Message boards :
Number crunching :
Credit: How is it calculated?
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
Jonathan Send message Joined: 27 Jun 15 Posts: 4 Credit: 680,121 RAC: 0 |
I'm curious. What is credit based off of, how is it calculated, and how is recent average credit calculated? |
Keith Myers Send message Joined: 29 Apr 01 Posts: 13164 Credit: 1,160,866,277 RAC: 1,873 |
Look here: https://boinc.berkeley.edu/wiki/computation_credit and here: https://boinc.berkeley.edu/trac/wiki/CreditNew Seti@Home classic workunits:20,676 CPU time:74,226 hours A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association) |
OzzFan Send message Joined: 9 Apr 02 Posts: 15691 Credit: 84,761,841 RAC: 28 |
When you figure it out, let the rest of us know! :-P |
jason_gee Send message Joined: 24 Nov 06 Posts: 7489 Credit: 91,093,184 RAC: 0 |
When you figure it out, let the rest of us know! :-P I can do that, because it's surprisingly simple when you boil it down. [tongue firmly in cheek of course] You start with a natural stochastic process and plug it into an averaging filter that has quantisation noise, add some temporal mismatch, which amounts to topological mixing, creating dense periodic orbits around a rate proportional to the average turnaround time [actually time to validation events]. Then you apply a downscaling (normalisation) related to the proportion of AVX, SSE1-4, and non SIMD reporting clients, and average with your wingman, and apply the cobblestone scale against the efficiency estimate compared to initial estimates of floating point operations (which tend to be relatively reasonable [on this project, for MB, not sure about AP]). See ? wasn't that hard. "Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions. |
Zalster Send message Joined: 27 May 99 Posts: 5517 Credit: 528,817,460 RAC: 242 |
I'm here for the toaster :P |
Jord Send message Joined: 9 Jun 99 Posts: 15184 Credit: 4,362,181 RAC: 3 |
[tongue firmly in cheek of course] Can you please give the technical explanation next? That normal people's jargon is hard to follow for us tech-heads. :( |
jason_gee Send message Joined: 24 Nov 06 Posts: 7489 Credit: 91,093,184 RAC: 0 |
[tongue firmly in cheek of course] Haha, I could, but that would take all the fun out, and I have a dentist appointment later today :P *exits stage right* [Edit:] I do have a dodgy diagram somewhere... hmmm, wonder where it went, oh well later. "Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions. |
Cruncher-American Send message Joined: 25 Mar 02 Posts: 1513 Credit: 370,893,186 RAC: 340 |
Credit: How is it calculated? Randomly, and poorly. |
Jord Send message Joined: 9 Jun 99 Posts: 15184 Credit: 4,362,181 RAC: 3 |
[Edit:] I do have a dodgy diagram somewhere... hmmm, wonder where it went, oh well later. Yes! A flow chart, please. :) |
jason_gee Send message Joined: 24 Nov 06 Posts: 7489 Credit: 91,093,184 RAC: 0 |
[Edit:] I do have a dodgy diagram somewhere... hmmm, wonder where it went, oh well later. Been quite a while since I looked at it, but if it was in my typical style it'll be like a flowchart in a bus accident with a circuit diagram. Incidentally no bugs were found in a pretty lengthy investigation. A number of design limits do create some weird interactions, but instabilities/limits aside the concept and logic is there. Just needs a bit of refinement. [Edit:] The two feedback averaging triangles probably aren't hooked up right, but illustrate the concept anyway "Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions. |
betreger Send message Joined: 29 Jun 99 Posts: 11361 Credit: 29,581,041 RAC: 66 |
Credit: How is it calculated? Yes, but it does add an added sense of adventure. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30661 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
I'm curious. What is credit based off of, how is it calculated, and how is recent average credit calculated? /dev/ranrom * credit_screw(# pulses) |
jason_gee Send message Joined: 24 Nov 06 Posts: 7489 Credit: 91,093,184 RAC: 0 |
Well that's the effect from the users' perspectives, but there are others. As the dodgy diagram very loosely shows, it does make a more or less complete closed loop control system. That there is opportunity for extra nice things left out, that the filters overlap in time (fight one another), and the apparent randomness isn't damped using a controller, you could argue would just be tuning from an engineering standpoint. The main missing bits are to use damped controllers instead of sample averages for the feedback, that the separate averages would need to be made to operate over different timespans (e.g. host over 1-10 tasks, app version over a day or so, and that then [missing] app and project averages could operate slower than that. For hosts and appversions, extended kalman filters might have been better choices than sample averages, then for apps(multiple app versions) and project level *multiple apps) perhaps particle filters. There is some scaling error due to using non-SIMD bionic whetstone, that can result in an incorrect figure of > 100% efficiency on AVX equipped hosts+apps, but coarse correction there would likely be much better& simpler than current. What can fall out of the above corrections, is a whole heap of statistical logic that can be applied back to the initial estimates, and all sorts of sanity/error/cheat prevention, not to mention that if working could provide a path to cross project parity that isn't a pipe-dream. That starts to move out of not funded two man development into large scale engineering though (being realistic), and amounts to AI (expert systems) "Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions. |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.