If there are some chunchers that want more credit, give them.

Then other projects up the credits to get them back, so Seti ups the credits to get them back, then the other projects up the creditys to get them back.
Doesn't sound like a particulalry good idea to me.

It's much easier than raising money thru donnations.

True, but i expect the money would be appreciated much more than the "donated" time on hardware.


For me donated implies giving their time.
From the looks of it it's more a case of whoring for credits, not donating.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

It is of course your decision: no one asked you to build 23 machines just for SETI (or any other BOINC project).

And noone asked for fpop counting...

How long have you been here???

Credits & the claiming & allocation of them have been the single biggest bitching point since BOINC came out.
Like it or not, fpop counting addresses most of those issues.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Lets settle this the hard way.

Lets compare:

Apples(4.18) to Apples(5.12) and Oranges(4.11) to Oranges(5.12)

And stop letting some developers call Oranges(5.12) an Apple(5.12), as Apples(5.12) does not exist.

Step 1: Remove all the optimization code (trig cache, etc.) from Seti Enhanced 5.12 so that we have Apples(5.12) instead of Oranges(5.12) and call it 5.13.

Step 2: Now with Seti Enhanced (Apples(5.13) less Oranges(5.12) optimization) determine its worth in Credits based on the current fpop method and time it takes, and calibrate it against the stock 4.18 version as has been explained in this thread. {Hum.. bet that number comes out to be something a lot more than 63 credits, but at least you are comparing Apples(4.18) to Apples(5.12/5.13)}.

Step 3: Release Apples(5.13) as .. oops, Seti Enhanced 5.13, as the new "fixed" stock Seti application.

Step 4: Optimizers release their new improved Oranges(5.13) that claim the same credit based on the fpop method.

Step 5: Allow everyone to now compare Apples(4.18) to Apples(5.13) and to compare Oranges(4.11) to Oranges(5.13) and decide which application they wish to run. This way, this whole debate on Seti Enhanced Credit Fairness would not exist. (Well, except among those who can not find the optimized versions and among the developers.)

And noone asked for fpop counting...

Well, let's for arguments sake say Seti_enhanced does not use "flops-counting", but still relies on benchmark/cpu-time, if so, what will happen with granted credit?

Computer, uses 11400s with "normal" seti-v4.18, and 3600s with "optimized", and average granted is 24.2 CS/result. Let's also for easy's sake say this computer has the same claimed as granted.
Seti_Enhanced, ar=0.427219 used 28457.59375s with "normal", claimed/granted 62.239310296005 CS if uses "flops-counting".

Let's also say optimized enhanced slashes 20% off cpu-time, giving 22766s for this result. Meaning, optimized is 25% faster, and should give 25% more credit/day than "standard" Seti_Enhanced-application.


If relies on the standard benchmark and runs the "standard" application for both v4.18 & v5.12, the claims under Seti_Enhanced is:
24.2 CS / 11400s * 28457.59375s = 60.41 CS

If runs optimized Seti_Enhanced but "normal" BOINC-client:
24.2 CS / 11400s * 22766s = 47.09 CS.

If runs both optimized Seti_Enhanced and "optimized" BOINC-client:
24.2 CS / 3600s * 22766s = 153.04 CS.

If relies on "calibrated" BOINC-client:
"old" v4.18 -> fpops_est=2.79248e13 -> 2.79248e13/8.64e11 = 32.32 CS
ar=0.427219 -> fpops_est=6.42747e13 -> 6.42747e13/8.64e11 = 74.39 CS.


Just to sum it up, the claimed credits under Seti_Enhanced are:
Optimized SETI, normal BOINC : 47.09 CS
Standard SETI/BOINC : 60.41 CS
Flops-counting : 62.24 CS
Calibrated BOINC : 74.39 CS
Optimized SETI/BOINC : 153.04 CS

But, remember while the claims can be largely different, the granted credit is decided at same time wu is validated, and SETI@Home uses these rules:
1; If only 2 passed validation, lowest claimed to all.
2; If 3 or more, remove highest & lowest claimed and average the rest.
Any results returned later that also passes validation, gets the same granted credit as the rest, no re-calculation of granted credit is done.

SETI@Home is currently running with min_quorum = 3 & target_nresults = 4, hopefully they'll decrease these "soon" but anyway, with these rules the granted credit is normally decided when 3 results is in. Meaning, if relies on benchmark, only if more than 1 of these 3 results is run with optimized seti-application will the granted credit be changed.


So, yes, if Seti_Enhanced had choosen to continue to rely on the BOINC-benchmark, someone running optimized seti-application will ocassionally be paired-off with someone else running optimized seti-application, and therefore get 150 CS for a result. But, on next wu can be paired-off with a win9x with "timer-bug" and another there benchmark timed-out, so gets only 1 CS or something...

Over time, these spikes to either way will average-out, meaning you'll land very close on 60.41 Cobblestones.

But hang on, "flops-counting" gives immediately 62.24 Cobblestones, and this is within 5% of average granted credit you'll get by relying on benchmark/cpu-time, but you're not getting all the spikes.


