Hey guys, see ya in a few days. I'm gonna stop crunching for a while until the system begins to get through all of that pending credit.

---

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

<img src="http://www.boincstats.com/signature/user_220108.gif"> +250 Classic Seti

Hey guys, see ya in a few days. I'm gonna stop crunching for a while until the system begins to get through all of that pending credit.

Frankly, it is hard to blame you. Though instead of stopping, I've shifted over to other projects. I'm still crunching SETI -- but that is going mostly into validation purgatory these days.

In May I started to add in Einstein so by early June 10% of my total credits were in Einstein and 90% in SETI. By the beginning of July, that split was 18%/82%. Toward the end of July, I added Climate into the mix. By the beginning of August, the split was something like 30%/69%/1%. As of this morning, for me the split of received credits is now 37%/58%/5%.

The actual current day to day split of course is much less going to SETI as the other projects 'catch up' to the head start for SETI BOINC in my splits. For me, in June the actual split was 70% SETI and 30% Einstein. For July, the split was 53% SETI, 44% Einstein, and 3% Climate. For the past 30 days (including this month and 10 days in July) the split is 34% SETI, 53% Einstein, 13% Climate.

What I figure to do starting today is reduce the SETI share even further, at least until we see some real progress in the validation performance.

One of the other things that 'gets' me about the SETI BOINC side of things is that the validation/credit award process is so much more variable than the other projects. I'm not at all sure what makes SETI so 'sensitive' in this regard, but the other projects don't have near the 'knock down' effect on expected versus awarded credit that I see with SETI. I see this in my systems with shared projects, but pretty much only on the SETI side -- so it points to something on the SETI side in this regard.

SETI seems to have a bunch of 'short units' as well -- which probably adds to the validation overhead (units which take say 2 or 3 minutes to process). The other projects (as far as I can tell), have none of this noise work to process.

All in all though, for me, instead of abandoning SETI or BOINC, I'm simply reducing the number of cycles allocated to SETI and shifting them over to Einstein or Climate. At some point, I *hope* to increase my SETI resource share but at this point, that will wait on seeing some progress at least in the validation handling. I don't know that the SETI folks can do anything to 'clean up' the workunit database to avoid noisy units to process though.

---

Take a break...Have a Kit Kat.

---

Foamy is "Lord and Master".
(Oh, + some Classic WUs too.)

Or just distribute your crunching power around to some other projects.

No need for your computer to go idle because SETI's having some problems.

---

BOINC WIKI
Overclockers.com's Forum

Yes, the answer is, join more projects. LHC is out of work at the moment though, but Einstein is up and running.

I put Seti on No new Work some days ago and will keep it there untill the validation starts to run smoothly again.

Yes, I've noticed also the difference in the claimed credit here in Seti. In my other projects I usually get almost about what I claim, but this is not the case here. I explain it with the numbers of optimized clients, which, as I see it, claim less credit than the un-optimized.

I don't know if this is true, so if anybody has an oppinion about this or knows, please tell us here.

---

"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me

Yes, the answer is, join more projects. LHC is out of work at the moment though, but Einstein is up and running.

(snip)

Yes, I've noticed also the difference in the claimed credit here in Seti. In my other projects I usually get almost about what I claim, but this is not the case here. I explain it with the numbers of optimized clients, which, as I see it, claim less credit than the un-optimized.

I don't know if this is true, so if anybody has an oppinion about this or knows, please tell us here.

@Fuzzy, yes, you are right, JOIN MORE PROJECTS! There is not a project out there that has not been down at some time for one reason or another.

I'm running an optimized 4.45 Seti client, which still takes 6-8 hours to compete 1 wu, and I usually claim more & granted alot less for it.

Latest S@H Work Units

I'm attached to 17 projects, all on one laptop. Idle? LOL ;-) I take a break, but it never does...

Yes, I've noticed also the difference in the claimed credit here in Seti. In my other projects I usually get almost about what I claim, but this is not the case here. I explain it with the numbers of optimized clients, which, as I see it, claim less credit than the un-optimized.

The wide variation in credit granted is the one and only facet of SETI-Boinc that I actually perceive to be broken. As far as I know, the way it's supposed to work is that everyone crunching a similarly sized workunit should get the same credit, period... regardless of how long it took to crunch or whether their machines can crunch 1, 2, or 4 units at the same time. Not just in a particular quorum, but across the whole project. I agree though that this isn't the highest priority right now, so it doesn't bother me if it's been pushed aside for a while.

I do know of folks who have gotten around this by compiling their own clients with artificially inflated benchmarks that give them the credits they feel they deserve. From what I understand, this is not considered cheating, but I do feel that there should be some standardization among the various clients and Berkeley should only accept results from those that have been 'approved'.

Just my thoughts, such as they are. :)

Dig

Hey guys, see ya in a few days. I'm gonna stop crunching for a while until the system begins to get through all of that pending credit.

... or just ignore the problems, and get that many more credits when things do catch up.

Ultimately, I suspect that the vast majority of crunching machines are basically on autopilot, their owners blissful in their ignorance.

I'm serious. I know why people get upset, but it is kind-of like your signature: absence of credit isn't credit for absence.

If you crunch it, they will come.

---

I thought about the no-new work option -- decided against it for me -- simply changed the resource share.

Regarding the claimed/actual credit thing -- might be a function of the client version -- but again, it IS SETI specific which suggest something else is going on.

I put Seti on No new Work some days ago and will keep it there untill the validation starts to run smoothly again.

