(snip)So if I understand you correctly you want each project to keep 100,000 units in storage at any one time just so they can average the time it took to process them? (snip)

Unless I am mistaken, and I probably am....
S@H has about 132,000 users. About 43% are active = about 55,000. I think it's safe to assume that S@H has more than 2 completed results on file for each active user.
So S@H already have well over 100,000 completed units in storage.

Since you put it that way I agree, the units ARE probably already stored.

(snip).require a lot of processing power every day, every hour, every whatever, to then take all those times and average them?(snip)

Yes, probably beyond current capabilities.
The results are there, but the processing powere is not.
[/quote]
I still agree.

---

I don't see how that can be, EACH wu for Seti is 353K. You are saying 400K TOTAL! That is only 47 more K than one unit all by itself!!!!! The OP was talking about storing 1000,000 units in ONE db!
I think more calculations are in order.

If only interested in the average, you don't need anything except total_cpu_time and number_of_results.

When a new "success"-result is reported, just calculate:

total_cpu_time = total_cpu_time + result_cpu_time
number_of_results = number_of_results + 1

Whenever you wants to use average, just calculate total_cpu_time / number_of_results


Whatever this average should be used for in credit-granting on the other hand is a mystery for me...

We could also just do away with the credits and just crunch for the science.

This option gets my vote. :)

If only interested in the average, you don't need anything except total_cpu_time and number_of_results.
...
Whenever you wants to use average, just calculate total_cpu_time / number_of_results

Whatever this average should be used for in credit-granting on the other hand is a mystery for me...

Unfortunately, that 'average' is over simplistic. The variable nature of the WUs makes such an average worthless.

When Astropulse and the Enhanced s@h client get into the mix, then the WU times will vary even more.

Even for the present s@h WUs, you get a range of computation times depending on the angle range for the data in the WU (nicely explained here). You also get noisy WUs that can complete in just seconds!

Thoughts for making the benchmarking a lot more accurate for each project for each host system is given on this thread (2nd: Credit for Clients). Try here for a summary.

I don't give much credence to the 'credits'. However, for some, the credits are more highly valued than religion! And they add a competitive spirit ;)

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Even for the present s@h WUs, you get a range of computation times depending on the angle range for the data in the WU (nicely explained here). You also get noisy WUs that can complete in just seconds!

Martin,

Nice write up ... I added a link to it from the Wiki ...

---