Optimising the clients benchmarks will increase your scores, which will in turn increase the estimated computational effort expended on any given WU. In short, it will raise your claimed credit. This will have a minor effect on granted credit, since you are always claiming high its more likely that the median of the middle scores will be high in quorums you form a part of. Arguably, this is cheating - your computer is performing less work for the same result than one running the official client, so it should be claiming less credit. (I said arguably. Me, I dont care. Credits are a means of keeping score, nothing more).

---

If you run an optimised science app and a non-optimised core client then you are actually engaged in negative cheating because you are deliberately conspiring to claim a smaller score than the one to which you are entitled. Not only that, but you are also conspiring to cheat your fellow crunchers by deliberately attempting to lower the median score so that the others in your quorum get penalised as well.

If you are going to run the optimised app and not the optimised CC then please have the decency to arrange for your cache size to be as large as possible and please submit your results as late as possible (but within the deadline) so that the other three in your quorum have a reasonable chance to set the awarded credit before your cheated low result has a negative influence on them. There is nothing that pisses me off more than to see a couple of you negative cheaters getting in way too early and sabotaging my legitimate proper score with your miniscule cheated low claims :).

---

Cheers,
Gary.

If you run an optimised science app and a non-optimised core client then you are actually engaged in negative cheating because you are deliberately conspiring to claim a smaller score than the one to which you are entitled. [..] There is nothing that pisses me off more than to see a couple of you negative cheaters getting in way too early and sabotaging my legitimate proper score with your miniscule cheated low claims :).

Well, Gary, I understand your concern about the subject, but I think you're out of line with your message. I see your smiley at the end, but it doesn't help much when the entire message was, as you said, in a "pissed" mood.

We just want to crunch more WU's - because of stats and/or science. Many of us have also tried to get the Core Client to work, but without luck. None of us are cheaters I think. At least we don't see ourselves as that, and my guess is that people don't like to be labelled that either. And deliberatly conspiring? Really! :(

When I was running 4.19, some said that was unfair to others, because I got higher grants... Now that I've switched to 4.44 (4.45 now actually), you say I'm cheating... Either way, someone will never be satisfied.

Your suggestion about uploading late isn't so easy to accomodate, because of the new scheduler getting in panic mode with a large cache. I had to reduce mine from 10 days to 5 - reluctently.

Guess Gary is already using 'optimized' Pentium clients! :) Something like
boinc_4.45_windows_intelx86
Don't know.. he is hidding his workstations ;)

---

During browsing berkeley's homepage I came along this statement that makes me say:
"ME!, ME!, ME!, wants to know, what patch was used and is it available for windows?"

Amazing increase in performance on my good old P3-450!
With the first optimized 4.11 (seti-p3.zip) crunch times went from less then 12 hours to less then 11 hours, with the new YAOSCW-K-r7 it's down to less than 7 hours/wu! Way to go Tetsuji! :)

Greetings,
Speedy67

---

I would like to thank Tetsuji Maverick Rai for the latest optimized seti apps. Using the standard seti version (4.09) times on my computer (Dual p3 700 with 512MB ECC SDRAM) were around 33,480 seconds per unit. The units I've run so far with the latest optimized version (YAOSCW-K-r7.zip package) are averaging about 23,400 seconds per unit. Although it's less of an improvment than others have observed, it is a significant improvment.

Gary wrote:

If you run an optimised science app and a non-optimised core client then you are actually engaged in negative cheating because you are deliberately conspiring to claim a smaller score than the one to which you are entitled. Not only that, but you are also conspiring to cheat your fellow crunchers by deliberately attempting to lower the median score so that the others in your quorum get penalised as well.

If you are going to run the optimised app and not the optimised CC then please have the decency to arrange for your cache size to be as large as possible and please submit your results as late as possible (but within the deadline) so that the other three in your quorum have a reasonable chance to set the awarded credit before your cheated low result has a negative influence on them. There is nothing that pisses me off more than to see a couple of you negative cheaters getting in way too early and sabotaging my legitimate proper score with your miniscule cheated low claims :).

