Does anyone know why a computer will crunch a work unit for over 6 hours and then when it reports that time to SETI it claims 0.00 credit? I have seen some of these and they're lowering the values of the work units that I'm processing.

For instance, check out

http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=12357514

I would think that judging by the claimed credit there that 0.00 is just rediculous and 15.14 is exceptionally low compared to the two scores in the 40's. why such a wide range? this can't have been what SETI intended!

---

--
dead stars still burn
dead still stars burn
<br>
<img src="http://www.boincstats.com/stats/banner.php?cpid=eb47c3deca50beb5e7e1d23c186e7bad">

hello fienna,

it's a glitch in the benchmark:
Measured floating point speed 0 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 0 million ops/sec

As Claimed Credits are calculated this way:
claimed credit = ([whetstone]+[dhrystone]) * wu_cpu_time_in_sec / 1728000
the claim is 0

I've seen it before on some other puter, and it fixed itself (probably with the next benchmark run).

BTW:
The (very good) manual for Boinc is the BOINC Powered Projects Documentation by Paul D. Buck and the FAQ therein.

For information regarding Credits look here!

---

Gruesse vom Saenger

For questions about Boinc look in the BOINC-Wiki

> Does anyone know why a computer will crunch a work unit for over 6 hours and
> then when it reports that time to SETI it claims 0.00 credit? I have seen
> some of these and they're lowering the values of the work units that I'm
> processing.

Nope, no idea. (see Sangers anwser)
>
> For instance, check out
>
> http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=12357514
>
> I would think that judging by the claimed credit there that 0.00 is just
> rediculous and 15.14 is exceptionally low compared to the two scores in the
> 40's. why such a wide range? this can't have been what SETI intended!
>
If you look at the date of the last WU returned, he returned his Wu after you and the other first two formed a quorum. The low and High claimed credit was discarded and you were granted the middle credit. then the last guy returned his and so that he didn't get hosed, seti gave him the same you first three got.

The middle guy seems to have a faster computer and requested less credit.

The average credit is (someone else came up with this figure) 32.29 credits. Average is the key word here.

hope this helps

Thanks for the information - you guys know your stuff! i really should get into that FAQ.

BTW - i was the guy who claimed 15.14 hours. for some reason, i think my 'puter is benchmarking well below it's actual speeds.

-chris

---

--
dead stars still burn
dead still stars burn
<br>
<img src="http://www.boincstats.com/stats/banner.php?cpid=eb47c3deca50beb5e7e1d23c186e7bad">

If you look at the result for the computer that claimed 0 credits you will see this in the stderr out:



No heartbeat from core client for 31.000000 sec - exiting
No heartbeat from core client for 31.000000 sec - exiting



I don't quite understand what this means but it is probably why there was no credit claimed.

> If you look at the result for the computer that claimed 0 credits you will see
> this in the stderr out:
> No heartbeat from core client for 31.000000 sec - exiting
> No heartbeat from core client for 31.000000 sec - exiting
> I don't quite understand what this means but it is probably why there was no
> credit claimed.
>
No, definitely not.
I had some of those myself, and they claimed credit.
It's the screwed benchmarks.

22,864.86/1728000 * (0+0) = 0

> I would think that judging by the claimed credit there that 0.00 is just
> rediculous and 15.14 is exceptionally low compared to the two scores in the
> 40's. why such a wide range? this can't have been what SETI intended!

The very low credit is coming from the fact that your host has a Xeon CPU that is considered as 4 CPU's. The benchmark results for that host is therefore divided by 4 as the final benchmarks. Thus, the claimed credit is also 4 times lower compared to an equal host that should have only 1 CPU with the same clock speed.

> The very low credit is coming from the fact that your host has a Xeon CPU that
> is considered as 4 CPU's. The benchmark results for that host is therefore
> divided by 4 as the final benchmarks. Thus, the claimed credit is also 4 times
> lower compared to an equal host that should have only 1 CPU with the same
> clock speed.
>
so what you're saying is that the user will get less credit/wu, but do a boatload more wus than most?

lol

> > The very low credit is coming from the fact that your host has a Xeon CPU
> that
> > is considered as 4 CPU's. The benchmark results for that host is
> therefore
> > divided by 4 as the final benchmarks. Thus, the claimed credit is also 4
> times
> > lower compared to an equal host that should have only 1 CPU with the
> same
> > clock speed.
> >
> so what you're saying is that the user will get less credit/wu, but do a
> boatload more wus than most?

The benchmarks do not do well with HT machines. Why we still do not know.

---

you know, it really stinks that i'm being penalized x 4 because i have a dual cpu machine even though i'm only using 2 of the 4 "processors" to crunch work units. it's incentive not to use the machine at all.

what's the point of getting better hardware if i'm not going to be rewarded for it?

---

--
dead stars still burn
dead still stars burn
<br>
<img src="http://www.boincstats.com/stats/banner.php?cpid=eb47c3deca50beb5e7e1d23c186e7bad">

> you know, it really stinks that i'm being penalized x 4 because i have a dual
> cpu machine even though i'm only using 2 of the 4 "processors" to crunch work
> units. it's incentive not to use the machine at all.
>
> what's the point of getting better hardware if i'm not going to be rewarded
> for it?

