View Full Version : Should we revise the requirements for the Vault to include ongoing standards?

22nd January 2014, 03:01 PM
I posted this over here: http://www.team-ninja.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=54076 However, it may not get seen and others have felt maybe the discussion belongs in this forum section instead.

But the idea is pretty simple. Should we make the Vault requirements more strict? Here is my opening post in the previous thread.

I know that in older posts it was mentioned that there wasn't a desire for strict rules for additions/requirements for the vault because it was supposed to be fun. However, there seems to be more headache getting in and then booted out than really necessary. For example, BETA projects are allowed even though the fact they are BETA means they may be riskier than other projects. We currently support RNA (a self proclaimed BETA project). Yet we have SETI but not SETI BETA. Not sure why. I don't even know if it has ever been brought up. I personally think there should be a standard such as the project can't be in Alpha or Beta state (at least by their own claims). Then we have issues with problem projects not really being much of a competition. For example: ABC does not have consistent work that allows for a fun fluent competition. It took me months to cache up all the work that was necessary just to hit my point goal. That isn't fun nor is it really a challenge worthy effort. So, projects that don't have continuous work for everyone should probably not be included. Correlizer has been removed once before and has not had work since around August. This can't be fun for anyone. Unless of course you are sitting in first place loving the Vault points you don't have to defend. SIMAP is off an on when it comes to continous work. RNA only has the long running work available most of the time. They are still testing their Virtualbox app which fixes many complaints, however it still is just too problematic for my taste as far as Vault goes. WCG is in the wrong category. It should be miscellaneous like YoYo. (6 of their past and present sub projects were not bio/medical) I mentioned this in another thread. I wasn't around these forums when any of these were discussed and as you know I spent months trying to make an account. I didn't want to put all of these comments in the forums as a blast or anything, but rather wanted someone officials feedback in regards to it.

I sent this same message to Rusty first, but he preferred that I bring it up in the forums. I would love more discussion on these topics because I think there are quite a few turned off by some of the headaches. Also, suggestions on how to improve the experience with the vault should also be suggested here even if they aren't included above or even disagree with the above statements. :D

10th February 2014, 07:31 AM
Might be time to shake things up a bit.

10th February 2014, 02:28 PM
Here are some of my suggestions:

No Alpha/BETA projects Ė This does not mean they canít have BETA apps, but they need to have non-BETA work that is producing results. If the project never changes their self-proclaimed status from BETA, then they shouldnít be considered a live project. Examples of projects that havenít moved out of BETA: SETI BETA, RNA, Mind Modeling, Albert, RALPH, etcÖ

Projects must have enough work to fulfill demand regularly. Ė If a project runs out of work often and users must wait long periods of time to get a chance at a work unit, this isnít really fair to the contributors. The project certainly should not hold the same weight in Vault points because it is unfair to teams who have the resources and desire, but canít get the work. Currently teams are allowed to squat on these Vault points with no fear of losing position. The rule should not apply to specific sub projects. As long as the project as a whole has point awarding work units available, it should qualify.

WCG needs moved to Miscellaneous since they are not Bio/Medical only.

Admin responsiveness should be a consideration for projects to be included as well. If an Admin only chimes in at their own forum once or twice a year, that is poor communication. User should be able to get answers from staff.

Polls seem to be worthless due to low participation in the forums. I see threads get viewed by several, however nobody chimes in to at least say yay or nay. The last project to get a poll had only 10 total votes. That is ridiculous. Projects that qualify based on our requirements should qualify regardless of the science being done.

Projects need to have open enrollment to qualify.

Projects should not have a limit on number of teams.

There should be a time frame generally accepted as legitimate down time for a project to make renovations/changes/upgrades before being removed from the Vault. That way a project doesnít take a year to get work again even with communication with admins and still reside in the Vault. A week or two isnít that big of a deal.

Projects that have just launched or that have just officially opened their doors should not be considered for the Vault. A maturity period should be given to make sure that they are not a fly by night project. An example of projects not living very long: ABC Lattices, Hydrogen, Magnetism, etc..

Transparency should be a given at projects. However, projects like Lieden classical claim they canít give the details of what the work units donors are crunching are and so they only give a few examples of posters and papers that were submitted as an after the fact and as only an example of SOME of the work.

