Message boards :
Number crunching :
Seti Enhanced Credit Fair?
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
Mike Gelvin Send message Joined: 23 May 00 Posts: 92 Credit: 9,298,464 RAC: 0 |
I have one system with several Seti Enhanced work units crunched. The CPU time varies by more than 50% in completion of the units, but the claimed credit is exactly the same at 19.05. How can this be right if the metrics come from the work? http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/results.php?hostid=1958599 |
Pappa Send message Joined: 9 Jan 00 Posts: 2562 Credit: 12,301,681 RAC: 0 |
Mike One thing shows is that the Worunits all have an AR of 1.2xx thus the credit claims are the same... Not sure why the time varies so much other than you may be using the computer... Hopefully Eric will See the Errors and have an answer for that... I have one system with several Seti Enhanced work units crunched. The CPU time varies by more than 50% in completion of the units, but the claimed credit is exactly the same at 19.05. How can this be right if the metrics come from the work? Pappa Please consider a Donation to the Seti Project. |
Michael Send message Joined: 21 Aug 99 Posts: 4608 Credit: 7,427,891 RAC: 18 |
Mike Pappa, correct me please if I am wrong...doesn't the claimed credit directly relate to the number of actual cpu cycles? |
Svenie25 Send message Joined: 20 Feb 05 Posts: 29 Credit: 297,165 RAC: 0 |
Pappa, correct me please if I am wrong...doesn't the claimed credit directly relate to the number of actual cpu cycles? I Think so. This is one of the new things of enhanced. |
Zap de Ridder Send message Joined: 9 Jan 00 Posts: 227 Credit: 1,468,844 RAC: 1 |
It should be related to the fops but I spotted Mike Gelvins observation too. In a matter of fact , pitty I did'nt posted it , I expected last night already that all the results of the same batch wil claim the same credits despite computing time. I have the 32.03 for the batch tough I do'nt have the big differences in crunching time as Mike Gelvin has. |
Geek@Play Send message Joined: 31 Jul 01 Posts: 2467 Credit: 86,146,931 RAC: 0 |
I have one system with several Seti Enhanced work units crunched. The CPU time varies by more than 50% in completion of the units, but the claimed credit is exactly the same at 19.05. How can this be right if the metrics come from the work? Where did you get the Boinc version 5.5.0 for Windows? The only Boinc version I see with this number was intended for Linux and your boxes are running Windows. Maybe this is the cause?? Your client computers are reporting <core_client_version>5.5.0</core_client_version> Boinc....Boinc....Boinc....Boinc.... |
Odysseus Send message Joined: 26 Jul 99 Posts: 1808 Credit: 6,701,347 RAC: 6 |
... The CPU time varies by more than 50% in completion of the units, but the claimed credit is exactly the same at 19.05. How can this be right if the metrics come from the work? All those results are showing the exact same number of FFTs performed, so identical credit claims, regardless of the time taken, are to be expected. Note that in each case the other hosts in the quorum also report the same amount of crunching. Why your CPU-times (or the measurements thereof) are so discrepant I have no idea, but the amount of work done on each WU was indeed the same. |
[HWU] GHz & CO. - BOINC.Italy Send message Joined: 1 Jul 02 Posts: 139 Credit: 1,466,611 RAC: 0 |
... The CPU time varies by more than 50% in completion of the units, but the claimed credit is exactly the same at 19.05. How can this be right if the metrics come from the work? How is the equation used to calcolate the claimed credit with the new client? It's based only on the number of FFTs performed? If the credits for the same WU are equal for all hosts, why in this case the pending credits fot one host are less? http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=76676710 GHz BOINC.Italy |
Zap de Ridder Send message Joined: 9 Jan 00 Posts: 227 Credit: 1,468,844 RAC: 1 |
... The CPU time varies by more than 50% in completion of the units, but the claimed credit is exactly the same at 19.05. How can this be right if the metrics come from the work? I can asure you the fpops differ too, not much in my case but they do . It's only to be seen under the message tab and the difference is not much but range from 2160 Mfpops til 2222 at least. |
Eric Korpela Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 1382 Credit: 54,506,847 RAC: 60 |
There error is probably due to a problem with the jpeg file (seti512.jpg) that was downloaded with the enhanced client. It should be 9068 bytes long and have an md5 of 75af6760157fdf8b2178971cb8f27851. I'm going to have to come up with a way to solve this outside of the jpeg library. :( Eric I have one system with several Seti Enhanced work units crunched. The CPU time varies by more than 50% in completion of the units, but the claimed credit is exactly the same at 19.05. How can this be right if the metrics come from the work? @SETIEric@qoto.org (Mastodon) |
