name to "dropped-tests." With the second drop, the new script would've put it right back into that queue.
Hmm, the QQQsecondpass test are no longer showing up under pending test management for me at least, I noticed this after my work rate went from 5cems to around 1cems.
http://www.seventeenorbust.com/stats...ml?userID=5584
does QQQsecondpass no longer count the score towards my username?
pixl97
Nothing has changed. I show you having three first-pass tests, one second-pass test and one v2-retest checked out. You must be missing something?
It showing correct now, but from what you saw totaled 5 tests, I currently have 8 tests running. 4 Second Pass and 4 First pass tests as I write this. Three of the second pass tests were not showing up at the time I wrote the first message.
I think you must be missing something. Seven of your eight pending tests were only assigned this morning, so they couldn't possibly have been "missing" yesterday. And I checked the server assignment logs (stored outside the database) -- nothing is missing from the database and nothing was missing yesterday.
Are you really positive you had 8 tests checked out yesterday? I bet a few of your clients weren't working, or maybe they were doing tests as "secret" or something rather than under your own username.
I know I said this before, but there is definitely something wrong with the second pass n increase here. This is the increase in n min in the last 24 hours? Right?
For this +74421 to be correct, n min would have to have been 1298472 24 hours ago. My logs show it was at that sort of level on the 20th of Jan, so a little more than 24 hours agoCode:7:29 am EST, 30 Jan. 2005 second-pass 92241 1372893 4999946 239 +74421
Dropped DC tests now go into the second-pass queue again, so an increase of >30K is indeed possible. One can argue if the semantic of the "n increase" of this queue is a decend information, though...
Double check running - well crawling.
After having thoroughly borked my system I have finally got it working.
It is a bit odd looking at such a small test.
PS: any word on v3 ?
second pass has overcome residue-recovery, is there a way to directly address that account, or will it get assigned to second pass clients automaticly?
pixl
It's either username holepatch or lowk I cant remember
Posting Permissions