11th February 2014, 08:17 AM
I think you made some very good points, Coleslaw. I would like to add:

- Once a project is removed for whatever reason (no work, longer downtime, whatever) it will not be eligible to be re-added for a cooldown period (6 months or so? The same period as for NEW projects to mature?)
- There should be a limit in the vault-points a single project can represent (currently, some small projects deliver 100+ points per position). I think this should be capped, at 50 or so.
- The timeframe for admin responsiveness : if no reaction is given to a question within a month (admins have vacations too), the project should be removed
- The timeframe for no work : shall we set this to one month as well?
- Checkpoints : projects MUST implement checkpointing, i.e. have at least one app where a crash or stopping the client will not lose more than, let's say, an hour of work.

11th February 2014, 10:26 AM
Ni + Hi everyone :

My tupence worth :

Formula Boinc has a system where projects (Beta and otherwise) need to reach a certain

credit mark (currently 2,000,00 per year from start of year championship) to qualify . Good

idea , but penalises small projects with few partisipants(*) . One of the DC Vault aims is

to "promote" new projects , including by default Beta projects which need the "oxygen" of

the Vault inclusion .
Otherwise Sir Coleslaws first point has merit (notwithstanding that the only project that

is in in the Vault from his short list is RNA - please correct me if I am wrong) .

His second point seems to be for the benefit of teams/contributors , not the project . Is

that what the Vault was set up for ? (See my first paragraph) .

WCG - hmm - Bio/Med is crowded , and Misc is not . Open for serious debate I think .

Sir Coleslaws fourth point (admin response) certainly has merit .

Polls should really only be aplicable if there are no Vault points to be gained or lost

(impossible) , as in my opinion people do not want to vote for that reason (catch 22) .

His point five should apply to inclusion and exclusion with the same timeframe . Open for

debate ?

Sir Coleslaws sixth point , see my first paragraph .

Next point (open enrolment) is allready in the Vault rules . As is his further point (team


Next point (time frame) . Se my comment about serious debate .

Penultimate point (projects that have juasl launched) , see my fist paragraph .

His last point (transparency) , how do you reconcile such projects as the the various Math

projects (dealing with crypto analasis(*) etc) , all this needs is a statement to the effect

of "Nothing Found Yet" DOH !!

Sir DigiK-ozs first point is valid , as long as the same time period is obeyed in my

observations of debate .

Next : NO,NO,NO . Points follow the Vault inclusion rules , it is up to teams to

participate in a project , or not . High points are awarded on the number of participating

teams in that project . If a team cannot (to hard to figure out set up) or will not

contribute (not Boinc) , then it is their decision .

Sir DigiK-ozs third point (Timeframe admin response) is covered in my debate propoal above


Fourth point , see above (Poll Maybe ? :eek:)

Last point (checkpointing) : Why ? If'n you dont like it , pester the Admins of that

project , if no response , then refer to the "Debate" proposal in the paragraphs above .

Just my Tupence worth , all views stated here are my own , and in no way are to be

construed as ANY attack on Sir Coleslaw or Sir DigiK-oz .

As allways , Regds Grizz .

11th February 2014, 01:38 PM
Da-Grizz, thank you for posting here. To clarify, my second point where you replied "His second point seems to be for the benefit of teams/contributors , not the project . Is that what the Vault was set up for ? (See my first paragraph) ."

Have you read the front page of the DC-Vault? Second sentence states: The DC Vault is the place to compare your team's performance against others, the place to look out for when you plan your next taunting fest, the place you can refer others to and brag about how devilishly high ranked your team is ... or not.

That statement tells me the focus of the DC-Vault is the ongoing challenge that it is. Promoting other projects is a side benefit.

Secondly, my second point above is just benefiting the teams because those projects aren't in dire need of additional computing power. That is why there is limited work to be had for all. You will find that even with ABC@Home that the few work units that do go out get hoarded by those with large caches. The project knows this and does nothing about it. That is proof enough to me that they have an over abundance of resources and are content with the time frame they are returned.

My WCG point has nothing to do with being crowded. As I had stated, there have been at least 6 sub projects that were not Bio/Medical and one of those most certainly is still active today.

Since you referred back to your first point I will chime in another flaw of Formula BOINC in that if your team has more than one team name like mine does, your contributions are not accurate. DC-Vault allows us to have multiple team names. For example: At WCG we use HardOCP and at Asteroids@home it is [H]ard|OCP. Yes I know that was our teams fault, but where was Formula BOINC back in those days?.... And yes I emailed them for a solution and got no responses.

Open enrollment was a suggestion I added in agreement that it should continue being used.

