How about putting a WU count in BOINC.

Some don't want it...fine...they don't have to use it.

For those of us who want it, what's the problem.

---

How about putting a WU count in BOINC.

Some don't want it...fine...they don't have to use it.

For those of us who want it, what's the problem.

I suppose there would be on harm in it.
Then again, I've got 130,000 credit, average claim aruound 20 per WU = 5650 WUs - easy.

---

How about putting a WU count in BOINC.

Some don't want it...fine...they don't have to use it.

For those of us who want it, what's the problem.

I use BoincLogX to record WU history details. If you use any other log or manager program that creates a CSV file then if you use Seti@home map view it will give you a work unit count for astro-pulse, seti@home boinc & classic, and einstein@home.

---

How about putting a WU count in BOINC.

Some don't want it...fine...they don't have to use it.

For those of us who want it, what's the problem.

I use BoincLogX to record WU history details. If you use any other log or manager program that creates a CSV file then if you use Seti@home map view it will give you a work unit count for astro-pulse, seti@home boinc & classic, and einstein@home.

Hi

You can easyly go at BoincLogX show history than statistics it will show you exactly how much results you have done on each project.
And specially what application version on each project.

greetz Mike

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

How about putting a WU count in BOINC.

Some don't want it...fine...they don't have to use it.

For those of us who want it, what's the problem.

I guess the problem would be, for which project? ALL of them, that would involve all the project managers to figure out a way. The stat is not currently kept at Berkeley so if they were to be a part of this, it would start now and be several thousand or even hundreds of thousands units behind the actual number. I am sure the other projects are similar.
So you are onto a third party site and it ahs been reported that BoincLogX site has it already. Don't know what they are or even where they are but it is probably your only option.

---

How about putting a WU count in BOINC.

Some don't want it...fine...they don't have to use it.

For those of us who want it, what's the problem.

If your work-unit count becomes important, and people are here just for the scores, then people will pick projects based on work-unit time.

That'd be a big advantage for LHC or one of the projects with really small work units, and awful for projects like CPDN where a single WU takes months.

---

How about putting a WU count in BOINC.

Some don't want it...fine...they don't have to use it.

For those of us who want it, what's the problem.

If your work-unit count becomes important, and people are here just for the scores, then people will pick projects based on work-unit time.

That'd be a big advantage for LHC or one of the projects with really small work units, and awful for projects like CPDN where a single WU takes months.

Let's see if you had 10 completed wu with comparable credit that would say a lot. Even with the small wu with the credit count it would say a lot. All projects give a defined set of data. How much work a person does is usefull for real statistics. People get involved because they like those real statistics. The credits are like the coins they give at Mardis Gras parades. Wooden tokens that give the krewe for parade. You can't do much with them afterward.

---

You can also you BOINC View and just save the logs. I have been doing that and putting the numbers in to a table so that I can display them.

If you look, since I started tracking them I have over 13,000 WU done for various projects. If you want the table, send a stamped, self-addressed envelope ...


One of the nice things about MySQL you can stand it up on your machines for free, and there is a nice admin tool that allows you to work with the database without too much SQL ...

---

How about putting a WU count in BOINC.

Some don't want it...fine...they don't have to use it.

For those of us who want it, what's the problem.

If your work-unit count becomes important, and people are here just for the scores, then people will pick projects based on work-unit time.

That'd be a big advantage for LHC or one of the projects with really small work units, and awful for projects like CPDN where a single WU takes months.

Let's see if you had 10 completed wu with comparable credit that would say a lot. Even with the small wu with the credit count it would say a lot. All projects give a defined set of data. How much work a person does is usefull for real statistics. People get involved because they like those real statistics. The credits are like the coins they give at Mardis Gras parades. Wooden tokens that give the krewe for parade. You can't do much with them afterward.

You are entitled to your opinion.

LHC has work units that take about 45 minutes on my machine, and work units that take about six hours.

A straight WU count would not take that into consideration.

Like any currency, credits have value, or not, depending on how we think about it: The good old American greenback is really just pretty pictures on paper. Same for the British Pound, or Pesos, or Marks, or Won, or Yen. Money is money because we think it is.

Money isn't real -- it's an abstract concept. It has value only because we think it does. The dollar is just as real as the cobblestone, even (especially) if you think cobblestones are not.

---

Why not just have a WU count on each project.

Then let the people who want it squabble amonst themselves about what it means.

