Indeed it helped.

But if that's the case then we're in some kind back to what happend with classic
1 WU = 1 Credit or like i see it now 1 WU = 190 credits.

Not quite, it's more like:

AR 0.4 - 31.4h - 314 CS
AR 0.5 - 23.7h - 237 CS
AR 0.6 - 18.5h - 185 CS
AR 1.0 - 10h - 100 CS

If you suddenly gets a wu taking only 36 seconds, you'll get 0.1 CS


And no, this is not real numbers, and depending on how good it's calibrated it's possible example 10h = 100 CS, 20h = 195 CS, 30h = 305 CS or something similar.

But if that's the case then we're in some kind back to what happend with classic
1 WU = 1 Credit or like i see it now 1 WU = 190 credits.

Actually, that's ALMOST exactly what is wanted, but you're not allowing for the different run times on different WUs on the same host.

Angle range "x" WU = 190 credits.
Angle range "y" WU = 320 credits.
Angle range "z" WU = 30 credits.

and

"Other project" WU = 70 credits.

This has _always_ been the "ideal"; calculate how fast a computer is (benchmarks) and multiply that by how long it took (time) and you get a "value" for what credit score should be given. With perfect benchmarks, every "same length" WU issued _today_ would get the same number of credits.

Flops-counting makes it such that every host that does the same WU claims the same credit. By itself, it doesn't make that claim "match" _anything_, and the goal is that it should match the current system in terms of credits/hour. This is why there is a "multiplier" in the flops-counting; what you're seeing as 190 credits in seti-beta can be adjusted up or down before it is released here, so that a host gets the same credit for that "one WU every twenty hours" as they would for twenty one-hour WUs.

Phew

That will teach me to go away for a long weekend... What I now see is a Bit of Intelligence, a Bit of Information and a Whole Bunch of Misunderstanding. H3LL read on!

I have been "Doing the Seti ENHANCED Beta" that is where we are all headed (shortly). So from my post, I Identified Seti Enhanced Beta and the Link! Then stated that "More" people should be helping.

I Identified more detail than I previously "posted" and then asked a question. I will rephrase the question.
Is the value of a workunit done with say a PII 400 that takes 700,000+ seconds worth as much as a workunit done with an AMD 64 3200 that only takes 113,000+ seconds... If the Science is Validated...

I will add the second question, IF a machine that completes a WorkUnit in 1/7 of the time (which has an advantage) and they BOTH recieve the same amount of "compensation" then why should the person running the First Machine Stay?

WE also have poeple who are working there tails off to Help Users. Some of those people have helped to created the "Crunch" as they (UCB) do not have the time or resourcres to properly create the "Univeresal Client" that best fits what can be identified on every computer it is installed on... So of the Users have helped to do that very thing... So of those Users do not sport a "Volunter Developer" tag beside their name... The part that bothers me currently is they have did More for Seti, in the Search and completion of "Valid" Science, but go unrecognized. When David Anderson created the "competion between users" and then Stats to show how the User was doing against other users; Stated STATS are IMPORTANT! There have been Several STATS Sites Popup do the vacuum of the previously popular stats with Seti Classic.. Once again this is due the competition... User/User, Team/Team, and Country/Country... That said how long before the user with the PII400 QUITS? That User Would be Happy, if they felt that they could contribute to Science... They would be happy if while contributing to Science could be "ranked fairly" with all the other people in the World!

WE, have people showing up in Seti Beta (ENHANCED) that signed up and have not complete a single workunit (sorta like Seti Classic or whatever happened to 5.4 million+ users sorry old thread that had no answer)... So of those people have posted here and not completed an ENHANCED WorkUnit... Get Hot! Report it!

Yes I do have issues with Seti BOINC 5.2.x as I have been away for xx days... That is another thread.

So at this point I am neither postive or negative... Part goes back to the lack of communications in those "founding the project." Silly simple stuff like "
these are Our Goals." It could be a really stupid web page like these are our goals... However it is a "form" of communications! The Tech News is not truely in a MOTD format... It changes not too frequently and information that was there is GONE!... The Tech News "Line by Line" is the "History!" Yes there is sometimes "Good or Bad." Please, do not abuse it any further!