So bottom line is, Seti_Enhanced still relying on benchmark/cpu-time would not have changed the average granted credit for someone running optimized Seti_Enhanced more than maybe 5% compared to it's now instead relying on "flops-counting". This difference is so small, that in my opinion it's insignificant.

BTW, while "flops-counting" actually gave higher credit in this example doesn't mean this is true for other angle-ranges, but would expect majority of wu is within 5%-10% of whatever granted credit you'll get from relying on cpu/benchmark instead.

So bottom line is, Seti_Enhanced still relying on benchmark/cpu-time would not have changed the average granted credit for someone running optimized Seti_Enhanced more than maybe 5% compared to it's now instead relying on "flops-counting". This difference is so small, that in my opinion it's insignificant.

There is one big hole in your argument. It is currently true only for a very small minority. The numbers of people who have optimized far exceeds those who have not. Case in point: I get at or very near what I claim about 85-90% of the time. The times that I get a very low (or even significantly lower) GC from what I claim are so far and few between that they have a negligible affect on my RAC. So it would appear that the majority do indeed use the optimized client/apps.

---

Daniel,

You have the "volunteer tester" tag -- did you not help with the Beta? Did you not comment on the crunching time or granted credit?

Did you think it'd somehow be different when Enhanced went live?

I forgot to address this point in my previous posts. YES, I thought it would be different when enhanced went live. Before I had to stop testing because I needed to devote more time to my terminally ill father, the enhanced workunits were being GRANTED credits in the range of between 160-230 credits per workunit, depending on angle range. Then, all of a sudden, just as the enhanced app was released for production, the version 5.12 came along, DRASTICALLY cutting granted credit per workunit. So, yes, this is what I was expecting when enhanced went into production. The granted credits remained decent, all the way through version 5.11. Now v5.12 comes along, and BANG. Slap in the face. Only 3 out of 23 machines are now working on enhanced, and already my RAC is dropping like a rock. Eric stated that he was trying to ensure that our GRANTED credits would remain the same as before. I was replying that after the credit CHOP of v5.12, this is simply NOT POSSIBLE. When the time to process goes up by a factor of SIX, but the credit per workunit goes up by a factor of TWO, the result is that your net granted credit goes DOWN by a factor of THREE. And that is exactly what is happening on my machines. It is very disconcerting to have built up some outstanding stats, and for all my time, effort and money spent, now seeing it all crumble before my eyes in a short amount of time. It is also interesting that no one with an opposing view of this has an RAC of over 5000!

Regards, Daniel.

---

There is one big hole in your argument. It is currently true only for a very small minority. The numbers of people who have optimized far exceeds those who have not. .....

And were do you get this information from, this is not somehing I see when looking at the other hosts crunching the same umits as my computers. The average person out there loads the software and runs it, they almost never visit these pages. It is one of the reasons it takes so long to get the BOINC client updated because until the Project insists on a minium version the majority never update it.

Most of the people who post on the Q & P pages, who have credit, do so not realise they would get a faster response, and frequently a more knowledgable one, on this board to the problem they have.
Andy

BIG snip..........

It is also interesting that no one with an opposing view of this has an RAC of over 5000!

Regards, Daniel.

Sorry to inform you that my RAC was at 6500 and has taken a hit as everyone's has. I alway's felt that since I was using an "optimized" application that it's use could be withdrawn at any time and then be forced to use the normal distributed app. I alway's felt the RAC near 6500 was artificially enhanced. Now it's back to normal.

[edit]WHY did I use the "optimized" client then? Cause my personality demands the newest, best, biggest of anything.[/edit]

---

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

Well, It's fascinating reading all the justifications being espoused by folks about how this new credit system is "really just the same because everyone is in the same boat" and various formulae and convoluted logic to justify how things "really aren't any different..." (if you have a quart of pineapples and exchange them for a stack of brass slugs....Yada Yada......)

My Seti Stable is pretty small in comparison to many, but I just got my electric bill on Saturday..... my power usage for my home systems and associated hardware (on a separate circuit) was over $230 for the month.....and this doesn't include the strain on my air conditioning (this is Florida, and it's getting hotter by the day).

I know the standard response will be "well, nobody asked you to do this.....etc etc" ....well ,you're right. It's just a hobby. I guess I'm competitive by nature, but without the competition and camaraderie of belonging to a competitive team, it has no appeal to me. Obviously, your mileage may differ.

I figure with what I can get by auctioning off some systems, what I typically spend on new/upgrading crunchers, monthly electric/air-conditioning bills, (let alone going deaf from listening to fan noise)etc, I can buy myself another Harley, or a new car.
A NICE new car...... Sounds like a no-Brainer.

---

~I like my beer dark, cigars strong, coffee black, bourbon straight and politicians on the end of a rope~
Mark Twain

There is one big hole in your argument. It is currently true only for a very small minority. The numbers of people who have optimized far exceeds those who have not. Case in point: I get at or very near what I claim about 85-90% of the time. The times that I get a very low (or even significantly lower) GC from what I claim are so far and few between that they have a negligible affect on my RAC. So it would appear that the majority do indeed use the optimized client/apps.

