Is this normal? 0.26 claimed credit, 20K+ CPU time?

Message boards : Number crunching : Is this normal? 0.26 claimed credit, 20K+ CPU time?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
Oliver Agh
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 31 Aug 03
Posts: 39
Credit: 779,147
RAC: 0
Hungary
Message 127906 - Posted: 25 Jun 2005, 18:48:10 UTC
Last modified: 25 Jun 2005, 18:58:43 UTC

I was just checking on my results, when I noticed that I received low granted credits on a few of my WUs because another PC is claiming very low credits (0.26) on every single WUs.
Is this normal?


Thanks!
ID: 127906 · Report as offensive
dave015702

Send message
Joined: 13 Feb 05
Posts: 271
Credit: 2,341
RAC: 0
United States
Message 127915 - Posted: 25 Jun 2005, 19:16:59 UTC - in response to Message 127906.  
Last modified: 25 Jun 2005, 19:21:08 UTC

I was just checking on my results, when I noticed that I received low granted credits on a few of my WUs because another PC is claiming very low credits (0.26) on every single WUs.
Is this normal?


Thanks!


Sounds like a benchmarking problem. You'll notice that the computer in question is listed as having 64 CPUs.

But the quorum of results should take care of the credit issue as the low value in the quorum for any one WU should be thrown out and not used in the calculation of granted credit (like here). Could you provide a link to the WUs you're talking about?
Help and BOINC documentation is available here.

ID: 127915 · Report as offensive
Sharky T

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 99
Posts: 15
Credit: 496,994
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 127959 - Posted: 25 Jun 2005, 21:33:56 UTC

Dont know anything of SGI machines but I saw your core client is v. 4.58
and the only place where I found something about it is here.
And that post is from 1 Jan 2005. Maybe it's time to compile a new version
of Boinc for these boxes.
ID: 127959 · Report as offensive
Oliver Agh
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 31 Aug 03
Posts: 39
Credit: 779,147
RAC: 0
Hungary
Message 127997 - Posted: 26 Jun 2005, 0:52:53 UTC - in response to Message 127915.  
Last modified: 26 Jun 2005, 0:54:01 UTC

Sounds like a benchmarking problem. You'll notice that the computer in question is listed as having 64 CPUs.
But the quorum of results should take care of the credit issue as the low value in the quorum for any one WU should be thrown out and not used in the calculation of granted credit


Thank you for your response. Yeah, that's right, the quorum takes care of this problem. It does lower the granted credit a bit, but it isn't a big deal... Although, I whish there was a way to let this user know of the problem.

Thanks!



ID: 127997 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Roberts
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 31 Oct 99
Posts: 95
Credit: 2,301,228
RAC: 0
Australia
Message 128081 - Posted: 26 Jun 2005, 8:51:07 UTC

Undoubtedly that user would be fully aware of the problem. Until BOINC has a better scheme for benchmarking (which is on the design boards now) there is nothing the user can do about it. He's probably not too worried as his 64 cpus are churning through a *lot* of work and each 0.26 claim is being dragged up to a very respectable score in most cases. He's probably quite chuffed :).
ID: 128081 · Report as offensive
Profile StokeyBob
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 31 Aug 03
Posts: 848
Credit: 2,218,691
RAC: 0
United States
Message 128609 - Posted: 27 Jun 2005, 0:50:59 UTC

When you have as many credits(555,224.77) as this guy, maybe a little benchmarking problem doesn't really seem like much of a problem at all.

Top Computers
ID: 128609 · Report as offensive

Message boards : Number crunching : Is this normal? 0.26 claimed credit, 20K+ CPU time?


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.