Hope a day will come when asteroids@home gets things sorted out.
or we get something like lunatics to help with that.
=]
.

Superficially it looks like your math doesn't stack up. One 2080 is apparently 2 times faster than a 1060, and two of them are about 4 times faster. What did you expect ?

Is this a known problem that trying to crunch with rtx super cards gives computation error instantly? If there was no support for these cards the boinc should not download the gpu work units or am I wrong?

"Unfortunately, running a database isn't as simple as adding more drives for space."

Actually, it is

You add the physical drives to the DB server, then you extend the size of the database

I know nothing about running this kind of project, and as such I want to be clear that I'm not criticizing anyone about the servers running out of disk space, Im just curious as to how that actually happens. Like, it would make sense if the servers for this project are also being used for the long term storage of the results, but if that is handled by some other organization, wouldn't freeing up server space for the project be as simple as transferring data to whatever server is storing the results long term?

Also, couldn't the total storage capacity of the project servers be increased simply by adding additional hard drives? I know really big, server grade ones are probably expensive, but cant you also use regular consumer grade ones as well? Sure its not ideal, since they were not really meant to handle the same load, and they have lower bandwidth, and if you wanted them cheap you would be getting smaller ones, but how expensive would it be to make an additional RAID array out of cheap, old desktop drives with a capacity of around 250 GB each? The server status page says that there are 2 arrays in use right now, both using RAID 5. One is made from 8 600 GB drives, the other from 3 600 GB drives. If I understand how RAID 5 works, that would give a total storage capacity of 4200 GB, right? Say you get 5 250 GB consumer level drives for cheap, and in RAID 5 that would give you an extra 1000 GB of space. And if you wanted to have greater redundancy in the event of a failure since they are all old, consumer grade drives, just tell it to use 2 drives instead of 1 for redundancy, at the cost of 250 GB of storage space.

If any of that is even remotely viable, (and again, I am by no means an expert on this stuff) would it be better to 'donate' by mailing a couple old hard drives rather than a $20 donation potentially? Again, I don't want to tell anyone how to do their job, or imply that I could do it better, (because I really cant) Im just curious about why things are done the way they are done.

I take a look at the running tasks daily and find the next task in queue. I have decided for example: That next task in line needs to have the deadline NOT BEFORE tomorrow evening. And same procedure always... every day.

If there are tasks that have deadline earlier than tomorrow evening, I'll cancel enough of them until my requirement is met. Then I let the scheduler download new tasks and those will be placed in the end of the tail.

That way I can leave the computer, relax and sleep long in the morning, knowing there won't be any tasks missing the deadline if I manage to check at the host again before the next evening. Or sometimes I might even change the rule to something like "next deadline at least two days ahead".

If your tasks are at the knife edge at the moment and some of them are ending up late, just cancel a ton of them in cold blood (tasks for the next five days, for example). Those cancelled tasks will reborn somewhere else.

Personally I'm of the opinion that if you miss the deadline then the server should tell you "sorry I'm not accepting that". Rather than shafting the 3rd person.