How to customize the new 5.8.8 client?

The only other alternative is to grab the new source tarball and re-impliment the RRI functionality yourself, or find a third party version which has it in it.

Alinator

Being 'nice' has nothing to do with it, the OP asked for possible solutions and mine was was merely a possible alternative and I was not advocating a course of action either way.

That being said, I have read most of the discussion on this issue, including Rom's thorough and objective rationale on why it's a bad idea to RRI from the projects POV. In that context, I can understand when you are running on a shoestring budget with limited and/or antiquated hardware (for the application) why they asked that we participants refrain from using it.

OTOH, the point which gets lost in much of the debate is that as a result a participant is required to carry more risk of having their donated computing resource lost due to malfunction on either end.

When one considers that the project backend would be assumed to be run on enterprise class hardware and software, and therefore more reliable than the client hosts, it logically follows it would be preferable to get all data off the hosts as soon as possible in order to minimize potential wasted effort on both ends.

If it turns out a project can not handle the load under all possible scenarios, then in the final analysis the problem is their's, and not the participants per se. In fact your own suggestion of running a CI of 0.01 days puts essentially just as much load on the backend with a late model fast host as RRI with a longer CI does, the difference being that when the project goes down the host will in all likelyhood run out of work and go idle (assuming no backup project) in the first case. One could go as far as to say that if a projects DB server can not handle the load of WU's out in the field, then the most appropriate course of action is for them to limit the total number in progress to a value they can handle reliably rather than complain about people deciding when they want their hosts to report back completed work.

Also, if this is truly deprecated and/or diagnostic functionality, then a little more care should be taken in preparing the public release versions of the client so when you issue X:\\boinc\\boinc /? at the command promt, you don't see:

.
.
.
-return_results_immediately contact server when have results
.
.
.

as a switch option (at least through 5.4.11 and the dev versions of 5.8)

In any event, and I'll take the liberty of saying that anyone who hangs out in the forums is aware that EAH and SAH are having some backend trouble right at the moment, then it only makes sense for us to carry a little more risk on our end, and minimize our use of CC functionality which could bring the backend down since it's in nobody's interest to drive them offline completely.

Alinator

Well, Alinator, I'm a bit sceptical about "client PCs being less reliable and therefore more likely to lose the work". I've been doing BOINC for a bit more than a year now (no big farm, but still) and I've never yet lost a result after it was completed. There were a few (maybe 8 or 10 in all those months) WUs that crashed while they were running due to some problems with the OS or so, but finished results? Beats me how that could happen, unless you format your whole hard disk or at least delete the result by accident. Or am I missing sth here?

Actually on this one i will have to differ a little. I have got a veggie patch (small farm) growing and some of the older hardware is a little prone to failure. It can be a week or more at times until i manage to find replacement hardware at a reasonable price. So completed results do get lost when i cant report then quickly enough. I generally run a 0.25 day cache for this reason but due to a bit of instability in my favorite projects at the moment im running a 2.5 day cache until everything settles down.