I recently had a whole string of jobs with similar CPU times that resulted in a claimed credit of 16.52 for each. That is all except one. That one also showed 16.52 for a claimed credit when it was completed, but after another user completed the same job, he said it was only worth 7.22 credits, which is what I was finally awarded.

I understand why the lower score has to be used to avoid users manipulating the system. I can also understand why mine might have been in error if I had only used 45% of the CPU time of the other 16.52 credit jobs, and I still claimed 16.52. What I don't understand, is how another user can come up with such a different value when my CPU time was consistent with the other jobs of 16.52 credits.

What am I missing?

I suspect this must have come up before but a search of this forum did not find it. If I just didn't use the right search terms and it is there, I apologize.

I recently had a whole string of jobs with similar CPU times that resulted in a claimed credit of 16.52 for each. That is all except one. That one also showed 16.52 for a claimed credit when it was completed, but after another user completed the same job, he said it was only worth 7.22 credits, which is what I was finally awarded.

I understand why the lower score has to be used to avoid users manipulating the system. I can also understand why mine might have been in error if I had only used 45% of the CPU time of the other 16.52 credit jobs, and I still claimed 16.52. What I don't understand, is how another user can come up with such a different value when my CPU time was consistent with the other jobs of 16.52 credits.

What am I missing?

I suspect this must have come up before but a search of this forum did not find it. If I just didn't use the right search terms and it is there, I apologize.

Have you had a read through the Boinc wiki?
Granted Credit might be helpful. There are additional links on that page as well.

Hope this helps.

Andrew

---

AndrewM

I recently had a whole string of jobs with similar CPU times that resulted in a claimed credit of 16.52 for each. That is all except one. That one also showed 16.52 for a claimed credit when it was completed, but after another user completed the same job, he said it was only worth 7.22 credits, which is what I was finally awarded.

I understand why the lower score has to be used to avoid users manipulating the system. I can also understand why mine might have been in error if I had only used 45% of the CPU time of the other 16.52 credit jobs, and I still claimed 16.52. What I don't understand, is how another user can come up with such a different value when my CPU time was consistent with the other jobs of 16.52 credits.

What am I missing?

I suspect this must have come up before but a search of this forum did not find it. If I just didn't use the right search terms and it is there, I apologize.

Pretty clear here even without the WU ID your wingman was using an old version of BOINC to crunch with, and they underclaim the credits. Each WU is awarded the lesser of the two claimed credits. Don't get discouraged, it doesn't happen to often. /salute

I recently had a whole string of jobs with similar CPU times that resulted in a claimed credit of 16.52 for each. That is all except one. That one also showed 16.52 for a claimed credit when it was completed, but after another user completed the same job, he said it was only worth 7.22 credits, which is what I was finally awarded.

I understand why the lower score has to be used to avoid users manipulating the system. I can also understand why mine might have been in error if I had only used 45% of the CPU time of the other 16.52 credit jobs, and I still claimed 16.52. What I don't understand, is how another user can come up with such a different value when my CPU time was consistent with the other jobs of 16.52 credits.

What am I missing?

I suspect this must have come up before but a search of this forum did not find it. If I just didn't use the right search terms and it is there, I apologize.

I think you mean this WU http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=230782524. Looking at the details of the other computer, I can see that they are still using BOINC version 4.45 which is outdated.

stderr out <core_client_version>4.45</core_client_version>
<stderr_txt>
Unrecognized XML in parse_init_data_file: core_version
Skipping: 445
Skipping: /core_version
Unrecognized XML in parse_init_data_file: core_version
Skipping: 445
Skipping: /core_version
setiathome_enhanced 5.27 DevC++/MinGW

Unfortunately there are still a few of these old BOINC clients around. The latest Development versions of BOINC appear to have fixed the problem with some proxies that was causing their users to hang on to them. BOINC versions Change Log has more details about this.

I hope that once that release of BOINC becomes official, the last of these underclaiming old versions can be retired.

---

Sir Arthur C Clarke 1917-2008

I think you mean this WU http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=230782524. Looking at the details of the other computer, I can see that they are still using BOINC version 4.45 which is outdated.

That is indeed the one.

stderr out <core_client_version>4.45</core_client_version>
<stderr_txt>
Unrecognized XML in parse_init_data_file: core_version
Skipping: 445
Skipping: /core_version
Unrecognized XML in parse_init_data_file: core_version
Skipping: 445
Skipping: /core_version
setiathome_enhanced 5.27 DevC++/MinGW

Unfortunately there are still a few of these old BOINC clients around. The latest Development versions of BOINC appear to have fixed the problem with some proxies that was causing their users to hang on to them. BOINC versions Change Log has more details about this.

I hope that once that release of BOINC becomes official, the last of these underclaiming old versions can be retired.[/quote]

Thanks to all for the explanation and your patience. It is appreciated.