Long Three Days...

Regards to All..

Al

---

Please consider a Donation to the Seti Project.

IF a machine that completes a WorkUnit in 1/7 of the time (which has an advantage) and they BOTH recieve the same amount of "compensation" then why should the person running the First Machine Stay?

That was the way it worked for Classic, and that was pretty successfull.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

WE, have people showing up in Seti Beta (ENHANCED) that signed up and have not complete a single workunit (sorta like Seti Classic or whatever happened to 5.4 million+ users sorry old thread that had no answer)... So of those people have posted here and not completed an ENHANCED WorkUnit... Get Hot! Report it

prehapse that becuase we are still crunching?

---

uninstall dyslexica.o : Permission denied


AMD Athlon 64 3000+ w/Windows
AMD Athlon 1800+ w/Linux

IF a machine that completes a WorkUnit in 1/7 of the time (which has an advantage) and they BOTH recieve the same amount of "compensation" then why should the person running the First Machine Stay?

That was the way it worked for Classic, and that was pretty successfull.

yep beacuse the person that does it 1/7 of the time might ge the same credits per unit but ther are get 7 times the credit per time period

---

uninstall dyslexica.o : Permission denied


AMD Athlon 64 3000+ w/Windows
AMD Athlon 1800+ w/Linux

Lets see if my old brain can get thru this;


""I will add the second question, IF a machine that completes a WorkUnit in 1/7 of the time (which has an advantage) and they BOTH receive the same amount of "compensation" then why should the person running the First Machine Stay?""


OK I will use simple things for my simple mind; my computer, P4 3.0 does 7 WUs in 7 hrs and your, P3 1.0 does 1 wu in 7 hrs.....

1 wu = 190 so you get 190 for 7 hrs work and I get 7x that, which is 1330, I will stay.........

---

And the beat goes on
Sonny and Cher

BOINC Wiki

The server problems seem to be pervasive and frequent ... that is well documented.

Here's hoping for a warm and stable SETI for the new year ...

---

the hordes are coming

The server problems seem to be pervasive and frequent ... that is well documented.

?

---

Grant
Darwin NT

IF a machine that completes a WorkUnit in 1/7 of the time (which has an advantage) and they BOTH recieve the same amount of "compensation" then why should the person running the First Machine Stay?

That was the way it worked for Classic, and that was pretty successfull.

You are being paid in credits for the amount of work done not how long it takes.

When you get a contractor to work on your house you agree on a price for the job and then pay him for the work done not how long he took to do it.

Same thing here, each computer that does a result gets credit for that result regardless of how long they take to do it. Sound very fair to me.

---

98SE XP2500+ @ 2.1 GHz Boinc v5.8.8

And God said"Let there be light."But then the program crashed because he was trying to access the 'light' property of a NULL universe pointer.

Steve

What do You Not Understand, or How do You explain it to an "Orphaned Seti Classic User?" Say Thank You, Matt Davis Three Times as You are not in Kansas anymore...

I do find it distressing that "everyone is missing the point."

IF a machine that completes a WorkUnit in 1/7 of the time (which has an advantage) and they BOTH recieve the same amount of "compensation" then why should the person running the First Machine Stay?

That was the way it worked for Classic, and that was pretty successfull.

You are being paid in credits for the amount of work done not how long it takes.

When you get a contractor to work on your house you agree on a price for the job and then pay him for the work done not how long he took to do it.

Same thing here, each computer that does a result gets credit for that result regardless of how long they take to do it. Sound very fair to me.

---

Please consider a Donation to the Seti Project.

I do find it distressing that "everyone is missing the point."

What is the point?

---

Grant
Darwin NT

I do find it distressing that "everyone is missing the point."

What is the point?

I agree, what point are we missing?

---

Seems Pappa is the only one missing the point unless he is trying to say that 24 hours of crunching on a 386 at 33Mhz is worth the same as crunching for 24 hours on a P4 at 3200Mhz. Now if that is what he is trying to say then I would have to disagree 1 million percent and would never ever want to see it set up this way.

