Is it possible to add a feature to merge old computers in to one computer? I have three computers in my list that one crashed and the other two were stolen. They just sit there dead now and I would like to remove them but save the credits that they have done. Is there a way for you to add a default computer do dump these three computers into one and to save my credits? Or be able to add them into one of my working computers?

Thanks,
Drail

---

The way boinc works, old machines can\'t be removed because they have work tied to them.

The \"Merge\" feature in \"Your Account\" leaves us hanging out to dry with recent duplications because of the new way CPUs are identified. (Features are now read as well as ID.) CPUs must be identical of they can\'t be merged. It seems we\'re stuck (In fact, I have an identical pair, same physical machine, that won\'t merge.)

The Merge feature is limited because some folks are so interested in inflating stats that they\'ll game the system. Unfortunately.

The machines remain in the list but there is an option to \"hide\" them after they\'ve been inactive 30 days.

---

"We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo
Greetings from coastal Washington state, the scenic US Pacific Northwest.

A merge facility has always been available.
You\'ll see it at the bottom of each computer page, BUT it will only merge identical computers. It bases this on the cpu description, and the amount of ram.

After 30 days, computers that haven\'t been heard from are hidden, with an option to make them visible.

I like the 30 day option but I wish I could merge them with active machines. Also a while back I was able to copy the boinc dir to a new computer change the xml files with an old Computer ID and it would take the place of that old computer. A few months ago it stopped doing that. Was there a reason for that change to?

Thanks,
Drail

Just guessing, maybe it\'s to help the various projects track changes in instruction set over the life of a particular work unit (it\'s very important to some projects to know how a work unit was executed since the different floating point libraries can give slightly different results).

---

I'm a volunteer and my views are my own.
News and Announcements and FAQ

I have 17 computers listed that I no longer have and / or they no longer crunch. 11 (about to be 12) of these have not contacted the server in over 13 months. We should have the ability to delete them after this much time. If that\'s not possible will you set up an email address where we can send you machine numbers and you delete them from the database? -- Skip

Deleting won\'t happen, because the workunits do not get purged from the database. The units crunched on your machine are still being used for science, so they can not remove it. This project is different from others that have a separate database for the units, CPDN does not. It keeps it on the online database.

They auto-hide, so just ignore them.

---

Deleting won\'t happen, because the workunits do not get purged from the database. The units crunched on your machine are still being used for science, so they can not remove it. This project is different from others that have a separate database for the units, CPDN does not. It keeps it on the online database.

They auto-hide, so just ignore them.

Look at 50038

---

- da shu @ HeliOS,
"Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer"

We can\'t, you\'ve hidden all your computers. The only people who can see the list is you and the admins.

---

I'm a volunteer and my views are my own.
News and Announcements and FAQ

... I wish I could merge them with active machines. Also a while back I was able to copy the boinc dir to a new computer change the xml files with an old Computer ID and it would take the place of that old computer. A few months ago it stopped doing that. Was there a reason for that change to?

Hi Drail, did you ever get an answer to your question?

---

How many times are you going to flail this dead horse? Have you bothered to use the Board\'s \"Search\" feature?

---

"We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo
Greetings from coastal Washington state, the scenic US Pacific Northwest.

A merge facility has always been available.
You\'ll see it at the bottom of each computer page, BUT it will only merge identical computers. It bases this on the cpu description, and the amount of ram.

After 30 days, computers that haven\'t been heard from are hidden, with an option to make them visible.

\"It bases this on the cpu description, and the amount of ram.\"

Except this does not always work. Since Suse changed the amount of extracted CPU info to the minimum - \"Authentic AMD CPU,\" it makes it impossible to merge even identical computers with more info extracted. So this plan doesn\'t work.

I was forced to reset a couple of my BOINC systems because of stuck hangs, and the resulting Suse1, unchanged from the orig Suse1, will not merge. This gets very frustrating.

In other cases, I tend to upgrade processors and wind up with quite a few old systems on the full list. I don\'t understand how this helps the CPDN system, and it makes tracking all of the systems a PITA.

Finally, I have one old system with zero results because I couldn\'t get the Linux emulation under FreeBSD to work. This really should be deleted, but I can\'t do that either.

What is important to myself and others is the summary display of results, not how you keep internal records. I\'d like to see an update to that enabling the *user* to determine what to merge for summary use only, keeping the raw data separate if that is what you need. It would be a \'virtual\' list of systems which make sense to the user and would have no impact to the internal mapping.

All that would be required is a user specified mapping that says \"Add these N units of <system numbers> and display them as \"Suse1.\" I urge you to consider this function for a future update to the software.

BillN

A merge facility has always been available.
You\'ll see it at the bottom of each computer page, BUT it will only merge identical computers. It bases this on the cpu description, and the amount of ram. After 30 days, computers that haven\'t been heard from are hidden, with an option to make them visible.

\"It bases this on the cpu description, and the amount of ram.\" Except this doesn\'t always work. Since Suse changed the amount of extracted CPU info to the minimum - \"Authentic AMD CPU,\" it makes it impossible to merge even 2 identical computers with more info extracted. So this plan doesn\'t work.

I was forced to reset a couple of my BOINC systems because of stuck hangs, and the resulting Suse1, unchanged from the orig Suse1, will not merge. This gets very frustrating. In other cases, I tend to upgrade processors and wind up with quite a few old systems on the full list. I don\'t understand how this helps the CPDN system, and it makes tracking all of the systems a PITA. Finally, I have one old system with zero results because I couldn\'t get the Linux emulation under FreeBSD to work. This really should be deleted, but I can\'t do that either. What is important to myself and others is the summary display of results, not how you keep internal records. I\'d like to see an update to that enabling the *user* to determine what to merge for summary use only, keeping the raw data separate if that is what you need. It would be a \'virtual\' list of systems which make sense to the user and would have no impact to the internal mapping. All that would be required is a user specified mapping that says \"Add these N units of <system numbers> and display them as \"Suse1.\" I urge you to consider this function for a future update to the software.
BillN

I agree with Bill N., This would soothe the frustration of many of your crunchers. I have 4 Boxes and on some projects it showes me with as many as 11!
[B^S] JoeB@KY

---

The new feature of Merge computers by name doesn\'t work?

This thread is not all that active but after reading it and looking at what has happened until now I don\'t see any changes. The last recommendation of allowing users to arrange their results without affecting the underlying data/systems seems reasonable. For instance, I have two machines listed with different names, but are the same machine. The current merge function should work but does not. Can that merge be forced by the admin folks? The naming of the machine is different and that is the only thing I can think of that may pose a problem to the merge.

Several of my other systems should also merge, the CPU\'s are unchanged and that is what governs, correct? I have added RAM, made other system changes, but the CPU and OS are static. In some cases even the BOINC software is unchanged! Anyway, any help with this detail or are we simply stuck with this forever?

Thanks,

B. B.

---