Message boards :
Number crunching :
Seti Enhanced Credit Fair?
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 . . . 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 . . . 23 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
SargeD@SETI.USA Send message Joined: 24 Nov 02 Posts: 957 Credit: 3,848,754 RAC: 0 |
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. |
SargeD@SETI.USA Send message Joined: 24 Nov 02 Posts: 957 Credit: 3,848,754 RAC: 0 |
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... 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. |
zoom3+1=4 Send message Joined: 30 Nov 03 Posts: 66277 Credit: 55,293,173 RAC: 49 |
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, Einstein hired a guy named akosf to do just that, Oh and to those that think Einstein will be doing the same as Seti, Einstein won't be going the longer crunch route and the Calibrating client of Trux's is not looked down on there either and no one worries that there are 4 or so different apps as not everyone has newer cpus with MMX, MMX+, 3DNow, 3DNow+, SSE, SSE2 or SSE3. I've read here in Seti that the under 5.11 the Credits were higher, Yet when 5.12 came out they suddenly dropped and that the DEVs are supposedly looking at the problem. I mentioned this before and It was not even commented on for some unknown reason to Me. http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/forum_thread.php?id=4050#33718 The Following is from Mike Hewson a Forum Moderator in the Einstein Forums(Questions are mine): 1. Are optimized Einstein Apps/Clients officially allowed here and encouraged? Savoir-Faire is everywhere! The T1 Trust, T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, America's First HST |
W-K 666 Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19354 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 |
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. |
Odysseus Send message Joined: 26 Jul 99 Posts: 1808 Credit: 6,701,347 RAC: 6 |
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? |
Grant (SSSF) Send message Joined: 19 Aug 99 Posts: 13841 Credit: 208,696,464 RAC: 304 |
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... 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 |
Grant (SSSF) Send message Joined: 19 Aug 99 Posts: 13841 Credit: 208,696,464 RAC: 304 |
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 |
Grant (SSSF) Send message Joined: 19 Aug 99 Posts: 13841 Credit: 208,696,464 RAC: 304 |
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 |
Astro Send message Joined: 16 Apr 02 Posts: 8026 Credit: 600,015 RAC: 0 |
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. |
John McLeod VII Send message Joined: 15 Jul 99 Posts: 24806 Credit: 790,712 RAC: 0 |
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 |
Jord Send message Joined: 9 Jun 99 Posts: 15184 Credit: 4,362,181 RAC: 3 |
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, Einstein hired a guy named akosf to do just that Akosf was releasing reverse-engineered optimized Windows science apps long before he was hired by Einstein. Starting a science app from scratch is something completely different. Same with a BOINC client. I've read here in Seti that the under 5.11 the Credits were higher, Yet when 5.12 came out they suddenly dropped and that the DEVs are supposedly looking at the problem. The only problem there seems to be is that people with a lot of credit and lots of RAC, who ran ultra optimized clients and ultra calibrated Boinc versions, see their crunch times go up. This hacks into the credit per hour and thus in your RAC. No explanation of why this is happening is good enough. Angle Range, variable deadlines, no more credits based on benchmarking, more science per result. No!!! It's credits that the project revolves around, nothing else. Or so it would seem. And so, if we can't crunch 48 results per 24 hours on Seti anymore, why not go over to a project that can? That'll teach them! |
Astro Send message Joined: 16 Apr 02 Posts: 8026 Credit: 600,015 RAC: 0 |
Hey, I got an idea. Why not reward the users who've maintained the intent of boinc by not running optimized core clients with a 20,000 per host bonus credit, and those who ran Truxes core client (with calibration turned OFF for all other projects not using optimized apps) a 10,000 per host bonus. This should happen on all projects. I think this would be fair. what do you think? :) |
Daniel Schaalma Send message Joined: 28 May 99 Posts: 297 Credit: 16,953,703 RAC: 0 |
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? Actually what I am stating is that all those with the opposing view are not power users. So, where will you all be once all those of us "big fish" as you say leave? If all the power crunchers leave, say those with an RAC of 15,000 or more, just how long do you think it would take to get any work validated. But I'm guessing that the gripes under the cut credits of v5.12 go even farther down say, those with 9,000+ RAC. Those people are obviously crunching for competition and CREDIT. There, I've said it. That most PROFANE of all words in the English language. The "C" word. CREDIT. There, I've said it again. What happens to a project that treats it's top participants like pariahs. Well, I guess you'll soon find out. Regards, Daniel. |
Idefix Send message Joined: 7 Sep 99 Posts: 154 Credit: 482,193 RAC: 0 |
