client.cfg

PiKe · 9 Nov 2007 at 14:28

Just noticed a new line in my cfg that I didn't put there, local=1, what's this setting for?

SiriusB · 9 Nov 2007 at 14:57

It tells the client to only use the config and work files in its own folder and not elsewhere.

oceaness · 9 Nov 2007 at 16:00

It was used to help stop clients getting confused with files from another client on a dual core machine when running two clients simultaneously

I don't think the new clients have a problem with this anymore.

How many times do you think I can get away with using the word client in this post.

Client

uncle_fungus · 9 Nov 2007 at 17:32

Actually, you're both wrong

The local value inside client.cfg simply tallies the number of WUs submitted by that particular client since you installed it.

I think you're getting confused with the -local flag that gets passed to the client which forces it not to use the registry for certain settings.
This flag is still required (on Windows) to run multiple clients on one machine.

SiriusB · 9 Nov 2007 at 17:44

How spectacularly stupid.

You would have thought a meaningful name would have been used. Like WUCount or something. Local means **** all to beginners and is misleading to us veterans

uncle_fungus · 9 Nov 2007 at 17:47

SiriusB said:
How spectacularly stupid.

You would have thought a meaningful name would have been used. Like WUCount or something. Local means **** all to beginners and is misleading to us veterans

It makes sense it you think of it as "local WU count", which is in fact what it is

Plus, it's largely irrelevant to end users.

oceaness · 9 Nov 2007 at 18:48

I'm with Sirius on this one, you shouldn't have two different things called the same thing lol

If it means Local WU Count then why not bloody write that, lazy so-and-so's

Berserker · 9 Nov 2007 at 18:51

Does it really matter what they call it? The official line is that you're not supposed to edit that file anyway.

uncle_fungus · 9 Nov 2007 at 19:13

Berserker said:
Does it really matter what they call it? The official line is that you're not supposed to edit that file anyway.

Exactamundo.

Biffa · 9 Nov 2007 at 20:23

Reminds me of the time we were clearing some space on the filer and found a random file called DELETEME.ORA :eek:

SiriusB · 9 Nov 2007 at 21:26

uncle_fungus said:
Exactamundo.

You would think the basics of having understandable code would tell them to make everything absolutely clear

As said "local" is not a good variable name. localcount is better. localwucount better still. Naughty lazy programmers!

uncle_fungus · 9 Nov 2007 at 21:56

SiriusB said:
You would think the basics of having understandable code would tell them to make everything absolutely clear

As said "local" is not a good variable name. localcount is better. localwucount better still. Naughty lazy programmers!

Who cares? They know what it means, and it makes no difference to the rest of us, it's not OSS

SiriusB · 10 Nov 2007 at 00:11

I'm not that bothered. Still, I am not surprised. Every time stanford releases a new BETA they usually manage to break the log output again

uncle_fungus · 10 Nov 2007 at 00:16

SiriusB said:
I'm not that bothered. Still, I am not surprised. Every time stanford releases a new BETA they usually manage to break the log output again

Don't I know it, however, as a side note, I'm porting the important bits of qd into FahMon which will alleviate some of the annoying monitoring related bugs, since queue.dat is the only reliable source for some data.