Top 1000 Computers . . . #999 with a RAC of 0.11???

Message boards : Number crunching : Top 1000 Computers . . . #999 with a RAC of 0.11???

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 5 · Next

Author	Message
Brock Send message Joined: 19 Dec 06 Posts: 201 Credit: 774,488 RAC: 0	Message 527757 - Posted: 7 Mar 2007, 23:05:40 UTC
	When I look at the top 1,000 systems there are a lot of systems missing and a lot of systems with very low RACs that have broken the 1,000 barrier. What gives? ____________
	ID: 527757 ·

Dr. C.E.T.I. Send message Joined: 29 Feb 00 Posts: 15969 Credit: 625,669 RAC: 239	Message 527777 - Posted: 7 Mar 2007, 23:42:27 UTC - in response to Message 527757.
	When I look at the top 1,000 systems there are a lot of systems missing and a lot of systems with very low RACs that have broken the 1,000 barrier. What gives? You tell me [?] . . . using v5.8.15 DATA from nobody ____________ BOINC Wiki . . . Science Status Page . . .
	ID: 527777 ·

Ace Casino Send message Joined: 5 Feb 03 Posts: 273 Credit: 14,513,553 RAC: 336	Message 527995 - Posted: 8 Mar 2007, 10:22:26 UTC
	If you have your computers hidden they will not show up on the top computers list. 7 of the top 10 participants have their computers hidden (for example), so will never show up on top computer list. If every computer was considered for top computer, (hidden or not), the list would be drastically different.
	ID: 527995 ·

Richard Haselgrove Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 7462 Credit: 39,746,716 RAC: 34,134	Message 528002 - Posted: 8 Mar 2007, 11:00:11 UTC
	Eh? I thought the 'anonymous' computers - e.g. those currently at 6, 8, 9, and 10 - belonged to people who chose to leave their computers hidden. Or am I looking at a different list?
	ID: 528002 ·

Richard Haselgrove Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 7462 Credit: 39,746,716 RAC: 34,134	Message 528007 - Posted: 8 Mar 2007, 11:06:46 UTC
	It looks to me as if they've put some sort of a filter on the list - the computer has to have above ~293,000 credits to qualify. That seems to be new: maybe they've done it to speed up the query, because of the recent database problems.
	ID: 528007 ·

Ace Casino Send message Joined: 5 Feb 03 Posts: 273 Credit: 14,513,553 RAC: 336	Message 528017 - Posted: 8 Mar 2007, 11:25:25 UTC
	Richard, I think your confusing anonymous and hidden. The people on the â€œtop computersâ€ list that are listed as anonymous, have their computers visible, that is why they are on the top computers list. In the â€œtop participantsâ€ list, many have their computers hidden, that is why they are not on the top computers list. Unless the â€œtop participantsâ€ are running 100,000 P2â€™s (with low rac) they would surely be on the â€œtop computersâ€ list someplace.
	ID: 528017 ·

Richard Haselgrove Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 7462 Credit: 39,746,716 RAC: 34,134	Message 528022 - Posted: 8 Mar 2007, 11:44:51 UTC - in response to Message 528017.
	Richard, I think your confusing anonymous and hidden. Maybe. But looking at my SETI preferences page, I only see one (bi-state) control: Should SETI@home show your computers on its web site? yes no I don't see how you can get three conditions (visible, hidden, anonymous) from a single yes/no question. I've always understood the question to actually mean "Do you want to reveal the connection between you as a person, and the computers that you have connected to SETI?" If you have it set to 'Yes', then you can click through in either direction (user to computer, or computer to user). If you have it set to 'No', then it breaks the connection in both directions: a user's computers are "hidden", and a computer's owner is "anonymous". But until the new filter which Brock alerted us to, I didn't think that any (active) computers were ever completely absent from the visible data.
	ID: 528022 ·

