How about this...........

The company has a few employees that are extremely efficient in their work. These employees are less than 1% of the work force but they perform their work 3 to 4 times faster on any given day. These employees are rightfully rewarded for their efficiency with an RAC that is higher and also earning more credits during their shift than the other 99% of employees. One production manager was heard to say of these workers "I wish I could clone them."

Now suddenly the company has changed it's mission statement and wishes to make a more detailed examination of all work. Quality is now more important than quantity. There is no discrimination to those former 1% of the employees. They are simply being integrated back into the mainstream with the rest of the employees and they must expect to be compensated exactly like the rest of the employees. Of course they are free to explore other avenues of employment but they will always remember their good times at Seti.

The playing field is level again as it should be!

---

Boinc....Boinc....Boinc....Boinc....

Seti seems unwilling to be confrontational, and just say/do things which might upset the user base.

And yet, apparently, this move is upsetting a large portion of their user base. Hmmm, kind of contradicts what you said.

Perhaps, they came out with Fpops to address the use of optimized core clients without actually saying so? Saying "hey your cheating and we're going to stop it" is confrontational. Implementing a "new way" is a more polite (if not chicken) way of doing it. Why else would Fpops counting be implemented? The only reason I can think of, is to get a better grasp on the unfair credit issues including optimized core clients.
so, why else would they switch to fpops?

If the previous credit system was so unfair, why have I not seen discussions to that affect? Everybody appeared to be rocking along quite happy with the previous system. Contention only became apparent with the new system, which leaves me to conclude that it is the one that is unfair.

---

I would guess the amount of credit that the enhanced application claims has been tuned in a way that seti stays fair w.r.t. credit/cpu hour when compared to the other boinc projects.

There has been a big advantage with the optimized standard clients.

I more or less expected the credits to go down like this.


Regards Hans

---

Tony, I would hope that someone of your character is not accusing anyone of cheating. .

I certainly wasn't naming any names, especially you. But my comment wasn't a joke.

Some windows based optimized core clients are based to claim nearly 32.29 credits per wu. This assigns an arbitrary value to a wu which is not intended by the developers of boinc. 32.29 credits was the idealized value of a "reference" result. This WU "picked from a hat" (as it were) happens to be 25% longer than the average wu. Since the formula for claimed credits (using benchmarks) is based on "benchmark times cpu time", the value of an average WU is between 24-25. Any optimized core client claiming more as a standard is violating the intent of the developers and is IMO cheating.

This use of optimized core clients has spread to other projects. Except for Trux's client, they are wreaking havoc there. Every forum is filled with comments about this. Even users of those projects who have NO valid reason for using the optimized core clients are doing so, just to claim more than they deserve, and that is cheating. There only justification is to say "hey, If I'm going to compete, I have to", or "everyone else is doing it"

It seems to me that litlle if any prior planning went into the thought process while creating an optimized core client as to what impact it would have on boinc as a whole, and was solely limited to "get me as much credit as possible". It's boincs intention (and certain Dr. Andersons') that the most important thing is "parity" between projects when it comes to boinc.

One thing that's bothering me is why hasn't seti set the data table to only ship work to CC's with a min value of 5.2.6.

How about this...........

The company has a few employees that are extremely efficient in their work. These employees are less than 1% of the work force but they perform their work 3 to 4 times faster on any given day. These employees are rightfully rewarded for their efficiency with an RAC that is higher and also earning more credits during their shift than the other 99% of employees. One production manager was heard to say of these workers "I wish I could clone them."

Now suddenly the company has changed it's mission statement and wishes to make a more detailed examination of all work. Quality is now more important than quantity. There is no discrimination to those former 1% of the employees. They are simply being integrated back into the mainstream with the rest of the employees and they must expect to be compensated exactly like the rest of the employees. Of course they are free to explore other avenues of employment but they will always remember their good times at Seti.

The playing field is level again as it should be!

I find it extremely funny that you put it that way. The reason: A local company did just that (only I think it was more like 5% of their workers). After being told their wages were being decreased, the 5% left the company for greener pastures. The company implemented their plan and within 1 year they were in Chapter 11.

