| Author |
Message |
|---|
|
|
|
"December 27, 2004
We are experimenting with redundancy parameters. We will continue to send 3 copies of each workunit, but will validate results and grant credit when 2 (rather than 3) of them are returned. This should result in faster validation."
This brings up a number of new questions. If credit is granted on only 2 validated results, what are the new rules for awarding credit? With only two results, the high / low elimination - give the middle value won't work anymore. Will it be an average of the first two validated results? Inquiring minds....
____________
![](http://boinc.mundayweb.com/one/stats.php?userID=498&trans=off">) |
|
|
|
|
|
The same rules that's always been used. ;)
If wu validated with only 2 results passing validation, the lowest claimed.
If wu validated with 3 or more results passing validation, remove highest & lowest and average the rest.
Any results validated after wu was validated is given the same credit as the others, no re-calculation is done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
> The same rules that's always been used. ;)
>
> If wu validated with only 2 results passing validation, the lowest claimed.
> If wu validated with 3 or more results passing validation, remove highest
> & lowest and average the rest.
>
> Any results validated after wu was validated is given the same credit as the
> others, no re-calculation is done.
>
>
>
soo this could end up resulting in lower granted credit....cause if you are validating with only two it will take the lowest....where as with 3 you would take the middle.....hmmmm
____________
 |
|
|
|
|
|
> soo this could end up resulting in lower granted credit....cause if you are
> validating with only two it will take the lowest....where as with 3 you would
> take the middle.....hmmmm
>
Yes but that is already the case for people with slower computers anyway as the result underneath shows. I put in a claim for 43 credits for most WU's but virtually everybody doing the other 2 WU's has a Pentium 4 HT and only claim 28 credits. So not going to make much difference i think.
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=6645517
____________
|
|
|
|
|
|
> Yes but that is already the case for people with slower computers anyway as
> the result underneath shows. I put in a claim for 43 credits for most WU's but
> virtually everybody doing the other 2 WU's has a Pentium 4 HT and only claim
> 28 credits. So not going to make much difference i think.
true.....i'm just worried this will become the norm since it only needs one low claim to get that
before you atleast needed two
____________
|
|
|
STE\/EVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 29 Mar 03
Posts: 1137
Credit: 2,849,884
RAC: 1,437
|
|
I just spent the last few Hours going through a lot of my Wu's that had been granted credit already and under the new format where they will grant the credit after the first 2 Results are turned in & I would have recieved less credit for 90% of the Wu's and at best only the credit I already recieved in the other 10% of the Wu's.
Not once did I run across one where I would have recieved more credit ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't believe the validator is even running at the moment. I have many results with 3 returned and some with 2 returned. All are still pending credit of any kind.
____________
Boinc....Boinc....Boinc....Boinc.... |
|
|
|
|
|
If "the other cruncher" is a Linux box and you're on windows, you'll get around 1/2 the credit you claimed. There's also major weirdness on mono vs dual cpus doing the same WU. Maybe this will get fixed in Boinc 6.x! (or boinc 8.x)
> I just spent the last few Hours going through a lot of my Wu's that had been
> granted credit already and under the new format where they will grant the
> credit after the first 2 Results are turned in & I would have recieved
> less credit for 90% of the Wu's and at best only the credit I already recieved
> in the other 10% of the Wu's.
>
> Not once did I run across one where I would have recieved more credit ...
>
>
>
____________
|
|
|
Hans DornVolunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 2245
Credit: 14,076,839
RAC: 25,484
|
|
> If "the other cruncher" is a Linux box and you're on windows, you'll get
> around 1/2 the credit you claimed. There's also major weirdness on mono vs
> dual cpus doing the same WU. Maybe this will get fixed in Boinc 6.x! (or
> boinc 8.x)
>
Yep, and the linux cruncher will always get 1/2 credit. No 'doze boxes to help out anymore...
Regards Hans
____________
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've been getting approx 35-40 credits for all my wu's, occasionally 20-25 if the other 2 are using pentiums 4's or dual cpu things.
