Seti credit vs Einstein Credit


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Number crunching : Seti credit vs Einstein Credit

1 · 2 · Next
Author Message
Sf Chance
Send message
Joined: 1 Jun 99
Posts: 9
Credit: 30,906,116
RAC: 9,383
United States
Message 1328770 - Posted: 18 Jan 2013, 20:07:13 UTC

Why is the credit for work done for Seti one tenth of that done for Einstein? Credit granted for Seti work is very small.
____________

Profile Wiggo
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 24 Jan 00
Posts: 6445
Credit: 90,089,953
RAC: 74,105
Australia
Message 1328773 - Posted: 18 Jan 2013, 20:12:14 UTC - in response to Message 1328770.

We are not here for the credit, we are here for the science. ;)

Cheers.
____________

rob smith
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 03
Posts: 8122
Credit: 52,294,263
RAC: 78,147
United Kingdom
Message 1328777 - Posted: 18 Jan 2013, 20:18:57 UTC

Choose your favourite:
a) Because that's how the two projects wish to reward their volunteers
b) Because S@H has implemented the BOINC "New Credit" system in full, whereas Einstein has avoided doing so
c) S@H knows it has the biggest and most diverse pool of volunteers whereas Einstein "buys" it volunteers with credit that is worth nothing


I dare say others can add to this list of options
____________
Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Rolf
Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 09
Posts: 114
Credit: 7,807,822
RAC: 298
Switzerland
Message 1328789 - Posted: 18 Jan 2013, 20:36:33 UTC - in response to Message 1328777.

Choose your favourite:
a) Because that's how the two projects wish to reward their volunteers
b) Because S@H has implemented the BOINC "New Credit" system in full, whereas Einstein has avoided doing so
c) S@H knows it has the biggest and most diverse pool of volunteers whereas Einstein "buys" it volunteers with credit that is worth nothing


I dare say others can add to this list of options


d) Compared to S@H, Einstein has very short deadlines for the WUs, so your computer "is forced" to run Einstein with high priority.

Profile Bernie Vine
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 May 99
Posts: 6790
Credit: 24,441,895
RAC: 26,888
United Kingdom
Message 1328802 - Posted: 18 Jan 2013, 20:53:06 UTC

Compared to S@H, Einstein has very short deadlines for the WUs, so your computer "is forced" to run Einstein with high priority.


The reason I stopped Einstein, I am in in for the science not being forced to crunch one project over another.
____________


Today is life, the only life we're sure of. Make the most of today.

Sf Chance
Send message
Joined: 1 Jun 99
Posts: 9
Credit: 30,906,116
RAC: 9,383
United States
Message 1328871 - Posted: 18 Jan 2013, 23:17:47 UTC

S@H units always run first, even with deadlines. My Seti units take the same amount of time. I have been doing this since S@H started, before 1999. I am sixty some years old and now retired. I think S@H has enough time to gather a base; just like others. Einstein does science, others do science. They have more to show for the effort. I think it is time for S@H to compete for time. I am cutting back. Do what you like. The question still stands, why does S@H not give more credits?
____________

Richard Haselgrove
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 99
Posts: 8373
Credit: 46,553,114
RAC: 13,973
United Kingdom
Message 1328873 - Posted: 18 Jan 2013, 23:25:07 UTC - in response to Message 1328802.

Compared to S@H, Einstein has very short deadlines for the WUs, so your computer "is forced" to run Einstein with high priority.

The reason I stopped Einstein, I am in in for the science not being forced to crunch one project over another.

Einstein forces no such thing: I don't think I've ever seen an Einstein task run in high priority.

What forces high priority is a user choice of cache settings which don't play 'nice' with project deadlines - we used to see that a lot when SETI had 7-day deadlines for shorties (before the task durations were doubled by increasing the sensitivity of the search). The rule of thumb when running more than one project is that your chosen cache size should be no more than [shortest deadline of any task on any of the projects] / [number of separate projects running].

So, SETI + Einstein: lowest deadline is 14 days at either project (actually, slightly shorter at SETI) - don't cache more than 7 days, and make sure you choose the right value pair (0,7 for BOINC v6, 7,0 for BOINC v7). That will calm things down a lot, though I don't personally ever run more than a 2 day cache.