If something is up for serious debate, please open up the debate, that is what this discussion thread is for. Please post your opinion about whether or not a project should be included right out of the gates or if it should prove its maturity first. I am open to various ideas. If it must prove itself, what is a reasonable time frame. Again, don't just post the obvious, but rather give some nourishment to the discussion. We need more input from Vaulters.

Projects launching don't always need more power at the beginning. That is why many of them ask the stats sites to not list them. The need for more power should be up to the project. I propose that there be a standard like the stats sites have to actually request adding them to the DC-Vault in their forums. Most are willing to give consent when asked.

And your last point... I would be happy if some admins would give that much of a response. There is just too many projects that wont even do that. However, I think you misunderstood transparency with activity. My point was that I should know what exactly my computer is computing. The example I gave about Lieden pretty much shows that the only information they give you is that it is related to Chemistry.
Here is an email response from the admin when I asked him for more details.

Dear Coleslaw,

I do understand your question, but it is a bit hard for me to answer this in detail. This project is actually a collection of different smaller student projects. Students here in Leiden can opt in for several scientific projects and depending on the student they can make use of Leiden Classical. It is a priory not precisely known what science they will be doing or when. Because of that I do try to keep up the section of 'Finished projects' to illustrate what has been done, but to be honest, not always is a student report suitable for sharing. Sometimes they are in dutch only, or might contain sensitive results. Because student projects come and go, there is always some work being generated on the back-burner for a pet project of mine. What is cool though is that students and volunteers can submit calculations to Leiden Classical themselves too. You might want to try that?

best regards,


Now what is this pet project of his? I don't know. He didn't tell me nor did he reply to my follow up. How about what the students options are? Couldn't this have a quick blurb of what those work units do? Transparency?

11th February 2014, 02:53 PM
DigiK-oz, I'm personally not worried about the value of the points for each position. I think every project should be weighted equally. One man's trash is another man's riches. Those points are the incentive to support the other projects (yes the side benefit of DC-Vault). I do agree with others that it is the choice of the team to take on the challenge to get those points or to take the "hit" by not contributing.

Checkpointing is certainly a hassle but should be dealt with at the project IMHO. Not all sciences can be easily check pointed. How would we impose this? How often would it need to happen? Should this apply to GPU's? You are opening up a lot of mixed opinions on the topic let alone what would be fair here. Computers restarted or shut down often would see a gain while others may see wasted potential and unnecessary wear and tear. SSD's would certainly be a concern for some. Systems running 24/7 rarely lose their work. So, why is check pointing a concern to be a requirement? In regards to projects like RNA where in the past this was a huge complaint, they resolved the issue themselves.

Your other points aren't unreasonable to me. I would be up for more discussion into opinions on these subjects.

14th February 2014, 06:57 AM
Ni + Hi !!

Thanks for your comments Sir Coleslaw , it(ARRrrr) seems that in essense we are in agreement .
My appologies for missconstruing your "Transparency" point :rolleyes: So I agree there also ( I wasn't dissagreeing with any of your points in fact , just observing the problems and the member input required )
BUT I do dissagree with some of the points (no pun intended) made by Sir DigiK-oz , namely the point allocation capping .

So: MORE comments/observations and input is/are required here by Vault members . No input implies that the silent many are happy with the way things are .

Regds Da Grizz

PS: Input is also wanted from the Vault stats codeing (Sir Nanobot ?) about codeing changes implied by any disscusion . (I seem to remember this came up some years ago)

20th February 2014, 04:57 PM
Good discussion, am glad to see an interest in updating the Vault a bit. I agree that WCG should be in Misc. Also agree that projects should provide transparency in that the results of our work should be freely available. Perhaps a provision for getting rid of projects that are for all intents and purposes dead? (See my "Remove PSP Proth thread in the Project Removal forum). Generally I like the Vault format and method for scoring and some of the things suggested are things we've already done informally, like holding off on adding projects until they mature a bit. Again, nice discussion.

21st February 2014, 03:50 PM
I'm not really worried about the results being freely available but rather the knowledge of what I'm at least working on. Aqua@home was a private company if my memory serves me correctly. I'm not worried whether they took the knowledge and made money on it as long as my contribution wasn't a total waste and could be benefited from. What I don't want is someone asking for my resources without telling me what it is for. Am I just part of a botnet? spam-bot? crypto-currency miner network? delivering DDOS attacks? Don't just tell me it is "for science" or that it is "chemistry" related. I want to know what I'm working towards.