Well... one of your computers has currently 71 with granted credit, there your average claimed is... 30.87 CS/result while average granted is... 24.48 CS/result...

If you starts digging deeper into individual wu, you do have some wu there all has used optimized seti-application, but on many others you're the only one. Also, even some is using optimized seti-application, some is not using optimized BOINC-client, meaning they're claiming around 5-10 CS/result...


There's also another point, let's say before Seti_Enhanced was released, seti got 1 M result/day, thereof optimized was responsible for 500k of these results.

If cpu-times goes up 2.5x, it means afterwards the "normal" users crunches... 500k / 2.5 = 200k results/day.
The optimized on the other hand... 500k * 1.25 / (3 * 2.5) = 83k.
Meaning, the "50%" suddenly dropped to 30% under Seti_Enhanced.

Remember, the optimizers isn't 3x faster any longer, they're maybe only 1.25x faster, and will therefore be responsible for a smaller part of all results, and has therefore also less chance to influence granted credit.


And no, have no idea how many was really running optimized seti-applications.

[quote]
It is of course your decision: no one asked you to build 23 machines just for SETI (or any other BOINC project).

And noone asked for fpop counting...

Actually, I remember quite a few threads where people said "why can't they just count the actual number of operations?"

---

And were do you get this information from, this is not somehing I see when looking at the other hosts crunching the same umits as my computers. The average person out there loads the software and runs it, they almost never visit these pages. It is one of the reasons it takes so long to get the BOINC client updated because until the Project insists on a minium version the majority never update it.

Most of the people who post on the Q & P pages, who have credit, do so not realise they would get a faster response, and frequently a more knowledgable one, on this board to the problem they have.
Andy

As I said in my post, I based it on the returns I get on my WUs. If the majority of machines were not optimized I would see more times where I get much less GC than CC, but that is not what I am seeing.

---

Well... one of your computers has currently 71 with granted credit, there your average claimed is... 30.87 CS/result while average granted is... 24.48 CS/result...

If you starts digging deeper into individual wu, you do have some wu there all has used optimized seti-application, but on many others you're the only one. Also, even some is using optimized seti-application, some is not using optimized BOINC-client, meaning they're claiming around 5-10 CS/result...

You need to look back farther. Since the enhanced was released many people have pulled the plug on optimized clients (using the term as was explained to me earlier), so of course it would be as you say. But go back before enhanced was released and you will see that I am right.

---

The problem with version 5.11 is that it should never have been released on the main Seti site. The only official versions released are 5.12 and 5.13 which is for Mac only.

Ingleside has stated that they can detect users that overclaim on enhanced and they can adjust the claimed credits, to 0 if necessary.

It is also interesting that no one with an opposing view of this has an RAC of over 5000!

According to your line of reasoning regarding the SETI.USA/SETI.Germany situation, we ‘small fry’ ought to be the most upset by the change, because now it’ll be that much harder for us to catch up with the ‘big fish’. Or are you just asserting that our opinions are worth less than yours because you’ve contributed more crunching than we have?

---

If you starts digging deeper into individual wu, you do have some wu there all has used optimized seti-application, but on many others you're the only one. Also, even some is using optimized seti-application, some is not using optimized BOINC-client, meaning they're claiming around 5-10 CS/result...

You need to look back farther. Since the enhanced was released many people have pulled the plug on optimized clients (using the term as was explained to me earlier), so of course it would be as you say. But go back before enhanced was released and you will see that I am right.

Highly unlikely.
As has been mentioned earlier in the thread, most people download the software, set it up & then mostly forget about it. Optimised clients are generally only used by those that are in it for the competition. While they have a large total number of machines, they would be only a small percentage of the overall number of users.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

On something Seti could have done is hire Crunch3r and Trux to do an enhanced app and client, And support an optimized setup like is done in Einstein,....

I think that's what is upsetting many of the people that use Optimised applications. The Enhanced application has been considerably tweaked when compared to the standard application. So instead of getting 3 times the credit per hour of the standard application it's only slightly more.
Hence the world is ending etc.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

I guess I'm competitive by nature, but without the competition and camaraderie of belonging to a competitive team, it has no appeal to me.

I still can't see how the changes reduce the competition; it makes it more competitive IMHO because it won't be a case of pot luck any more as to whether you get 10 credits or 60 for doing a particular WU. It's evened things out.
*shrug*

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Grant, don't worry about it, evidently some don't want to compete when the playing field is even. Some just have to have an advantage or they won't play. They'll just take their ball and go home.

Grant, don't worry about it, evidently some don't want to compete when the playing field is even. Some just have to have an advantage or they won't play. They'll just take their ball and go home.

And that means that I will eventually overtake them. If they are no longer playing, then those that keep on crunching (even slowly) will pass them by.

---

BOINC WIKI