Now I'm going to get 20-25 almost almost all the time! This will have a major effect on my avg. credit.
I run an athlon xp2800 o/c to 2250MHz, it runs the boinc cpu bechmark in about 2000 double precision mips.
Not happy.
____________
<img border="0" src="http://boinc.mundayweb.com/one/stats.php?userID=268&prj=1&trans=off" /><img border="0" src="http://boinc.mundayweb.com/one/stats.php?userID=268&prj=4&trans=off" />
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know, I love the people on this board, but sometimes you can be really dense :)
You complain that 3 validations takes to long, so the Seti people set it to 2. Now, you're mad that 2 shortchanges you on credits. Can't anything make you happy? :)
____________
-----
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Think 1 WU = X Credits..(a constant) Everyone would be happy!
Don't tell me that "boinc wasn't designed to do that and it makes it all bougus.."
Because I will will use a real bonic project that does just that - CP
In CP, it doesn't matter what your benchmark is, or how long it takes a WU to process.. All "trickles" get the same number of credits, and as a result, all WU's get the same amount of credits...
In CP, you did X work, and got Y credit, if that work took 1 hour or 1 day! (be it on windows or linux!)
The new Seti scheme will really suck in the eyes of Windows crunchers, if the "other cruncher" is a Linux box!
The "difference" between claimed credits (on the same HW) between Linux and Windows has been known since before Seti/Boinc went live, but has ben a low priority for the developers, as it doesn't impact the science... Well, it's been over 6 months, and maybe they'll stop adding features and start fixing stuff like this! (If I heald my breath until they did it, I'd not only die, but my bones would turn to dust!) In the meantime, I'll crunch seti on Linux boxes, as that's the only way to always get the credits you claim!
> You know, I love the people on this board, but sometimes you can be really
> dense :)
>
> You complain that 3 validations takes to long, so the Seti people set it to 2.
> Now, you're mad that 2 shortchanges you on credits. Can't anything make you
> happy? :)
>
____________
|
|
|
|
|
|
What's the big deal about how much credit you get? Are you going to buy a new computer with your credits?
As long as each person's credit is computed in the same way, it's no big deal!
____________
|
|
|
Hans DornVolunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 2245
Credit: 14,076,839
RAC: 25,484
|
|
> What's the big deal about how much credit you get? Are you going to buy a new
> computer with your credits?
> As long as each person's credit is computed in the same way, it's no big deal!
>
It's a big deal, because the rest of seti is working fine (more or less) :o)
I'd say, add the number of completed WUs to the seti stats, and the discussion will end.
Regards Hans
P.S:
'nuff said.
____________
|
|
|
|
|
|
> The "difference" between claimed credits (on the same HW) between Linux and
> Windows has been known since before Seti/Boinc went live, but has ben a low
> priority for the developers, as it doesn't impact the science... Well, it's
> been over 6 months, and maybe they'll stop adding features and start fixing
> stuff like this! (If I heald my breath until they did it, I'd not only die,
> but my bones would turn to dust!) In the meantime, I'll crunch seti on Linux
> boxes, as that's the only way to always get the credits you claim!
This has been fixed in the coming 4.5x-4.6x? BOINC. The problem is the windows client that is inflating the benchmarks (something about compiling optimizations).
____________
Professor Desty Nova
Researching Karma the Hard Way |
|
|
|
|
|
> This has been fixed in the coming 4.5x-4.6x? BOINC. The problem is the windows
> client that is inflating the benchmarks (something about compiling
> optimizations).
>
From what I have seen on my 2GHz XP box 4.57 has dropped the claimed credit about an average of 10 as compared to the 4.13 client.
____________
<img src="http://boinc.mundayweb.com/seti2/stats.php?userID=2259&team=off"> |
|
|
|
|
|
Well, my laptop always claims around 70? results, but mostly gets only about 20-30. What's the idea??? It takes him 6 hours to process 1 wu, and than it gets 1/3 work granted. I mean, give us the same work units, so we can really se the difference. Why would I get only 1/3 of claimed work granted? I think seti should grant you the credit that you did, not more or less. By seti classic it was better (by credists). You did your wu, you got credit. Now you do a lot of work for practicly no credit... SETI stuff, plz fix that somehow, but not the way you "fixed" it until now, because you only made it worst.