Profile QuietDad
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 2 Oct 99
Posts: 79
Credit: 4,598,980
RAC: 4,564
United States
Message 1328874 - Posted: 18 Jan 2013, 23:25:53 UTC
Last modified: 18 Jan 2013, 23:26:46 UTC

Seti@home was first and defined what a credit is. Others offer "more" to get you there. There has been many many threads on ALL the projects about this. http://boincstats.com/en/stats/-1/cpcs Shows the comparisons. If all you want is points, go to an arcade with a roll of quarters. If you want to help science, pick your project.
____________

bill
Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 99
Posts: 859
Credit: 22,282,013
RAC: 19,930
United States
Message 1328876 - Posted: 18 Jan 2013, 23:35:57 UTC - in response to Message 1328871.

S@H units always run first, even with deadlines. My Seti units take the same amount of time. I have been doing this since S@H started, before 1999. I am sixty some years old and now retired. I think S@H has enough time to gather a base; just like others. Einstein does science, others do science. They have more to show for the effort. I think it is time for S@H to compete for time. I am cutting back. Do what you like. The question still stands, why does S@H not give more credits?


Why does SAH need to give out more WORTHLESS CREDITS? I'd be ecstatic if all the credit junkies moved to projects that gave out WORTHLESS credits. It might free up enough band width to make uploads/downloads a lot less painful.

Profile Alex Storey
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 14 Jun 04
Posts: 534
Credit: 1,627,678
RAC: 558
Greece
Message 1328880 - Posted: 19 Jan 2013, 0:04:22 UTC - in response to Message 1328876.

I'd be ecstatic if all the credit junkies moved to projects that gave out WORTHLESS credits. It might free up enough band width to make uploads/downloads a lot less painful.


So would a Tylanol or two:)

Richard Haselgrove
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 99
Posts: 8373
Credit: 46,553,114
RAC: 13,973
United Kingdom
Message 1328883 - Posted: 19 Jan 2013, 0:07:03 UTC - in response to Message 1328874.

http://boincstats.com/en/stats/-1/cpcs Shows the comparisons.

The comparison chart at http://boinc.netsoft-online.com/e107_plugins/boinc/get_cpcs.php gives more detail and is better documented. It also says that SETI gives ten times more credit than Einstein, which I'm certain is false.

I think the comparison figures for both projects are distorted by the use of GPUs at both projects: the comparison charts are based on CPU time only. Overall, I think the administrators at both projects strive conscientiously to honour the original credit definition as closely as possible: anyone wishing to choose between them should run their own tests on their own hardware. Or, preferably, choose on the basis of the value of the science on their own personal scale.

Profile Zapped Sparky
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 30 Aug 08
Posts: 6564
Credit: 1,200,844
RAC: 93
United Kingdom
Message 1328889 - Posted: 19 Jan 2013, 0:37:50 UTC - in response to Message 1328883.

http://boincstats.com/en/stats/-1/cpcs Shows the comparisons.

The comparison chart at http://boinc.netsoft-online.com/e107_plugins/boinc/get_cpcs.php gives more detail and is better documented. It also says that SETI gives ten times more credit than Einstein, which I'm certain is false.

I think the comparison figures for both projects are distorted by the use of GPUs at both projects: the comparison charts are based on CPU time only. Overall, I think the administrators at both projects strive conscientiously to honour the original credit definition as closely as possible: anyone wishing to choose between them should run their own tests on their own hardware. Or, preferably, choose on the basis of the value of the science on their own personal scale.

Or choose on the basis of bandwidth, if I was crunching Einstein all the time it would be no problem, but as a backup the 90MB-ish download for a single task now and again put me off it as a backup. And it always seemed to happen when I was near my monthly limit :(
____________
In an alternate universe, it was a ZX81 that asked for clothes, boots and motorcycle.

Client error 418: I'm a teapot

Tropical Goldfish Fish 13: You're not crazy if you crunch for Seti :)

Sf Chance
Send message
Joined: 1 Jun 99
Posts: 9
Credit: 30,906,116
RAC: 9,383
United States
Message 1328896 - Posted: 19 Jan 2013, 1:04:37 UTC

In the beginning S@H was all credits and racing. Boinc came along and S@H could not rule, so it got to be about science. Things got to be too much for them. They can not produce enough work units to compete. They have been limited by the school. Newer machines eat through units faster each year. Most people have to do other projects to keep machines on line t wait for S@H. After 14 years of doing S@H, yes I am going to include the pre-BOINC times, they have found nothing.

