Hello everyone,
thank you for posting this.
In my opinion, it is a pity, that not all projcts are constructed zero redundand.
Why do only some projects use those safety techniques, which allow zero redundancy and not all?
Sending out the same job more than one time consumes a lot of crunching power.
Power, that could and shoud be used to go forward, instead, shoudn t it?
All the best to everyone
Martin Schnellinger

@ Fredski - its not the fact that we expect people to be dishonest

sometime places want redundancy and yes while low redundancy is a nice idea sometimes the scientists really need the redundancy

in the past there was the rice project... now while that one SEEMED to have a huge redundancy it in fact did not because each result was different in some ways.

not to mention there will always be computer errors and while they are few and far between... do you really want to risk "the cure" being in a computer error that wasn't detected and came back with a negative instead of possible / highly possible hit?

remember there are not many people who will intentionally mess things up but errors happen

There are checks on the backend. I will not explain them, but the checks are there.

As for zero redundancy, some projects could not use this because of the verification of the results are different for each project.

-Uplinger