If some want to go off and have WU count battles, then they'll have created their own 2nd division and soon won't be able to climb up and play premiership. Their choice, their loss.

---

Why not just have a WU count on each project.

Then let the people who want it squabble amonst themselves about what it means.

If some want to go off and have WU count battles, then they'll have created their own 2nd division and soon won't be able to climb up and play premiership. Their choice, their loss.

As Paul pointed out, if someone wants to count WUs they can.

Officially, having one currency is a very good thing.

---

How about a WU Count in BOINC...???


No thanks

....Officially, having one currency is a very good thing.

Unless it is the Euro! ;-)

---

As Paul pointed out, if someone wants to count WUs they can.
[/quote]
And with good enough SQL they can even separate the various LHC@Home work units in to bins too ...

---

I think a simple WU count on our account pages would be kinda cool actually, but for our own informational purposes only. Unfortunately the issue is tied so heavily to the ongoing credit debate, it could probably never be implemented now even just as an additional feature. Best to just provide the one type of stat and avoid the whole ugly situation entirely.

OK, if you put in a WU count, what about those "dirty" WU that only take a few seconds? How about projects that have different sized WUs? How can you count a WU that took you .5 hour the same as one that takes you 12 hours? It's just not that easy. Predictor has been doing several different sized WU that I have noticed. I hear tell that other projects do, also. The numbers would mean nothing,and it's not even a number that can really be counted.

---

My movie https://vimeo.com/manage/videos/502242

Hey folks, in reality, that there is one project which , in effect, keeps track of stuff by the WU and not the benchmarks.

That project is CP. A "trickle" is worth the same, reguardless of the CPU/OS, etc..

When a WU completes, it gets the same credit, and there's no such thing as "claimed" credit. Each WU get's the same amount.

Since Seti is currently sending out the same basic WU with the same basic processing as in Set Classic, the concept of 1WU= X credits isn't that far fetched. (yes, I know there are "noisey" WU's which only take a minute, but the expected time is the same until the WU begins to crunch)

Einstein seems to be much like the seti model. All Wu's are the same size...

LHC and PP however go all over the map. Some take an hour, some 12 hours (by the project's estimate)

I just can't see how it's a harm to track by project (on the project website) how many WU's have been returned under any of the above conditions.

It's more "stats" and may be meaningless to some, but what if it was:

Project sent you XX WU's
You completed YY WU's

I think we'd all agree that XX should be close to YY. If XX was double YY (after than a weeks or two), don't you'd think that this was a reason to look at why you're not completeing work?

Is there anybody who wouldn't see a "red flag" if

Project sent you 10000 WU's
you completed 250 WU's
credit granted for 240 WU's

was in their project stats?

---

Hey folks, in reality, that there is one project which , in effect, keeps track of stuff by the WU and not the benchmarks.

...

Project sent you 10000 WU's
you completed 250 WU's
credit granted for 240 WU's

was in their project stats?

Well, BOINC is open source so you could make the changes and submit them for possible inclusion in the baseline ...

---

It is too late for adding a WU count. It is not stored in any of the databases, and the databases have been purged of older work, and there is nothing to count to generate the initial WU count.

In any case, it is a pretty meaningless number for most projects as Einstein, SETI and one of the shh projects that I know about are the only ones that have relatively constant WU sizes - and SETI has plans for WUs of varying sizes (AstroPulse, Southern Hemisphere, and re-observation data). Making it less than 1/4 of the projects that have relatively constant WU sizes.

One of the shh projects has WUs that vary from about 2 hours on the short end to about 6 months on eht long end (I haven't seen one of this size actually complete yet). This project has hundreds of different WU sizes and deadlines.

---

BOINC WIKI

It is too late for adding a WU count. It is not stored in any of the databases, and the databases have been purged of older work, and there is nothing to count to generate the initial WU count.

In any case, it is a pretty meaningless number for most projects as ...

1) It is only 'too late' if the purpose of the count is as an alternative crediting system. As was pointed out in more than one post (especially azwoody's), the purpose of such a count would be diagnostic--and thus, it would never be too late to add such a feature.

2) 'meaningless' in the sense of a crediting system, 'meaningless' perhaps on projects such as LHC where the size range of workunits varies considerably (well, not entirely meaningless, just less consistently meaningful), but not meaningless in any sense to those projects with more consistent workunit sizes...

3) Less than 1/4 of BOINC projects still equals thousands of current users!