The reason: Not only did their plan reduce quantity, but the quality also fell off by a considerable margin. Turned out that the 5% that left were not only the highest in production but were also turning out the highest quality of work.

---

One thing that's bothering me is why hasn't seti set the data table to only ship work to CC's with a min value of 5.2.6.

Tony...I think this is probably not far in the future.

---

Boinc....Boinc....Boinc....Boinc....

I, for one, don't even think the idea of needing an optimized "windows" core client has any merit. However, designed or implemented. It's the intention of boinc that claimed credit be entirely dependent on how fast a machine you have period. the formula put forth and adopted by boinc is "claimed credit = ([whetstone]+[dhrystone]) * wu_cpu_time_in_sec / 1728000". There's nothing there that states a wu has a standard value at all. It's intent was to reward users based upon "how fast a machine" time "how long it worked".

This "Idea" that a wu should have a certain value is wrong. It's a paradigm in users minds based upon prior methods (read classic- 1 wu = 1 credit}. If users use an optimized application, that's fine (if it's results are scientifically valid/useful), but any wu done ISN'T, and shouldn't be viewed as having the same value as one crunched without an optimized app, because Boinc doesn't place a standard value on any wu. It's simply benchmark times work time. I.E if you use an optimized app, then you've done less work as measured by time (not WU count), and should be claiming less, not using some third party software to impart someone elses idea of WU values.

Under the original boinc intended system your computer would be claiming exactly the same credit, without regard to project (except CPDN). It's Parity between projects which is the goal of boinc.

In this post by Crunch3r he states:

I would max. the benchmarks out a bit more but it looks like that it's not possible to get any further improvements.

Does it look like he cares what the intent of Boinc or seti are? It's all about credits.

You looked at the wrong project ;-)

Sorry, but you posted here and I was looking here, so it seemed the obvious place to start....!

Seriously, that sounds like somebody finger-fumbled when compiling the beta 5.13 - and BETA is exactly the right place to make those finger-fumbles, that's what it's there for - so mistakes can be made in (semi) private, without frightening the masses.

I hope you've reported in the (apparent) bug - not being a 'volunteer tester' myself, it's not so easy to check.

To clarify:

The Windows Beta build of 5.12 had an unintended fpops multiplier of 7, other platforms had the intended 3.35.

All Release builds of 5.12 have the intended 3.35 multiplier, as do the Beta 5.13 and 5.14 builds.

IOW, the credit claims in Beta from a Windows system running Beta 5.12 are slightly more than twice what is intended.

                                                                         Joe

In this post by Crunch3r he states:

I would max. the benchmarks out a bit more but it looks like that it's not possible to get any further improvements.

Does it look like he cares what the intent of Boinc or seti are? It's all about credits.

Hi Tony.

Please don't be so hard on us optimizers :o)

The standard app gained quite a bit of speed trough optimisation, and a lot of the changes have found their way into the enhanced app.

Without these, the enhanced crunching times would easily be 3-4 times longer...

Regards Hans

P.S:
The post you quoted addressed getting the optimized app to claim the same amount of credit than the standard app.
This horse has been beaten to death already ....

Crunch3r puts a lot of effort into releasing only valid apps.

---

Hans, I have NO issues with optimized applications. Everything I've said is in relation to the Boinc Core Clients (optimized for windows). I use an optimized app my self, or I did until enhanced was released.


Yes, beaten to death by us old timers, but SargeD stated he hadn't seen it discussed before, and some new people out there don't understand it. So it seems we must discuss it yet again to catch up the people who weren't here when Windows optimization started with TMR.

It's been many many months since I've had to pick up this stick again. I've remained quiet, biting my lip for many many months. It isn't easy, you know?.

regards
tony

Hans, I have NO issues with optimized applications. Everything I've said is in relation to the Boinc Core Clients (optimized for windows). I use an optimized app my self, or I did until enhanced was released.

regards
tony

Hmm. OK

I'm in the process of dropping seti 4.x completely from my hosts because of the credit muddle.

IMO the non-enhanced seti app has become obsolete.

Regards Hans

---

I've got it out of my system now, I feel better. The pent up stress level has diminished. I shall drop it again.

Ingleside

I really do appreciate the time you are taking... Realistically, I am PRO Enhanced!