Odysseus Send message Joined: 26 Jul 99 Posts: 1808 Credit: 6,701,347 RAC: 6 |
How is the equation used to calcolate the claimed credit with the new client? It's based only on the number of FFTs performed? I don't know the formula or ratioâ€â€they've done a fair bit of tinkering with it to make it come out with similar earning rates, on average, to other projectsâ€â€but yes. See this message from Eric Korpela, posted a few months back in the Test Project forum, showing the kind of analysis that's been done to develop the formula. If the credits for the same WU are equal for all hosts, why in this case the pending credits fot one host are less? That host is using an old BOINC client, v4.45. Clients earlier than v5.2.6 (? or so) can only claim credit according to time-&-benchmarks, ignoring an app's reported Flop count; there's been talk of cutting them off at some point in the future, when Enhanced has become 'the only game in town'. |
Eric Korpela Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 1382 Credit: 54,506,847 RAC: 60 |
The application keeps a running total of the number of floating point operations performed. The application reports credit for 3.35 times this number of floating point operations. (3.35 was chosen to make the median credits/hour to equal what the non-enhanced application was reporting). Eric @SETIEric@qoto.org (Mastodon) |
Mike Gelvin Send message Joined: 23 May 00 Posts: 92 Credit: 9,298,464 RAC: 0 |
I have one system with several Seti Enhanced work units crunched. The CPU time varies by more than 50% in completion of the units, but the claimed credit is exactly the same at 19.05. How can this be right if the metrics come from the work? From the DEV site |
Jord Send message Joined: 9 Jun 99 Posts: 15184 Credit: 4,362,181 RAC: 3 |
Please point it out to me. ;) All I see there are the Linux versions... None for Windows (2003). |
eL_nino Send message Joined: 11 Mar 04 Posts: 79 Credit: 999,964 RAC: 0 |
I think people said that benchmarking results doesnt count in this "new credit system"... But- with optimized client benchmarks I claimed much more credits than "ordinary" benchmarks.. so, I dont know how this new credit system works... But it has something to deal with benchmarks |
Pappa Send message Joined: 9 Jan 00 Posts: 2562 Credit: 12,301,681 RAC: 0 |
eL Nino If you are running a Bencmark based COINC Core Client then credits will be wacked out... The application was designed for Fpops.. In a quorum that has two Fpop's BOINC Core Client 5.2.6 or higher you will lose... The thing that makes it work is a BOINC Core Client (currently 5.2.13) Then it does not matter if it is a High power Xeon, AMD X2 or my PII 350... The credits are the same... I think people said that benchmarking results doesnt count in this "new credit system"... But- with optimized client benchmarks I claimed much more credits than "ordinary" benchmarks.. so, I dont know how this new credit system works... But it has something to deal with benchmarks Pappa Please consider a Donation to the Seti Project. |
Mike Gelvin Send message Joined: 23 May 00 Posts: 92 Credit: 9,298,464 RAC: 0 |
Please point it out to me. ;) The default source code when you check it out is now 5.5.0. As far as I know, there are no pre-compiled versions available. |
Grant (SSSF) Send message Joined: 19 Aug 99 Posts: 13841 Credit: 208,696,464 RAC: 304 |
There error is probably due to a problem with the jpeg file (seti512.jpg) that was downloaded with the enhanced client. It should be 9068 bytes long and have an md5 of 75af6760157fdf8b2178971cb8f27851. How does the .jpg file affect the crunching times/credit claims? Grant Darwin NT |
Pappa Send message Joined: 9 Jan 00 Posts: 2562 Credit: 12,301,681 RAC: 0 |
Grant The seti512.jpg probably had a download error... That cause the Client Errors that were identified. The fact that the times were different on the same machine, something was ahppeing that was taking time away from the 5.12 application... As the actual Floating Point Operations (Fpop) were what was count by the application the credit came out the same... All the results that were identified were teh same Angle Range (AR). One of the last things to have happen was to get all results no matter what AR to report the same amount or minimize the differences in credit... Pappa There error is probably due to a problem with the jpeg file (seti512.jpg) that was downloaded with the enhanced client. It should be 9068 bytes long and have an md5 of 75af6760157fdf8b2178971cb8f27851. Please consider a Donation to the Seti Project. |
Eric Korpela Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 1382 Credit: 54,506,847 RAC: 60 |
Sorry, I guess I could have been more clear. :) I was explaining the error results that were reported by that host, not trying to explain the credits... Eric @SETIEric@qoto.org (Mastodon) |
©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.