Yes, I've noticed also the difference in the claimed credit here in Seti. In my other projects I usually get almost about what I claim, but this is not the case here. I explain it with the numbers of optimized clients, which, as I see it, claim less credit than the un-optimized.

I don't know if this is true, so if anybody has an opinion about this or knows, please tell us here.

---

Do you see the low granted credit just on SETI?

I'm running an optimized 4.45 Seti client, which still takes 6-8 hours to compete 1 wu, and I usually claim more & granted alot less for it.

---

Actually, I leave most of my outside workstations alone -- and they are typically 'single project' configured and mostly SETI. So changing resource share doesn't matter for them. It also provides me something of a benchmark for 'unattended single project' versus the multiproject closely watched systems. As a result of the changes, my home versus away share on SETI has changed from something like
60/40 to 53/47 over the past couple of months -- more recently (say over the past couple of weeks, over 60% of my SETI credits are coming from the away systems for me. Something like 7/8 of the Einstein credits are coming from the home systems and all of the Climate credits are generated from the home systems.

Ultimately, I suspect that the vast majority of crunching machines are basically on autopilot, their owners blissful in their ignorance.

If you crunch it, they will come.

---

NNW is an option for each & every project, it does not change your resource allocation. You will have to go to each project to change that.

I tend to end up with the "Norm" as my computer is not the fastest returning results. So, with it claiming "higher" if I am the 3rd or 4th it is usually thrown out, unless someone claims higher.

The optimized client for S@H claims more credit, but granted less. It is only optimized for S@H. So the rest of the clients are crunched the same as everyone else. PDB, TMR, Ned, & FF can better explain how the optimized clients work than I can. It crunches the wu faster, but there were (at one point) 2 different options to choose from using FFW & something else (I forget, Intel prob.). Point is, it helps me crunch a wu faster with a slower pc. If the program can be adjusted so that I claimed something in the "norm" or above, I'm happy.

In S@H I get into a quorum with Xeon's sometimes, or P4's, or P3's... so it's always different.

Each project is different as far as it's own quorum requirements too.

Hey guys, see ya in a few days. I'm gonna stop crunching for a while until the system begins to get through all of that pending credit.

Frankly, it is hard to blame you. Though instead of stopping, I've shifted over to other projects. I'm still crunching SETI -- but that is going mostly into validation purgatory these days.

In May I started to add in Einstein so by early June 10% of my total credits were in Einstein and 90% in SETI. By the beginning of July, that split was 18%/82%. Toward the end of July, I added Climate into the mix. By the beginning of August, the split was something like 30%/69%/1%. As of this morning, for me the split of received credits is now 37%/58%/5%.

The actual current day to day split of course is much less going to SETI as the other projects 'catch up' to the head start for SETI BOINC in my splits. For me, in June the actual split was 70% SETI and 30% Einstein. For July, the split was 53% SETI, 44% Einstein, and 3% Climate. For the past 30 days (including this month and 10 days in July) the split is 34% SETI, 53% Einstein, 13% Climate.

What I figure to do starting today is reduce the SETI share even further, at least until we see some real progress in the validation performance.

One of the other things that 'gets' me about the SETI BOINC side of things is that the validation/credit award process is so much more variable than the other projects. I'm not at all sure what makes SETI so 'sensitive' in this regard, but the other projects don't have near the 'knock down' effect on expected versus awarded credit that I see with SETI. I see this in my systems with shared projects, but pretty much only on the SETI side -- so it points to something on the SETI side in this regard.

SETI seems to have a bunch of 'short units' as well -- which probably adds to the validation overhead (units which take say 2 or 3 minutes to process). The other projects (as far as I can tell), have none of this noise work to process.

All in all though, for me, instead of abandoning SETI or BOINC, I'm simply reducing the number of cycles allocated to SETI and shifting them over to Einstein or Climate. At some point, I *hope* to increase my SETI resource share but at this point, that will wait on seeing some progress at least in the validation handling. I don't know that the SETI folks can do anything to 'clean up' the workunit database to avoid noisy units to process though.

Oh I know you can't blame any one person (Well, actually, how about the people running 75 or 100 machines and returning tens of thousands of units per day?) But, yeah, maybe instead of stopping I'll go to another project for a while. Good idea.

---

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

<img src="http://www.boincstats.com/signature/user_220108.gif"> +250 Classic Seti

Does anyone realize how silly this thread sounds? People are going away because they are not getting credit posted as fast as they would like. I, for one, am getting all the wu's I ask for and am returning all I compute. My account is getting credited in time. Command central has expressed confidence in solving the validation queue problem. So what's the fuss?

I say just pick the boinc project that excites you the most, focus on that, have a queue long enough to not run out of wu's, and get a life. (respectfully speaking, of course.)

(If I had one, I wouldn't be reading the message boards, I guess.)

---

May this Farce be with You

Does anyone realize how silly this thread sounds? People are going away because they are not getting credit posted as fast as they would like. I, for one, am getting all the wu's I ask for and am returning all I compute. My account is getting credited in time. Command central has expressed confidence in solving the validation queue problem. So what's the fuss?

I say just pick the boinc project that excites you the most, focus on that, have a queue long enough to not run out of wu's, and get a life. (respectfully speaking, of course.)

(If I had one, I wouldn't be reading the message boards, I guess.)

I wouldn't be here either if I had a life. But, alas, Here I am, stuck... on the Seti boards. This is your life!

---