The hours spent moving back an forth between here and Beta have show that we are getting close... Credits and Win 9x were the final issues to be resolved...

Currently all we are doing is airing our opinions... Those opinions are based on our own "small look" at the seti credits world...

So as I have said, we need to get Enhanced Transitioned and stable for the daily output to all machines... Only then can we have a true before and after comparison...

...
Well, let's see, "classic", if a fast computer used 1h/wu and a slow 6h/wu, the fast would get 24 "wu-credit"/day while the slow 4 "wu-credit"/day, meaning fast gets 6x more credit/day.

Well it depended on the benchmarks run by boinc.

Not in "classic". ;)

But anyway, in case no-one understood, just like I've "normalized" to 1h in the deadline-table, did something similar here to make the calculations "easier" to follow.
... And not to forget, I've not got a computer that uses 6x longer cpu-time than the fastest. ;)

But, 1h/wu atleast in "classic" isn't so far-off, since there was some OS/cpu-platforms that had average cpu-time close to 1h, not sure if not one of them was actually less than 1h on average, but since this table isn't there any longer can't check.
Heavy Snipping...

---

Please consider a Donation to the Seti Project.

Sorry about the work stuff, It was going to be deleted, The 1:1 was meant of course. Right now It's more work and less credit, What next forbid overclocked computers from running Boinc??? Whole teams are running that way.

I think I have more grey hairs than You, Junior.

Along with the grey hairs, I would have expected a little more common sense.

I'm not running optimized clients at this time. Not opposed to optimized clients, and yes, they are faster. I don't know how much better the optimized enhanced clients run.

What I do know is that 4.18 claims about 11 credits an hour, and I'm usually granted about 9.2 (averaged over four work units).

Across four 5.12 work units, I requested and was granted 7.4.

So, yeah, credit is a little lower based on my sample. Is it more accurate? Seems to be.

The sample is kind-of small -- it should be averaged over a few dozen work units of each type.

Someone else pointed out pinball machines -- how the maximum score used to be 9,999 and is now in the millions. All SETI has to do is double the credits, then everyone who is complaining will be excruciatingly happy.

... and then Einstein will tweak their application to request more credits, and next thing you know, we'll be griping about "credit inflation."

---

Just a quick note to say I agree 100% with everything that Tony (mmciastro) has written here.

I also have no objection to optimised applications, and have used them since Tetsuji introduced them last year. But like Tony I was very skeptical of the BOINC client alterations, and have frequently raised my objections to the assumption that the credits for an average unit prior to version 5.n was approx. 32 credits. And like Tony I have not in the past accused people who use optimised clients of cheating, but do believe they are, especially those using them with other projects.

If you read the Beta NC board you will probably have noticed I was, in most cases, the first to point out the credits/time were not in line with other projects, and that until the final phase the credits were not linear with AR. Initially when the crunch times were 30+ hrs they were too low. My Beta account # is 163, so you can see I signed up within the first few days.

On this subject I think the project was released here too soon, as I don't think enough low and very low angle range units were done to make the correct adjustments to the credit calculation. I also have some reservations on the credit calculation at high AR with respect to different cpu's, especially as I understand most of the analysis was done on one make of cpu, and that is not the most common make of cpu.

Andy

Thinking back to when enhanced was being developed (Seti Beta), I remember Matt L. saying something to the effect that under the current Boinc system and growth that it was becoming more and more difficult for the servers to maintain that growth. Enhanced and eventually Astorpulse would dramatically reduce the load on their hardware and allow the project to continue their growth.

I believe that many of us in the Seti Community can accept these changes. Very few would argue that if the development of these projects did indeed allow for that growth.

Of course I'm stating the obvious that the whole argument is the credit system. Could it have been possible that rather than the resulting system that has been packaged with enhanced..but to have left it similar to what the original boinc app produced?

If the purpose was to reduce the load on the servers..why would one alter the credit system as well? I think that more people would have been happy if that Enhanced and Astropulse would have only done so..(reducing server load)

Of course I'm stating the obvious that the whole argument is the credit system. Could it have been possible that rather than the resulting system that has been packaged with enhanced..but to have left it similar to what the original boinc app produced?