I also would prefer if we had a stipulation that said that users could not be rewarded with a monetary payout for their services. I like the idea of the science being the reward. If I'm getting paid bitcoins or other currency or possibly getting pysical gifts as a reward for my contribution by the project, I think it devalues what we do. I'm fine if a team mate wants to hold a contest or make a donation to other team mates. I would just rather leave profiteering out of things.

23rd February 2014, 11:19 AM
I'm not really worried about the results being freely available but rather the knowledge of what I'm at least working on. Aqua@home was a private company if my memory serves me correctly. I'm not worried whether they took the knowledge and made money on it as long as my contribution wasn't a total waste and could be benefited from. What I don't want is someone asking for my resources without telling me what it is for. Am I just part of a botnet? spam-bot? crypto-currency miner network? delivering DDOS attacks? Don't just tell me it is "for science" or that it is "chemistry" related. I want to know what I'm working towards.

I also would prefer if we had a stipulation that said that users could not be rewarded with a monetary payout for their services. I like the idea of the science being the reward. If I'm getting paid bitcoins or other currency or possibly getting pysical gifts as a reward for my contribution by the project, I think it devalues what we do. I'm fine if a team mate wants to hold a contest or make a donation to other team mates. I would just rather leave profiteering out of things.

Well I guess that would require a detailed analysis of all the Vault projects to establish which ones publish results that people like me (Idjit) can understand and interpret , and then make a decision based on my personal preferences (moral or otherwise) . Then make another decision as to whether to contribute to a teams efforts to climb up/down the Vault or not . In other words , for your own esteem , your teams esteem , or your own satisfaction/moral values . In some other words , Vault current rules allow all of the Projects that are currently in , and Vault members contribute accordingly as is , and issues in the past have all been solved by the majority consensus to remove or not etc . Rule changes for the Vault have come up repeatedly in the past with great discussion ,(MJ12 for example for one , see MonyBee and others) and I must say , usually to give some advantage to a team or contributor . Those proposed changes have been seen for what they are , and contributors use their cycles accordingly .
All projects run for profit ie : knowledge , whether fiscal or not for project survival ( even MUOD/DPAD at CERN - a pure science project funded by the taxpayers of Europe - can I understand the published results ????? ) .
Fiscal rewards are seen everywhere for participation , over 70 + patents have been granted to medical/drug companies for Vetenary use from research (DC projects) over the last two years ( This needs confirmation please) . Just that moneys do not go to participants , but to the project and the company licensing of patent use . (Not all projects though , some are public domain Bio , but humanity profits , some are encription tests , banking on line is strengthened etc ) .
If I donít like a project , I do not contribute , even to my teams disadvantage in the rankings ,but I do if it meets my personal requirements (which have changed over time , YoYo for example)
I also urge all readers of this opinion (Mine ) to read all of the previous subjects for project removal/inclusion/exclusion etc on this forum (not just mine - WARNING, long read ) . If you cannot be bothered to , do you really have a right to comment ?
Personal opinion (mine) now , is to leave the rules as is of today , and continue proper discussion in this thread .

Regds Grzzly .

23rd February 2014, 08:54 PM
Da-Grizz, I appreciate the opinions you bring. Thanks again for your insight. The problem I'm seeing with the current setup is that it is just too hard to get the community to give their insight. I for one took months to just get an account setup here because all 4 different email accounts I tried using were all being blocked. Four different providers. So, who knows how many others have failed to make an account to even be able to express those opinions. I about gave up on the Vault because of it. Then out of those that do have accounts, how many just lurk and don't give insight. Look at the polls for a good idea of community involvement. I think the current system fails and can be better. By having more refined rules, the project can merely have the qualifiers or disqualifiers brought up and the admins can just take action. Right now we have projects that can sit idle for years before being removed. There are also projects that are never added based on the personal feelings of less than a dozen people. I think there are a lot more Vaulters who have opinions on projects than that, yet we get nothing from them. Who knows why they don't post here. I would prefer someone to just say "No because I don't like it" then to be absent altogether. Remaining silent certainly does not mean they are OK with the current way of things. Some just have no easy way of making their voice heard here.

3rd March 2014, 06:20 PM
In regards to the coding, there will be no change. period. Nanobot has already stated that and since he has an extremely reduced activity due to real life, even more so.

Rules, Really. I can not see why they need changing.

The project must:

be active
accept new members and teams immediately upon registration
have parsable team stats
have team stats that are updated regularly
provide a client program which runs on a local PC

The project must not:

be a keylogger or mouseclick counter
have a maximum number of teams or members or exclude any country

What exactly needs changing? Maybe instead of a change we revamp the discussion.

