No thats random.
It also depends on your wingman and other factors.
Look at my screenshot below.
5,815.88 - 519,96 cr
5,787.21 - 736,21 cr

Too much ifs in the game.

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

But in favor of ATI ;-)..?!

Some differences
, true.
MB WU, done by the same CPU, Q6600.

Yep, ofcoarse Wingmen, have their influences, as well.

---

But in favor of ATI ;-)..?!

Some differences
, true.
MB WU, done by the same CPU, Q6600.

Yep, ofcoarse Wingmen, have their influences, as well.

Again no, thats worse.



instead of

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

Well, it appears, to be gettin stranger, by the minute, hope some more
will share their opinion and experiences.
As I'm out of ideas, right now :(

(Starting to look like a Lottery, what's going (wr)on(g)?!?)

But credit still looks like in favor of ATI GPU's and RunTimes don't seem
to have any or, atleast very little influence at all.

Now, you've got me stunned ;-)
[ADDED]
When looking at my 3 C2Q hosts, a (nice) mix of 2 Q6600's, 1 with a 470, 1 with
a GTS250 and a X9650 + GTX480, RAC, is very close to what is used to be,
before this Change in CREDIT granting.

The biggest differences are still from ATI GPU hosts compaired to a CPU
only host, (in favor of INTEL(?)), but is perhaps too speculative?

It certainly makes it worthwhile, crunching Astropulse on ATI GPU's!
Credits to Raistmer, et all, on this!

Well have to change/swap my 5870 for the 470 or find me another mobo, for this
GPU.

---

My RAC has started climbing again, but so far I'm nowhere close to where my RAC once was. Looking at everyones results it does seem to be a bit chaotic, but it looks like it's granting the credit amount to both for the slowest machine? But then you have the one 3K pointer, which looks like maybe it was given more points because it had to get 4 people to look at it before it validated? So maybe you get bonus points for finishing units people error out on, or have invalid results. Weird indeed, I'm saving my ultimate opinion on the credit system till the end of March, by then if my machine returns to it previous RAC surely it will be by then, if not then the new system doesn't favor me. lol.

---

Traveling through space at ~67,000mph!

My RAC has started climbing again, but so far I'm nowhere close to where my RAC once was. Looking at everyones results it does seem to be a bit chaotic, but it looks like it's granting the credit amount to both for the slowest machine? But then you have the one 3K pointer, which looks like maybe it was given more points because it had to get 4 people to look at it before it validated? So maybe you get bonus points for finishing units people error out on, or have invalid results. Weird indeed, I'm saving my ultimate opinion on the credit system till the end of March, by then if my machine returns to it previous RAC surely it will be by then, if not then the new system doesn't favor me. lol.

My thought, also, waiting till the end of this month, as changes take time to conclude, if it's working better or not.

My average througput and RAC are climbing to their previous values, too, so some
time to watch the New Credit Change, takes effect, is probably the best.
Also REstarting my ATI Astropulse WU crunching again... :)

Also, keep editting my post a zillion times ;^) and compairing hosts and
GPU and CPU MB WorkUnits.
Here GPU anonymus and FERMI. 5193721 is my Q6600 host, GPU is GTX470.

And GPU anonymous and CPU. 5499627 is my (fastest) host.

---

Well, reached the 1 hour editting time after changing and adding
several lines, also noticed an error, in my previous host, which has a NON-FERMI
GPU, not a 470 but GTS250!

Given info has to be correct, IMHO :)

Looks like the changes in New Credit Calculation, are not that bad
as may have appeared.

And, quite important, IMHO, ATI Astropulse crunching, appears more efficient,
compaired to the Optimized LUNATICs app. on CPU.

Also, getting work, wether AP or MB WU's, has signiffically increased, as
Reporting and UPLoading tasks!
No reason to complain, atleast on my end, is a bit early and maybe working out
better, then former Credit Calculation....

Just, my 4 cents ;^)
And wishing all a great weekend, especially staff and everybody in the Lab.
(Lets keep 'Murphy', in his cage...)

---

My RAC has started climbing again, but so far I'm nowhere close to where my RAC once was. Looking at everyones results it does seem to be a bit chaotic, but it looks like it's granting the credit amount to both for the slowest machine? But then you have the one 3K pointer, which looks like maybe it was given more points because it had to get 4 people to look at it before it validated? So maybe you get bonus points for finishing units people error out on, or have invalid results. Weird indeed, I'm saving my ultimate opinion on the credit system till the end of March, by then if my machine returns to it previous RAC surely it will be by then, if not then the new system doesn't favor me. lol.

The other AP's I have done reciently have been credited with 600 - 700 points, Have not been allowing this machine to do that many because they now seem to process so slow since upgrading GPU's. I am now only using 3 cores of CPU and because of extra loading from GPU's processor rate is running at 95 to 100%.

---

Kevin

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=697795274

rob smith wrote:

Equally as interesting as the <3000 credit is that Kevin's WU failed twice on Intel based systems, but succeeded twice on AMD based systems.... Stranger and stranger

Interesting coincidence, but the real difference was the Intel systems are running Linux. The stock Linux builds are prone to get segmentation violations on many systems.

                                                                 Joe

Oh dear.

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=697795274

Credit 3,021.20

Don't know what happened there.