Seti people say big sky; small search. S@H has the computing power to search, they just can not get the interest in searching. Us old credit seakers should just go away? Maybe, but if we had our way S@H would have to find ways to get more data. S@H would have to find the way to get more bandwidth. S@H would have to learn to keep it machines running 24/7. S@H would have to learn to become just as good a machine as the machine it has gathered to process its data.

Has long as we do not push it, it will never get any better. And it may never find anything. Einstein has found things. Primes has found things. S@H is still small time looking; finding nothing. But what does and old S@H screen saver guy know?
____________

Sf Chance
Send message
Joined: 1 Jun 99
Posts: 9
Credit: 30,906,116
RAC: 9,383
United States
Message 1328900 - Posted: 19 Jan 2013, 1:11:28 UTC

By the way I have
Seti Total credits 25,099,142
Einstein Total credits 60,649,264
on top of
SETI@home classic workunits 34,125
SETI@home classic CPU time 153,553 hours

That is how much science I have done along the way to gathering WORTHLESS CREDITS.
____________

Chris
Send message
Joined: 11 Apr 12
Posts: 9
Credit: 354,608
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1328922 - Posted: 19 Jan 2013, 1:36:05 UTC

Someone said Seti has a bigger pool of users. Is there an easy way to compare computing power between projects? Einstein has been posting about their computing power (as they measure it, boincstats shows it rather less).

A credit per flop or something would be nice so we can easily compare computing power at various projects. On the other hand, I'd like climate prediction to give out a few more credits for running their models which can take 3-4 weeks (cpu only).

Profile QuietDad
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 2 Oct 99
Posts: 79
Credit: 4,598,980
RAC: 4,564
United States
Message 1328942 - Posted: 19 Jan 2013, 2:00:03 UTC - in response to Message 1328900.
Last modified: 19 Jan 2013, 2:01:21 UTC

By the way I have
Seti Total credits 25,099,142
Einstein Total credits 60,649,264
on top of
SETI@home classic workunits 34,125
SETI@home classic CPU time 153,553 hours

That is how much science I have done along the way to gathering WORTHLESS CREDITS.


You start with wanting more credits, and end pounding your chest bragging about the science and the worthless credits. Pick a side.

In the beginning when it was only Seti, the credits created Team races to spark enthusiasm. Credits only mean something comparing the same project. They are worthless in that you can't trade them in for something. If you want credits, your in the wrong project. If you want to find ET, stay here.

This was only supposed to be a two year or so project to begin with. The staff has graduated and kept it alive. There is no money, no resources and the spend all their time keeping it running. Imagine if they limited even half their work to projects like NITPIKR and others to further analyze the data. Wouldn't put it past them or even disagree with them if the put the crunching part on hold for a year or to to dig deeper in what they have. Those of us looking for ET would come back.

This ISN'T an arcade....
____________

bill
Send message
Joined: 16 Jun 99
Posts: 859
Credit: 22,282,013
RAC: 19,930
United States
Message 1328964 - Posted: 19 Jan 2013, 2:32:39 UTC - in response to Message 1328942.

Yep, and anybody that thinks those credits have worth can buy mine for a buck a piece. I'll even donate half of the proceeds to Seti @ Home.

SUCH A DEAL!!!

Profile betreger
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 2090
Credit: 4,367,945
RAC: 7,898
United States
Message 1328974 - Posted: 19 Jan 2013, 3:10:08 UTC - in response to Message 1328896.

When the autocorrelation comes on line the search becomes much larger.
____________

Profile James Sotherden
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 May 99
Posts: 8512
Credit: 31,018,026
RAC: 53,734
United States
Message 1328984 - Posted: 19 Jan 2013, 4:17:24 UTC

They should just go to one credit for one work unit done and be done with it.I for one will still crunch Seti@Home as my main project, And do the others as backup.
____________

Old James

Profile Gary Charpentier
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12053
Credit: 6,372,592
RAC: 8,584
United States
Message 1328993 - Posted: 19 Jan 2013, 4:49:33 UTC

What I find interesting is in looking at the two charts, the credit difference between Seti and SetiBeta. Same work units. Makes me think that the measuring stick is broken.

____________

1 · 2 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : Seti credit vs Einstein Credit

Copyright © 2014 University of California