Over the years, the Vault has taken a semi large back burner project for me, only because most people stopped coming. Why not get your teams involved more and get them to pop over?

So if you were to change the rules, what would they be. No extensive explanations needed.

I have moved WCG, as I agree.

I have sent a couple of people PM's, to see if they want to help me with the Vault.

3rd March 2014, 08:26 PM
I have messaged a few different projects in regards to their current status as far as Alpha/Beta. I started at BOINCStats since they have an easy listing, but unfortunately the mass majority of projects either haven't updated their status to production (some cases from Alpha to Beta even though the project name says Beta in it) or are comfortable with leaving it under the Beta banner. So, apparently even real production science can ride the Beta train forever. No biggie I guess. And no I am not implying that BOINCStats regulates this. Just that it is the project admins responsibility to update the info and they don't seem to care all that much.

As far as what else to add to the rules? My summary.

A project should not have just some work, but active work available to all donors. As stated, if their isn't enough work, it isn't a fair contest. ABC has been a perfect example of this for quite some time now. I'm not saying they have to feed everyone's GPU's if they also have CPU work like POEM suffered from previously because at least you could still earn points doing CPU work. ABC is either be lucky with large cache or you get zilch to little.

Projects need to be open with what the work is actually doing. Lieden won't tell you anything other than it is Chemistry related.

I feel projects should be up, running, and in good status for at least 6 months before consideration. I don't think this is asking too much because it gives them time to finish working out the bugs. They already get a huge boost of traffic from the stats sites. Let them get "broke in" before adding them.

Projects should have permission from the admin at that site before being considered here. This is common practice for stats sites. This also gives admins a chance to dictate whether they want the extra attention just yet.

If a project is removed, it should not be reconsidered again until it has shown solvency. Perhaps a 6 month production window.

If a project clearly has problems and does not respond via their forums, PM's, and emails, then they should also be considered for removal. Perhaps an Admin here could be summoned to confirm. AlmereGrid is a great example of this. Both the main site and the test project have been broken for quite some time. Yet they continue to send out junk work. Admins do not respond at all. Therefore, I would not suggest adding them. At one time they were somewhat responsive and thus if added would now be a pain to get rid of per current rules.

And my own personal feelings is that donors should not be given monetary compensation for their efforts. Da-Grizz took my prior statement a little further in a different direction and was not what I was asking. The project may benefit from us, but the donors should remain donors. They should not become "employees" of the project per se. If a team wants to sponsor it's members or the team gets sponsored elsewhere, then good for them. Ripple Labs is a good example of an outside source rewarding its team. WCG has no association directly with this group in regards to its cryptocurrency.

17th April 2014, 10:03 PM
I must admit, I don't look at the Vault forums a lot. However I do check the Vault statistics of our team (DPC) regularly at digik-oz.nl. For me the Vault has become a bit boring. Not much interesting going on and very little movement in the last year, only when a new project is added or when we unsuccessfully tried to attack Norway on PSP-PRP. But for a solution, I can't give you one.

I agree with you on a few points. A few projects have had very little work for quite some time now. ABC and The Lattice Project are very good examples of this. In my opinion there should be a vote as to whether we still want them in the Vault. But the question is, is this representative of the people who participate in the Vault, as only a few people (that are active on the forum) will actually vote. As for SIMAP, there is monthly work available so I give them the benefit of the doubt. I believe RNA will have more work in the future, but of course that isn't certain. Leiden Classical doesn't publish all their results, but you can see a few of them. The idea is that their students can do theoretical experiments and learn from them. I don't see this being any different than GPUGRID, where you have to wait 1 year+ before they make a scientific publication.
As for the stricter rules for inclusion in the Vault, I agree. But with a nuance, a project like OGR-28 should be added (or replaced might be a better) immediately, since we know from experience (OGR-26 and OGR-27) that it is stable and has lots of work. Corrilizer was a good example of a project that might have been a bit un-mature when it was addded (and is closed now I believe). But if we wait 6 months before we add a project, there will be no fun any more, since all the teams will have anticipated on that.

WCG to miscellaneous is fine with me, I've always found it hard to place it in a particular field of science anyway.

DistrRTgen - RC5-72. Many people (myself included) feel a bit sentimental about RC5-72 and unlike DistrRTgen it doesn't provide a tool to decrypt other peoples messages. It is based on a challenge set by the RSA and is only meant to answer the question: can the distributed community bruteforce a RC5-72 message?