It would be entirely possible to have left the credit system alone.

You may want to read the message boards and look at all the complaints about S@H, benchmarks, how the benchmarks are "inaccurate" and how different CPUs benchmark low but produce work quickly, or benchmark high and produce low.

4.18 estimated the number of (mainly floating point) operations based on the benchmark * CPU time. 5.12 actually counts floating-point ops.

If you look at your own results, you can see that there was almost always a difference between claimed and granted credits, and now they are almost always the same.

That's better, even if some "win" and some "lose" as a result.

One way to stop the complaints would be to just raise the credits by 50% but that starts the whole credit inflation thing, and that's exactly what the project was trying to avoid.

---

Just a question from someone who has only been at this for a few months. If credits don't matter why are they even kept and recorded? If they are not important why list and post them everywhere? Why all those little stat boxes i see all around? I understand this whole BOINC thing is about the science but anyone can plainly see it's not only about the science. That may have been the project's original intent but it has obviously evolved into something more. Pure scientific exploration started this mission, but giving it's participants something tangible to experience is what has made it grow to include some 650,000 people world wide. Science is at the core of why we are all here. I see nothing wrong with dressing it up a little if it leads to more work getting done. However frivilous it may seem to some the element of competition is what will get BOINC it's 1,000,000th and 2,000,000th user.

---

So that a workunit claimed X amount of credit, no matter what machine it is processed on. And that is fine. I think it's great. But to do that, then also slash the amount of credit granted by each workunit is WRONG. At least running v5.11, the granted credit WAS close to the break-even point. But when each one of us looks at what they have accomplished here, then sees that accomplishment cut by a factor of THREE, then what do we have to look forward to?

Well, let's see, someone running the "normal" application on a specific computer gets example 10 Cobblestones/hour, and this "pay" haven't changed significantly from v4.18 & v5.12.

Someone running on an exact "clone" of the same computer, is running an optimized seti-application, and doesn't understand why he's suddenly not getting 30 Cobblestones/hour any longer...


Well, why does an optimized v4.18-seti-application give 3x more Cobblestones/hour compared to "normal" application?
Because it's 3x faster doing the same work.
But, an optimized Seti_Enhanced is maybe only 25% faster, and will therefore only get "paid" 25% more than "normal" application.

So, the fact is, no-one is paid "less" for doing the work, but it's rather the optimizers isn't doing 3x more work/hour and gets 3x more Cobblestones/hour, but instead with Seti_Enhanced they're only doing 25% more work/hour and gets only 25% more Cobblestones/hour.





Let's look on a non-SETI@Home-example, let's say Jack & Joe is filling 1-litre-milk-bottles, and is paid according to how many milk-bottles they've filled in a day.

Jack walks and collects 1 bottle at a time, fills it with milk, and walks and puts it in a case. He manages 1000 bottles/day.

Joe after a little thinking decides walking with only 1 bottle wastes much time, so instead he moves the whole case, fills-it, and moves the case back. Due to cutting-down on walking, he manages 3000 bottles/day.

In this example, Joe gets paid 3x more than Jack, since Joe has filled 3x more bottles/day.


So, after some time, a new "high-speed" pump that is 5x faster filling a bottle is installed, and Jack & Joe gets slightly different work-descriptions, they'll get 2x as much for each milk-bottle they manages to fill, but each bottle is larger, 10 litre.

Jack works just like before, walks and collects 1 bottle at a time, fills it with milk, and walks and puts it in a case. He manages 500 bottles/day. Since each bottle is now worth 2x, he gets paid the same as he did for 1000 1-litre-bottles.

Joe still collects the whole case, fills-it, and moves the case back. But, since the bottles is now much heavier, he uses much longer to move the full case, and manages only 625 bottles/day. At 2x, this means he is paid the same as if he did only fill 1250 1-litre-bottles.

Now, Joe is still filling more bottles/day than Jack, and he's still getting paid more than Jack. But, since Joe isn't filling 3x more bottles than Jack any longer, he isn't paid 3x more than Jack any longer either. Instead, Joe now gets 25% more paid than Jack, since Joe is filling 25% more bottles than Jack.