____________
<img src="http://www.boincstats.com/stats/banner.php?cpid=d2319b8f0ad14565556d0ba45b64e779"> |
|
|
|
|
|
> Well, my laptop always claims around 70? results, but mostly gets only about
> 20-30. What's the idea??? It takes him 6 hours to process 1 wu, and than it
> gets 1/3 work granted. I mean, give us the same work units, so we can really
> se the difference. Why would I get only 1/3 of claimed work granted? I think
> seti should grant you the credit that you did, not more or less. By seti
> classic it was better (by credists). You did your wu, you got credit. Now you
> do a lot of work for practicly no credit... SETI stuff, plz fix that somehow,
> but not the way you "fixed" it until now, because you only made it worst.
>
I would be interested to see what credit it claimed running the 4.57 client. I just looked at your laptop and it is really asking for an inflated credit. Why should your laptop get 60 more credits than a 3GHz intel when it (your laptop) takes almost twice as long to process the same WU?
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=6583372
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=6583369
In this case I think 1 credit for 1 WU would be a good thing. Then the faster processor would get the credit it was due.
And are you serious with this one???
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=5889457
Your laptop took well over twice as long and asked for 111.17 credits! The other two asked for 26 and 29 credits. Yep the system needs fixed, but you're not going to be a happy camper if/when it does get fixed! |
|
|
|
|
|
> If "the other cruncher" is a Linux box and you're on windows, you'll get
> around 1/2 the credit you claimed. There's also major weirdness on mono vs
> dual cpus doing the same WU. Maybe this will get fixed in Boinc 6.x! (or
> boinc 8.x)
>
If the Linux users checked out my website and downloaded optimized boinc clients for their machines, they'd actually claim slightly more credit than Windows users rather than the current half ;)
I spent a LOT of time optimizing these clients to level the playing field for the benefit of both Linux and Windows users, but people have got to use them. I've logged over a 1000 downloads to date but there must be many more linux users out there still not using them.
Ned
____________
*** My Guide to Compiling Optimised BOINC and SETI Clients ***
*** Download Optimised BOINC and SETI Clients for Linux Here *** |
|
|
STE\/EVolunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 29 Mar 03
Posts: 1137
Credit: 2,849,884
RAC: 1,437
|
|
You complain that 3 validations takes to long, so the Seti people set it to 2. Now, you're mad that 2 shortchanges you on credits. Can't anything make you happy? :)
==========
I'm not complaining about anything Matt just stating what I found with my WU's, you didn't see me complaining about wanting my Credits faster anywhere on the board even though most of the time I have a ton of Pending WU's, I just take the Credits as they come & live with it.
I was perfectly happy with the 3 Result Validation system but it seems to me the Dev's caved in and reduced it to 2 now to pacify the people that are whining they want their credits faster.
Are we going to see the first Result returned getting Credit 6 months from now & all the other returned results for that WU getting the same Credit in order to speed it up even further ... ???
Maybe they are just trying to get in line with the rest of the Projects on the amount of Credit they give out Per WU, I've always felt the Seti Project gave out way more Credit Per WU than the rest of the Projects did by comparison.
I topped out at 4,101.89 RAC Credits just the other day here and I know with the same Computers over at the LHC Site I could only get up to about 2300-2400 RAC Credits running full time, so theres is a big difference to me between the Projects on the amount of Credit that is being issued for the amount of time spent crunching per WU...
No matter how the credit system is set up a certain percentage of the people are going to be unhappy with it and the rest happy with it. No matter how they do the Credit System somebody is going to get the short end of it & somebody is going to make out like a bandit with it. There are just simply to many different systems to make everybody happy...IMO
____________
|
|
|