I've always hated Dimes, you can only install a single client on a PC and it only pings like once every 15 second, I mean come on! But should it be excluded from the Vault? No, it complies to the rules and is the one of the few projects that is really different from the CPU/GPU crunching.

PSP-PRP has been debated many times before. Some people argued the client is to difficult to run, but it uses the same client as 17orBust and Primenet! Yes, it takes some time to setup the client and register on the forum since the admin has to manually add you to a team. But it is definitely not difficult, everybody can edit a few lines in a notepad document and double click a .bat to start the client. Yea, you can run PSP-PRP on PrimeGrid too, but you can also run Yoyo for OGR-28 and MUON DPAD, how is that any different? Prime searching projects do very much look a like, but GIMPS, PrimeGrid, 17orBust and PSP-PRP all have different scoring methods (GHzdays, BOINC credits, jEMs and some kind of n-based-scoring) so you can't simply but them together even if you wanted too. Also GIMPS and PrimeGrid have GPU applications, while the other two don't.

I don't like the idea of max points per position, The projects which give the most points per positions are the only ones that provide any excitement at the moment (MUON DPAD, PSP-PRP).

I think most people a fine with status quo and I can't blame them for it.

Just my 2 cents.

P.S. I will give a link to this topic on our Dutch forum, maybe other DPC members want to add something to the discussion.

17th April 2014, 11:53 PM
VitoredeHolland, thank you for your input. It certainly reflects some of the issues I have been bringing up behind the scenes here and elsewhere lately. Rusty is also looking at getting more Admins here and I have started to go to some teams to see who is potentially interested in the job. My personal goal has been to bring new life to the Vault and I feel changes are needed to accomplish that. If you would, please post in your teams forums of potentially interested candidates. Last I spoke with Rusty, he didn't want more than one admin from a single team. I don't know how many he is looking for, but I have started to collect various names and am relaying them to him. Whomever on your team is interested at this potential title, please have them make an account here (if they haven't already) and either contact Rusty directly or even myself if they would like. I also have another thread open at a couple different team forums and also have one at my teams forums discussing our efforts. I can be contacted here, or at my teams forums if you have accounts made. :) http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1815212

To clarify, my previous points on Leiden are more in the realm of not knowing what you are crunching. GPUGrid is more open with what you crunch. My points about the project were not in regards to published papers. The admin at Leiden also has a personal side project he does when there is no other work. Until just recently, he gave no details even when I asked on what that project was. Now he has explained it.

I think the big concern with PSP that was recently brought up wasn't the difficulty of the client but rather the headache one must go through to get work units. There is no guarantee work will be offered outside of PrimeGrid and you must email the admin in order to request access to work each time. The answer most people will go with is to just run PrimeGrid where there are none of those headaches and the client is super easy and well documented with a very active forum.

18th April 2014, 06:51 PM
There have been a lot of good points brought up in this discussion. My biggest concern is the inclusion of projects with a track record of not supplying a constant stream of work to crunch. I am aware there are times when projects run out of work or just have a small amount available. It happens and that is not my concern. What concerns me is when a project goes three months or longer with just a trickle of work to be crunched. Its hard to run a race when part of the race track disappears or narrows down to just a single lane causing a pile up of racers trying to get into it.

For example, The Lattice Project has had very little work to go around. Looking at their web page it shows the current server status as the following.

Results ready to send: 0
Results in progress: 131

This has been pretty common over the last several months for The Lattice Project. The same can be said for RNA World. Yes there is a small amount of work getting through but its not enough to allow any teams to make a impact on their Vault standings thus taking any chance having a meaningful competition. Those two projects were just an example. One of the projects I suggested be added to the Vault is having similar problems with a lack of work. However in the case of Mind Modeling it has not been a on going problem for near as long as Lattice and RNA. Plus Mind Modeling has had work available as recent as last week, the only problem was that it was Linux only. If the situation continues I will withdraw my support of getting Mind Modeling added to the Vault.

20th April 2014, 11:52 PM
I don't mind if it is Linux only work. Anyone can set up a Virtual Machine for free and use a Linux distro to crunch the work units. So if there is enough work to go around, I'm fine with that. It just needs to have available work for all. I actually think it is best if the project scientists just use the virtualbox wrapper like RNA, Climate, & Test4Theory do.

21st April 2014, 01:12 AM
Just a update, it seems like Mind Modeling has ran out of Linux work as well. I'm not really sure what is going on with them right now. :(

21st April 2014, 08:29 AM
Closed until further notice.