Ace Casino Send message Joined: 5 Feb 03 Posts: 273 Credit: 14,513,553 RAC: 336	Message 528025 - Posted: 8 Mar 2007, 12:21:42 UTC
	Iâ€™m pretty sure being anonymous, and having your computers visible or not visible, is 2 different things. Iâ€™m not exactly sure how you get listed as Anonymous. For some reason Iâ€™m thinking there is a place when you set up your account, that you can place a checkmark, that says: â€œList me as Anonymousâ€ or something like that? Might be wrong on that? Maybe someone will let us know?
	ID: 528025 ·

Brock Send message Joined: 19 Dec 06 Posts: 201 Credit: 774,488 RAC: 0	Message 528033 - Posted: 8 Mar 2007, 13:16:00 UTC
	A couple of days ago your computer needed a RAC of about 1,100 to crack the top 1,000 Seti@home computers. This morning the barrier is a RAC of 0.27. Seems a little low . . . And my system that was on the list with a RAC of 1,250 is no longer on the list. ____________
	ID: 528033 ·

Bob Send message Joined: 30 Dec 06 Posts: 10 Credit: 396,884 RAC: 0	Message 528092 - Posted: 8 Mar 2007, 16:16:34 UTC
	'anonymous' computers are computers that are marked as hidden. At least that is how mine shows up... Until today.. Yesterday my PC was in the top 48, moving up about two positions a day. Today I should have been in about position 46 or 47. Yet, I'm not seeing my pc at all. If I look to the position my RAC would be at, that would now be #24. I still don't show up there either! So I would have jumped over 20 positions overnight when I have been averaging 1 or 2 position changes per day. Something is wrong with the stats page. It looks like over 1/2 the computers got lost overnight.
	ID: 528092 ·

Dr. C.E.T.I. Send message Joined: 29 Feb 00 Posts: 15969 Credit: 625,669 RAC: 239	Message 528095 - Posted: 8 Mar 2007, 16:34:23 UTC
	checked the STATS Page - (i) don't exist there ? what's up w/ ?
	ID: 528095 ·

Boinc_Master_2 Send message Joined: 20 Aug 05 Posts: 131 Credit: 689,756 RAC: 0	Message 528103 - Posted: 8 Mar 2007, 17:07:36 UTC - in response to Message 528033.
	A couple of days ago your computer needed a RAC of about 1,100 to crack the top 1,000 Seti@home computers. This morning the barrier is a RAC of 0.27. Seems a little low . . . And my system that was on the list with a RAC of 1,250 is no longer on the list. Yup something has surely happened there. My PC is now listed as 233rd with an RAC of 1204. A couple of days ago you needed about 1250+ to get 1000th position. ____________
	ID: 528103 ·

Alinator Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 19 Apr 05 Posts: 4118 Credit: 3,014,774 RAC: 8,524	Message 528106 - Posted: 8 Mar 2007, 17:13:55 UTC Last modified: 8 Mar 2007, 17:19:10 UTC
	A couple of points here to remember: 1.) Yes, a host which shows as anonymous are ones where the owner selected to have them hidden. The point is there is no way to relate the anonymous host to its owner, or any other machines. Don't believe it, try to figure who owns the anonymous hosts from the info presented on the Top Computer listings, or which hosts belong to the Top Participants who have their hosts hidden. I'd be almost willing to bet at least one of the top particapnts who's running hidden has at least one host in the top computer list. 2.) Keep in mind the the "top" lists aren't updated in real time, therefore you have to be able to sustain your performance for awhile in order to assure you will make the list. 3.) The reason for the apparent RAC anomaly is simple, they select the top 1000 hosts by RAC and Total Credit, and AFAIK have done that for awhile. Alinator
	ID: 528106 ·

Bob Send message Joined: 30 Dec 06 Posts: 10 Credit: 396,884 RAC: 0	Message 528127 - Posted: 8 Mar 2007, 18:01:51 UTC - in response to Message 528106.
	A couple of points here to remember: 1.) Yes, a host which shows as anonymous are ones where the owner selected to have them hidden. The point is there is no way to relate the anonymous host to its owner, or any other machines. Don't believe it, try to figure who owns the anonymous hosts from the info presented on the Top Computer listings, or which hosts belong to the Top Participants who have their hosts hidden. I'd be almost willing to bet at least one of the top particapnts who's running hidden has at least one host in the top computer list. 2.) Keep in mind the the "top" lists aren't updated in real time, therefore you have to be able to sustain your performance for awhile in order to assure you will make the list. 3.) The reason for the apparent RAC anomaly is simple, they select the top 1000 hosts by RAC and Total Credit, and AFAIK have done that for awhile. Alinator Well, It's not rac AND total credit. It's by rac OR total credit. Just click on one of the column headings to sort by that column. RAC is used by default. Over 1/2 of the systems reported yesterday (at least for the top 50) are no longer on the list today. Bob Bob
	ID: 528127 ·