Hi, sorry if I'm not telling anything new. It's hard to keep your reading updated ... Jack Gulley wrote: Lets compare: If I do understand various postings correctly this has already been done. The average granted credit per hour of an standard 4.18 application is nearly the same as of an standard 5.12 application (using a standard Boinc client) -- Disclaimer: I haven't tested it. I cannot tell if it is true. The "problem" is that optimizations done by Crunch3r & Co. found their way into the new standard client. As a result further optimizations aren't as effective as they were with the 4.18 application because 5.12 is already optimized in some degree. This leads to a lower credit per hour rate of 5.12 if you are comparing the optimized applications. But this leads to the ultimative question again: What are "fair" credits? Is it fair if the standard systems are getting the same credits per hour like before? Is it fair if optimized clients are getting the same credits per hour like before? Is it fair if one project is granting much more credits per hour than another project? The person who solves this problem in an appropriate manner will have 500,000 new friends ... SargeD wrote: 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. *Because* the majority runs standard applications with standard boinc clients you got your CC. Keep in mind: the "optimized" boinc clients were only needed to bring the underclaimed CC caused by the optimized science applications back to where it should be (if it was 24 or 32 is another question ...). Without any optimization there wasn't any underclaiming (well, in most cases). Regards, Carsten |
zoom3+1=4 Send message Joined: 30 Nov 03 Posts: 66277 Credit: 55,293,173 RAC: 49 |
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, Einstein hired a guy named akosf to do just that Then You and Your fellows can crunch seti by Yourselves when the 4.18 WU's come to an end, As I won't crunch the 5.12 WU's for less per hour than is earned under 4.18. It would be nice to have a system of checks and balances to keep any programmers from trying to cheat(Some sort of result that would be the same across all apps/clients that couldn't be altered) or even just a flat credit(Non zero), But If science is all that important, Why not just cut the credit to Zero and have done with It? Then the ones who want to crunch for nothing will be happy and alone. Savoir-Faire is everywhere! The T1 Trust, T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, America's First HST |
Daniel Schaalma Send message Joined: 28 May 99 Posts: 297 Credit: 16,953,703 RAC: 0 |
And would someone please tell me why crunching PURELY for CREDIT is somehow BAD??? There are those that ARE here JUST for credit. But what you don't or more to the point, CAN'T accept, is that the "greedy credit whores" are the ones who are actually doing the MOST science. Isn't THAT ironic!!! Take away their motivation for crunching, and the bottom line is that it HURTS the SCIENCE, because there won't be many hosts left DOING any science. The project management should be thinking about that, and so should all of YOU. Regards, Daniel. |
zoom3+1=4 Send message Joined: 30 Nov 03 Posts: 66277 Credit: 55,293,173 RAC: 49 |
And would someone please tell me why crunching PURELY for CREDIT is somehow BAD??? There are those that ARE here JUST for credit. But what you don't or more to the point, CAN'T accept, is that the "greedy credit whores" are the ones who are actually doing the MOST science. Isn't THAT ironic!!! Take away their motivation for crunching, and the bottom line is that it HURTS the SCIENCE, because there won't be many hosts left DOING any science. The project management should be thinking about that, and so should all of YOU. Simple, Purely for Credit or Nearly is Captitalistic and those for Science only or nearly are or Seem to be Socialistic, Some might even go so far as to say Communistic though. Remember this is Berkeley, Others in the USA call California the Left Coast and You wonder why? That's the reason I'd guess. Savoir-Faire is everywhere! The T1 Trust, T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, America's First HST |
1mp0£173 Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 8423 Credit: 356,897 RAC: 0 |
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? ... and my statement is: if credit is suddenly dropped, on the same day, by 50%, for everyone, what difference does it make? We're talking about racing. Autos race at 200 miles/hour, while a horse race is closer to 35 miles/hour -- but horse racing survives, because all you need is a difference in speed. |
Daniel Schaalma Send message Joined: 28 May 99 Posts: 297 Credit: 16,953,703 RAC: 0 |
... and my statement is: if credit is suddenly dropped, on the same day, by 50%, for everyone, what difference does it make? It looks like you're going to find out. But you're not going to like the answer. As I said, "And would someone please tell me why crunching PURELY for CREDIT is somehow BAD??? There are those that ARE here JUST for credit. But what you don't or more to the point, CAN'T accept, is that the "greedy credit whores" are the ones who are actually doing the MOST science. Isn't THAT ironic!!! Take away their motivation for crunching, and the bottom line is that it HURTS the SCIENCE, because there won't be many hosts left DOING any science. The project management should be thinking about that, and so should all of YOU." Regards, Daniel. |
Rjmdubois Send message Joined: 27 Sep 99 Posts: 12 Credit: 111,608 RAC: 0 |
We're talking about racing. Autos race at 200 miles/hour, while a horse race is closer to 35 miles/hour -- but horse racing survives, because all you need is a difference in speed. How many car races do you see at ESPN vs. Horse races? I don't want to see a great Project like S@H become an obscure 3rd. class science program. My point is: the 4.18 was inneficient to use CPU time, and some users found a VALID way to improve their donation. Now, the new app is better, so optimization is less dramatic. Instead of granting more credit per hour, because the new app is doing more science per hour, we are receiving less credit per the science. |
©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.