I believe you are NOT penalized at all.

Look for example to these results: all you get is more granted credit compared to what you are claiming.

I have a HT P4 and consider myself as somebody who is penalizing other people.

Don't forget how granted credit is calculated.

> what's the point of getting better hardware if i'm not going to be rewarded
> for it?

The knowledge that you helped mankind and womankind and all other kinds (just in case) is the reward.

---

well of course that's why we run seti@home - i was just referring to spending more money on better machines...

i wonder how that 3.8 p4 i'm getting soon will do on the benchmarks...

another wierd thing - i noticed an athlon 3200+ with an almost quadruple benchmark score than my Xeon running at 3.06Ghz. is that normal? or does BOINC divide my score by 4 because i have 4 cpu's?

---

--
dead stars still burn
dead still stars burn
<br>
<img src="http://www.boincstats.com/stats/banner.php?cpid=eb47c3deca50beb5e7e1d23c186e7bad">

> well of course that's why we run seti@home - i was just referring to spending
> more money on better machines...
>
I'm new here, so forgive me if this ends up sounding like gibberish... but what would happen if you set the BOINC preferences for that machine to maximum CPU's = 2 instead of 4? Would this improve your benchmarks? You stated that you only crunch 2 at a time anyway.

Just a thought.

Dig

---

that's exactly what i did - the pref's for that machine limit BOINC to 2 processors only - the other 2 are being pushed pretty hard cause i'm running exchange server and backup services for my network on the box. having all 4 processors (virtual or otherwise) dedicated to BOINC would be a bit much, i think...

---

--
dead stars still burn
dead still stars burn
<br>
<img src="http://www.boincstats.com/stats/banner.php?cpid=eb47c3deca50beb5e7e1d23c186e7bad">

> that's exactly what i did - the pref's for that machine limit BOINC to 2
> processors only - the other 2 are being pushed pretty hard cause i'm running
> exchange server and backup services for my network on the box. having all 4
> processors (virtual or otherwise) dedicated to BOINC would be a bit much, i
> think...

It should make no difference at all ... BOINC and the Science Applications run at the lowest priority (well, it seems that there is a slight problem on Windows I think that Lowest Priority actually has one lower, but that has been fixed).

So, the heavily used CPUs would do little or no work, the lighter loaded ones will do more.

I run BOINC on my Mac workstation, it hosts a webserver so I can test my site, playes my music and in general is heavily used. BOINC only takes up otherwise idle time and I never miss a note or have a delayed request because of it ...

---

> It should make no difference at all ... BOINC and the Science Applications run
> at the lowest priority (well, it seems that there is a slight problem on
> Windows I think that Lowest Priority actually has one lower, but that has been
> fixed).
>
> So, the heavily used CPUs would do little or no work, the lighter loaded ones
> will do more.

well, not completely true because Microsoft is incompetent.
i see that fienna is running w2003; my 2003 box is a simple server that does not have to do much so i haven't noticed it's switching capabilities. but on 3 different w2000 machines, even lowest priority has a hard time giving up task to Normal processes. i have to either use threadmaster or suspend boinc when i have to use the PC more intensivly.

now, we all know that steve jobs actually knows what he is doing, so Macs do not have that problem.

(xp for some reason does seem to switch tasks correctly)

Micah

---

S@h Berkeley's Staff Friends Club

> well, not completely true because Microsoft is incompetent.
> i see that fienna is running w2003; my 2003 box is a simple server that does
> not have to do much so i haven't noticed it's switching capabilities. but on 3
> different w2000 machines, even lowest priority has a hard time giving up task
> to Normal processes. i have to either use threadmaster or suspend boinc when i
> have to use the PC more intensivly.
>
> now, we all know that steve jobs actually knows what he is doing, so Macs do
> not have that problem.
>
> (xp for some reason does seem to switch tasks correctly)
>
> Micah

I know 2003 is based on the NT kernal so that could have something to do with it.

---

--
dead stars still burn
dead still stars burn
<br>
<img src="http://www.boincstats.com/stats/banner.php?cpid=eb47c3deca50beb5e7e1d23c186e7bad">

Hey Paul,

Take a look at this WU:



I crunched nearly 3 times longer than someone else, and also someone else hasn't even finished the WU and credit was given.

Not concerned about the credit, just happend to notice it. I didn't look to see what kind of systems they were running either.

Maybe it's time to set this laptop to the side and build another system...

---

No matter where you go, there you are...

> Hey Paul,
>
> Take a look at this WU:
>
>
>
> I crunched nearly 3 times longer than someone else, and also someone else
> hasn't even finished the WU and credit was given.
>
> Not concerned about the credit, just happend to notice it. I didn't look to
> see what kind of systems they were running either.
>
> Maybe it's time to set this laptop to the side and build another system...
>
The link for the referenced WU didn't show, please post it again.