---

98SE XP2500+ @ 2.1 GHz Boinc v5.8.8

And God said"Let there be light."But then the program crashed because he was trying to access the 'light' property of a NULL universe pointer.

Seems Pappa is the only one missing the point unless he is trying to say that 24 hours of crunching on a 386 at 33Mhz is worth the same as crunching for 24 hours on a P4 at 3200Mhz. Now if that is what he is trying to say then I would have to disagree 1 million percent and would never ever want to see it set up this way.

I think he is trying to say: A result (work unit) crunched on a 386 33MHz is worth the same (credit) as crunchig it on a P4 3200Mhz (or AMD FX-57 or PPC with Altivec).

At present time without "enhanced" the new and fast computers (even without optimized seti application) are claiming far less credits than an old and slow computer.
The user with his slow cpu thinks his work is worth eg. 40 credits (claimed), but only gets eg. 20 due to the fact, that most computers are faster and claiming less resulting in averaging lower granted credit than claimed from the slow cpu.
This gives the slow cpu user the impression his work is not appreciated and due to the others not worth the effort.

If now with "enhanced" the claimed credit for ALL cpus (and/or OS) are the same, he has the proof it's worth!

AndyK

---

Want to know your pending credit?


The biggest bug is sitting 10 inch in front of the screen.

AndyK

Thank You, a good explanation... I have attempted to get people to look at what is happening with Seti Enhanced... It is comming soon! I have posted this information several times... These machines are running Seti BOINC 5.2.13 Core Client...

PII - 400 - 722,242.08 Seconds 200.6 hours 8.3 days - 190 Credits

PII - 400

PIII - 550 - 523,069.37 Seconds 145.3 hours 6.05 days - 190 Credits

PIII - 550

AMD 3200 @ 2.2Ghz - 113,153.73 Seconds 31.43 hours 1.3 days - 190 Credits 26,057.84 seconds 7.2 hours

AMD 64 3200

You are Welcome to go click on the links and look. With Updates to the Seti BOINC Core Client in progress You should consider Upgrading when the next BOINC Core Clients shows up in Seti Download

I have other machines that are doing Seti Enhanced testing that are not ready for posting... The PII - 400 is now doing a 5.02 Seti application... Time will tell...


R/

Al

---

Please consider a Donation to the Seti Project.

PIII - 1000 - 284,515.91 seconds 79.3 hours 3.29 days - 190.71 claimed credits (pending)

---

.

If "Enhanced" is anything like the beta, I for one will do less work (if any) for SETI when it goes into production. Why? I don't like work units that take many hours, or even days to complete (and waiting weeks to get credit for it because others take even longer).

But I guess that helps the project - if every WU takes 30-40 times longer to crunch and a significant portion of crunchers leave, there will be plenty of spare server capacity for those that remain.

I don't mind if it takes a ~little~ longer, but going from 1 hour to 1.5 days to crunch a WU on the same machine is (to me) ridiculous. I have a BETA WU running on my 3.4GHz P4 - it's only at 25% after nearly 10 hours of crunching and I will probably abort it.

@Yoda,

Basically the theory behind the "Enhanced" WU's will be to pull a lot of the traffic off the the servers, and to do a more advanced scan on the WU's, to get deeper into them. And remember, there are some of those that are doing optimizations to the app's, so expect those times to come down a bit. All of these guys that do the optimizations have drastically cut the times already on these standard WU's, heck some people are doing them in 30+ minutes, as opposed to 3-4 hours. Don't abort the WU, let it continue crunching, it does help the people who are working on that project get better info. Even though its been said that it should be coming out soon, every little bit helps. Happy crunching!!

Jeremy

---

I don't mind if it takes a ~little~ longer, but going from 1 hour to 1.5 days to crunch a WU on the same machine is (to me) ridiculous. I have a BETA WU running on my 3.4GHz P4 - it's only at 25% after nearly 10 hours of crunching and I will probably abort it.

Wait a bit on that. The estimates on the Beta work are very non-linear. The first 50% of the work can take about 80% of the real time to process. Let it finish, to see what your actual work time is.

MJ

---