If it's any consolation, I'm still using BOINC 4.19, and though from the only work order I've gotten so far with this optimized Seti client I've cut about 3000 off my CPU time, if you take a look at these results:
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=17521471
you will see I've still got the highest claimed credit. The other two results were using Seti 4.09, so I didn't negative cheat them. :)

---

<img src="http://boinc.mundayweb.com/one/stats.php?userID=531&amp;prj=1">

If you run an optimised science app and a non-optimised core client then you are actually engaged in negative cheating because you are deliberately conspiring to claim a smaller score than the one to which you are entitled. Not only that, but you are also conspiring to cheat your fellow crunchers by deliberately attempting to lower the median score so that the others in your quorum get penalised as well.

If you are going to run the optimised app and not the optimised CC then please have the decency to arrange for your cache size to be as large as possible and please submit your results as late as possible (but within the deadline) so that the other three in your quorum have a reasonable chance to set the awarded credit before your cheated low result has a negative influence on them. There is nothing that pisses me off more than to see a couple of you negative cheaters getting in way too early and sabotaging my legitimate proper score with your miniscule cheated low claims :).

Real cheating will begin when I make boinc core client giving extremely high benchmark scores...:) W/O hacking, it's possible on my HT box....run benchmark while other seti clients are running in standalone mode, and I got almost double Whetstone/Dhrystone scores. But I repeated benchmark again w/o any other apps and restored the "normal" benchmark scores.

---

Luckiest in the world. WMD = Weapon of Mass Distraction.
Click this table.

If you run an optimised science app and a non-optimised core client then you are actually engaged in negative cheating because you are deliberately conspiring to claim a smaller score than the one to which you are entitled. Not only that, but you are also conspiring to cheat your fellow crunchers by deliberately attempting to lower the median score so that the others in your quorum get penalised as well.

If you are going to run the optimised app and not the optimised CC then please have the decency to arrange for your cache size to be as large as possible and please submit your results as late as possible (but within the deadline) so that the other three in your quorum have a reasonable chance to set the awarded credit before your cheated low result has a negative influence on them. There is nothing that pisses me off more than to see a couple of you negative cheaters getting in way too early and sabotaging my legitimate proper score with your miniscule cheated low claims :).

What a load of crap...

If you run an optimised science app and a non-optimised core client then you are actually engaged in negative cheating because you are deliberately conspiring to claim a smaller score than the one to which you are entitled. Not only that, but you are also conspiring to cheat your fellow crunchers by deliberately attempting to lower the median score so that the others in your quorum get penalised as well.

If you are going to run the optimised app and not the optimised CC then please have the decency to arrange for your cache size to be as large as possible and please submit your results as late as possible (but within the deadline) so that the other three in your quorum have a reasonable chance to set the awarded credit before your cheated low result has a negative influence on them. There is nothing that pisses me off more than to see a couple of you negative cheaters getting in way too early and sabotaging my legitimate proper score with your miniscule cheated low claims :).

What a load of crap...

It doesn't really matter to me whether people use the optimized boinc client or not. When they do, they have a chance of getting more credit themselves. When they don't, there is a larger chance that other people get less credit.

I see the point in both the pro-optimized-boinc-client points-of-view and the contra-optimized-boinc-client point-of-view. To me it's really not that big a deal.

Science is done more quickly with optimized clients, and when a part of the people who run optimized clients want to claim extra credit for that, that's fair.

Greetings,
Speedy67

---

What a load of crap...

Hey Heffed,

Glad to see you enjoyed the intended humour in my post. You cunningly winkled out that subtly hidden smilie at the end, didn't you!! I can't fool you, you sly dog :).

However, whilst intended as pure spoof, I was really trying to get a point across to those who seem to be feeling guilty that they are cheating by using both an optimised science app and an optimised CC. Consider this simple example if you are in that camp.

Imagine you have an older cpu which will do a standard WU in 6 hours and claims 24 credits. You decide to upgrade the cpu to the latest mega gHz screamer that will do the same WU in two hours. How many credits would you expect the upgraded box to claim? 24 or 8?? It will actually still claim about 24 because both the science app and the benchmark routine are being "optimised" by running on the much faster cpu.