RalphT5 Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 24 May 01 Posts: 38 Credit: 41,253,020 RAC: 24,718	Message 528128 - Posted: 8 Mar 2007, 18:14:27 UTC
	Something is wrong with the list. Yesterday one of my machines was listed as #5 with a RAC of approx. 4800. Today it is not on the list at all. What gives? ____________
	ID: 528128 ·

Sirad Send message Joined: 10 Dec 06 Posts: 26 Credit: 2,236,771 RAC: 0	Message 528129 - Posted: 8 Mar 2007, 18:15:14 UTC
	Well. Im surprised. but ? anyway. i crunch for seti, not for the ranks....
	ID: 528129 ·

Alinator Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 19 Apr 05 Posts: 4118 Credit: 3,014,774 RAC: 8,524	Message 528131 - Posted: 8 Mar 2007, 18:25:34 UTC - in response to Message 528127. Last modified: 8 Mar 2007, 18:39:19 UTC
	Well, It's not rac AND total credit. It's by rac OR total credit. Just click on one of the column headings to sort by that column. RAC is used by default. Over 1/2 of the systems reported yesterday (at least for the top 50) are no longer on the list today. Bob Bob Hmmm, you're right something is definitely screwy here today! Since most of my hosts are doing better than the lowest 45 on the RAC list. I find it hard to believe there aren't 1000 hosts not pulling a RAC of 500 or better. <edit> Total Credit seems to be making sense, so assuming the lists aren't connected in any way I don't see why there should be a cutoff for total credit when looking at RAC. I mean you either posted that RAC or not, unless this is something to thwart creative scripters looking to post bogusly high RAC's. In any event I think it's safe to say the RAC list is completely broken right at the moment. ;-) Alinator
	ID: 528131 ·

Richard Haselgrove Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 7462 Credit: 39,746,716 RAC: 34,134	Message 528134 - Posted: 8 Mar 2007, 18:32:45 UTC
	I still reckon the clue is in the 'Total credit' column. When you display the pages in RAC order (default), see if you can find any computer listed with a total credit less than about 293,000. For example, RalphT5's dual Xeon with the RAC of 4,810 (that went missing a few posts ago) only has a total credit of 156,893 - I reckon that's below some new cut-off level.
	ID: 528134 ·

Alinator Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 19 Apr 05 Posts: 4118 Credit: 3,014,774 RAC: 8,524	Message 528135 - Posted: 8 Mar 2007, 18:42:58 UTC - in response to Message 528134.
	I still reckon the clue is in the 'Total credit' column. When you display the pages in RAC order (default), see if you can find any computer listed with a total credit less than about 293,000. For example, RalphT5's dual Xeon with the RAC of 4,810 (that went missing a few posts ago) only has a total credit of 156,893 - I reckon that's below some new cut-off level. Agreed there looks to be a total credit cutoff on RAC, perhaps for the reason I stated above, but if that's the case it's not working too well since it's eliminating many legitimate high RAC hosts from the list. I mean when a RAC of 0.28 makes the list something must be broken. :-) Alinator
	ID: 528135 ·

RalphT5 Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 24 May 01 Posts: 38 Credit: 41,253,020 RAC: 24,718	Message 528142 - Posted: 8 Mar 2007, 18:58:26 UTC
	Looks like the total credit cutoff is around 290k. I went from the beginning out to 300th place and did not see a computer with less than 292k total credit. ____________
	ID: 528142 ·

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 5 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : Top 1000 Computers . . . #999 with a RAC of 0.11???