I run off-line (network activity suspended). I wanted (on 5.4.9) to reduce the queue size (for new downloads) from 6 days to 5 days. Having changed the parameter at the project's webpage, what I did at the client system was to click on 'update' as soon as I had activated the network. That was too late - the client had already requested work (still using the previous queue size that I no longer wanted).

It was pointed out to me that the way I could make *sure* that the new size was used was to, at boincmgr: (1) mark the projects "no new work"; (2) activate the network; (3) request an "update" for the project whose webpage parameter I changed; (4) allow the projects to "fetch new work" only after that 'update' had been processed by the client. Sounds cumbersome.

I think it would be much simpler for the user if the 'queue size' could be set at boincmgr (NOT at the webpage). Then the client would already know the new value before it made contact with the server, and would not have to be manually restrained to prevent it from requesting work before the current kept-at-the-server value could be communicated to it.
.

I think it would be much simpler for the user if the 'queue size' could be set at boincmgr (NOT at the webpage). Then the client would already know the new value before it made contact with the server, and would not have to be manually restrained to prevent it from requesting work before the current kept-at-the-server value could be communicated to it.
.

If I am not mistaken, this will be an option in the next version of Boinc, 5.6.x with the simple GUI.

Yet it was done through the website in the first place to give people with more than 1 computer the chance to update all of their settings in one central place. Just think if you have 10 computers, not all in your own room, and you have to update the cache on each of them by hand. Wouldn't you want it to be centralized and downloadable automatically by the client?

---

Just think if you have 10 computers, not all in your own room, and you have to update the cache on each of them by hand. Wouldn't you want it to be centralized and downloadable automatically by the client?

Note that I am normally running with network activity suspended, so I have to intervene anyway for each to be able to contact the server(s). Speaking just for myself, the computers in the second room would likely not have the same capabilities (or frequency of visits by me) as the computers in the first room. In which case I probably would want to specify a different queue size for the computers in the second room than for the computers in the first room.
.