What is the difference in speeding up your production rate with a new and much faster cpu on the one hand or an optimised science app and CC on the other? In each case you are returning more work per unit time and should claim the same credit per unit of work done, which equates to more credit per unit of time.

As a final point, who really cares about credits anyway?? You can't buy anthing with them, they have no particular value, they are simply a personal achievement metric. Please don't start branding people who want to maximise their own personal achievement scores as "cheaters" unless there is actual cheating going on. In this case there is not.

---

Cheers,
Gary.

Just a side note.... with running the optimized seti app and client I find my seti credits per hour work out to be about the same, just getting more wu's done however, E@H... well thats another story. Because the client is optimized and E@H isnt I seem to be claiming much higher credits for this, sometimes as much as 20 extra per wu... mmmm :P

---

Cheers

Gav



Nothing is 'fool-proof', someone will always invent a better fool!

My system is a P4 HT 3.8ghz CPU. Supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3.

I added YAOSCW-P-r7, boinc_445-sse2.

I don't know if there is such a thing as to fast, but with HT my computer is doing 2 WU's in an 1 hour and 15 minutes. Only using 50% CPU.

Is this OK???

---

From my point of view, it's not OK - it's FANTASTIC! ;)

But then again I don't have your computer power. Just an old AMD 2500+... (and one 2000+)

My system is a P4 HT 3.8ghz CPU. Supports MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3.

I added YAOSCW-P-r7, boinc_445-sse2.

I don't know if there is such a thing as to fast, but with HT my computer is doing 2 WU's in an 1 hour and 15 minutes. Only using 50% CPU.

Is this OK???

It should be using 100% CPU - and probably is. Isn't there some tick-box on the task manager performance screen to show both 'halves' of a HT processor?
The times are ok, and it must be using both CPUs for 2 in 1:15.

---

I have used this new YAOSCW-application client and it's working nice!

I use non-sse3 p4 and N-version client. It's maybe slightly faster that the previous fftv -version, but I can't say for sure. It seems the packets have quite different sizes. My calculation times now are between 1:07...1:38. After couple days I'll calc some averages. I think there's couple minutes faster times for the same sized packets.

I also strated using the optimised 4.45 client. Works fine, even I didn't uninstall anything, just started to use the new client. Benchmark gives now maybe 10% better results. Not much nice little help against the nerfed credit claim.

Above all, I'm now calculating seti 2,3 times faster than before! Great!

---

Used the YAOSCW-P-r7 client with the official BOINC 4.45 and it cuts WU processing time by an hour! Now that was highly efficient client!! With HT, now I can do 2 WU in 1 1/2 hours using P4 2.8Ghz Prescott.

---

bell-chan

the w-version seems about 20 min faster than the previous fftv-version (1:4x instead of 2:0x) - the original boinc app needed about 3 hours (amd sempron palomino 2600+, 512 mb ram)

many thx for your hard work on this.
works great for me!

---

<a href="http://www.farrant.info/seticanada/"><img src="http://www.farrant.info/seticanada/boinccanadasm.gif"></a>

Some stats for AMD FX55:

AMD FX55 @ Recommended Boinc @ jojo4u

13.06.2005 17:23:49||Benchmark results:
13.06.2005 17:23:49|| Number of CPUs: 1
13.06.2005 17:23:49|| 2425 double precision MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU
13.06.2005 17:23:49|| 4527 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU
13.06.2005 17:23:49||Finished CPU benchmarks

WU time: ~ 4,517.03 sec

AMD FX55 @ boinc-445-sse2 @ recommended Seti

14.06.2005 02:42:16||Benchmark results:
14.06.2005 02:42:16|| Number of CPUs: 1
14.06.2005 02:42:16|| 3000 double precision MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU
14.06.2005 02:42:16|| 4623 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU
14.06.2005 02:42:16||Finished CPU benchmarks

WU time: ~ 6,215.05 sec

AMD FX55 @ boinc-445-sse2 @ YAOSCW-W-r7

WU time ~ 4,017.78 sec

---

During browsing berkeley's homepage I came along this statement that makes me say:
"ME!, ME!, ME!, wants to know, what patch was used and is it available for windows?"