But I ain't complaining

The AMD host that did the canonical result has a Average processing rate of 24.34 for Stock AP 5.05,
that's almost 5 times higher than it's Stock MB 6.03 Average processing rate of 5.61,
while my E8500 @4.14GHz has an Average processing rate of Average processing rate of 25.28 for Stock AP 5.05 (at Seti Beta),
and a Stock MB 6.03 Average processing rate of 13.93 (at Seti Beta),
my AP tasks only produced an Average processing rate for Stock AP 5.05 double that of Stock MB 6.03,
that suggests that the AMD Athlon Dual core 5000B has eithier being erroring out tasks, or it's been completing short AP tasks to get such a high rate,
so when it does complete a task and takes 4 times longer than it's normal short tasks, it gets 4 times the Credit,
it's the same with the Linux hosts that regularly error out their tasks, then once in a Blue Moon they complete a task,

Claggy

Oh dear.

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=697795274

Credit 3,021.20

Don't know what happened there.

But I ain't complaining

The AMD host that did the canonical result has a Average processing rate of 24.34 for Stock AP 5.05,
that's almost 5 times higher than it's Stock MB 6.03 Average processing rate of 5.61,
while my E8500 @4.14GHz has an Average processing rate of Average processing rate of 25.28 for Stock AP 5.05 (at Seti Beta),
and a Stock MB 6.03 Average processing rate of 13.93 (at Seti Beta),
my AP tasks only produced an Average processing rate for Stock AP 5.05 double that of Stock MB 6.03,
that suggests that the AMD Athlon Dual core 5000B has eithier being erroring out tasks, or it's been completing short AP tasks to get such a high rate,
so when it does complete a task and takes 4 times longer than it's normal short tasks, it gets 4 times the Credit,
it's the same with the Linux hosts that regularly error out their tasks, then once in a Blue Moon they complete a task,

Claggy

I think I understand that.

I got a bonus for having a dodgy wingman:-)

---

Kevin

And here also an
AP WU, with a high credit, fine by me ;-)

Unlike [this AP
WU.

Should be this AP
WU, cause to above mentioned, has 30 or more Pulses and/or spikes,
that's also why it's shorter. (Probably contaimineted with RFI)

And high credit MB, WU. Also a card with 2 CUDA 'cores', explaines time differences!
Probably the same as an average CPU core, but all helps.
My HP host had an 8500GT which a swapped with an GTS250, PSU (350Watt) is just
enough, 250 is fatster, also fits. Isn't that big.


And this New Credit System, also needs some to 'adapt', IMHO.
So far I'm not troubled by this. Steady work flow, steady UPLoad, great.

---

And here also an
AP WU, with a high credit, fine by me ;-)

Unlike [this AP
WU.

Should be this AP
WU, cause to above mentioned, has 30 or more Pulses and/or spikes,
that's also why it's shorter. (Probably contaimineted with RFI)

And high credit MB, WU. Also a card with 2 CUDA 'cores', explaines time differences!
Probably the same as an average CPU core, but all helps.
My HP host had an 8500GT which a swapped with an GTS250, PSU (350Watt) is just
enough, 250 is fatster, also fits. Isn't that big.


And this New Credit System, also needs some to 'adapt', IMHO.
So far I'm not troubled by this. Steady work flow, steady UPLoad, great.

Yeah my numbers are rising in a 'somewhat' predictable manner now. It seems about 95-100k in pending, like before, is causing mine to stabilize. RAC is moving on up too now, so I suppose it's working itself out. Maybe kind of like the other numbers it just needs to get some returns from people to 'normalize' the credit structure. I dunno, we will see in a month or so I suppose.

---

Traveling through space at ~67,000mph!

please roll back the credit change.

---

Next one.
First timed out second errored out.
It seems the new system dont like ATI.
Every time i report first i get half of the credits.

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=697795274

rob smith wrote:

Equally as interesting as the <3000 credit is that Kevin's WU failed twice on Intel based systems, but succeeded twice on AMD based systems.... Stranger and stranger

Interesting coincidence, but the real difference was the Intel systems are running Linux. The stock Linux builds are prone to get segmentation violations on many systems.

                                                                 Joe

I think Kolley has picked up something of the paranormal. I noticed his enormous RAC so I went to Boincstats to see if he's closing in on me in the Team standings. Blow me down if my computer didn't suddenly switch itself off in the middle of it! We're watching you, Kevin...

I think Kolley has picked up something of the paranormal. I noticed his enormous RAC so I went to Boincstats to see if he's closing in on me in the Team standings. Blow me down if my computer didn't suddenly switch itself off in the middle of it! We're watching you, Kevin...

Maybe, maybe.

I ain't that fast, but you aught to know it aint what got but its how you use it.

The old XV535 is still in occasional use, along with a Triumph Sprint, but due to work commitments [1] I don't get a chance to get out on it like I used to.



[1] Night haulage up into the midlands.

---

Kevin

I am also hoping that by the end of March the credit system will be corrected. Currently my RAC is dropping and it is down over 35% from the peak and 20% from the average recent RAC on one and also dropping on the other one.

---

I am also hoping that by the end of March the credit system will be corrected. Currently my RAC is dropping and it is down over 35% from the peak and 20% from the average recent RAC on one and also dropping on the other one.

I had the same issue after the crash, I dropped from 32K to 9K RAC running two machines w/ gpus! However it had started climbing and hit another ledge about 18K and it has started climbing pretty consistently now. So I'm with you hopefully by the end of the month I'll be back where I should be.

---

Traveling through space at ~67,000mph!

Since I changed nothing, except taking out a defect 4850 and took a GTX470 out
of my XP64 rig and put it in the 'open space', left by the 4850.

My RAC, was ~44,000, then dropped to below 10K, it's now climbing steady and looks like it's stabelizing at ~43,000 or some more, at the moment.
(Also running some other Projects, but nothing has been changed, considering this.)

---