Message boards :
Number crunching :
Seti Enhanced Credit Fair?
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 . . . 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 . . . 23 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 4 Sep 00 Posts: 14 Credit: 23,552,278 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Do we, the power users, have to go on strike to prove our point? That would be very interesting if everyone who crunches for credit disabled their network access on their entire fleets at the same time for 48 hours. Then do a "study" to see how much work gets reported during the strike. Since Berkeley was the focal point of the "Free Speech" Movement back in the '60's, I'm sure this should be right up their alley. @ Daniel - I support you 100%...Tell me when. I am sure our machines are considered to be of no loss by many. Let me know when and I can disable my fleet. This is only a test... ![]() |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 20 Oct 99 Posts: 714 Credit: 1,704,345 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Do we, the power users, have to go on strike to prove our point? That would be very interesting if everyone who crunches for credit disabled their network access on their entire fleets at the same time for 48 hours. Then do a "study" to see how much work gets reported during the strike. Since Berkeley was the focal point of the "Free Speech" Movement back in the '60's, I'm sure this should be right up their alley. This sounds like a very interesting experiment. I'd really like to know exactly what the impact would be. Question: How will you respond if you DO go on strike, and the stats show only a small bump in the returns??? |
Rjmdubois Send message Joined: 27 Sep 99 Posts: 12 Credit: 111,608 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Question: How will you respond if you DO go on strike, and the stats show only a small bump in the returns??? I did a quik check at Boincstats and the top 0.02% users (based on monthly average) respond for 12% of the project output. |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 24 Feb 06 Posts: 37 Credit: 560,736 RAC: 0 ![]() |
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=322051161 http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=328721428 explain to me how I did any less work..CPU Times are within 200 seconds yet the credit claimed is nearly 1/3 I dont even understand why this is an issue...its not that hard to fix...its not like we are saying the entire core is broken and the project needs a total rework, its as simple as changing a multiplier, and I am in this for both the Stats and the Science, don't belive me...I also crunch Hash Clash. I'm not in it for the science...only the competition. |
W-K 666 ![]() Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19494 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 ![]() ![]() |
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=322051161 The curve of AR/time is a pig, see 5.11 Competion times that was posted on the Beta site. The devs do say they might not have the curve correct or got the credits calculation based on that curve right. But they are reviewing the situation as more results are returned before adjusting the formula. |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 7 Feb 06 Posts: 1494 Credit: 194,148 RAC: 0 ![]() |
http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=322051161 Evidently the combinaation of the optimized 4.18 application used and the 5.2.7 core client were over reporting credits. If you were to look at the wu associated with the high result you showed you would see that one of the results returned was in line with your credits. This result used the proper 5.2.13 core client which is the proper one to use for the proper reporting of credits. It just so happened that this is a case of two results being returned that were crunched with over-reporting clients and they overrode the results that were correct for the wu. If two of the reported results were crunched with the proper applications you would not be seeing this and complaining about it because it would have granted nearly the same credits that you report in the new wu. If you will look at the other results for the wu's you mentioned you will see this. Also check the other results for the enhanced wu and you will see that the claimed credits and granted credits were only a few hundredths of a credit difference regardlesss of the computer they were crunched on. Now let me ask a question. Is this fair or would you rather have the "pure luck" credit situation you saw in the first example? I'm sure in this particular case you would say the "pure luck" example because just by sheer luck the results were granted an extraordinarily high amount of credits! However if the results were crunched with the proper 5.2.13 app you would say that it doesn't matter since they would be in line with the others! (In that case, if your computer were the only one over-reporting credits and you reported 30 something credits and were only granted 18, I'm sure you would holler just as loud!) Not trying to single out any one person here, but all I've read in this and several other threads is complaints that really boils down to the fact that you can't use applications which can be "calibrated" for the credits you want to get. Instead the credits are issued according to actual work done regardless of the computer or operating system. Nothing you as a cruncher can do affects the credits reported. This is why the system was chosen. As an example, I have a p3 500mhz computer running Linux and it consistently reports credits that are within a few *hundredths* if not *exactly* the same as others reported by even the fastest computers. Now I call this "fair"! Not that the faster computers claim more credits (using the old app)! I know you are going to say "Well I have a faster computer, I should get more credits". But this is just not true. You should *not* get more credits for crunching the exact same wu that I crunch just because your computers are faster than mine. You will get more credits in the long run because your faster computers can crunch more wu's per day than I can. I call this "fair", not the fact that you could claim more credits than I could by crunching the same wu with a faster computer and with applications that let you misrepresent the amount of work actually done by the computer. Yes, the "competition" is still here, it's just changed form. Now instead of seeing what application combination you can run to get the most claimed credits for the same work, you have to actually do the same work for the same credits, but if you do more work in the same amount of time you will earn more credits. So yes, you "power crunchers" may see a change in the amount of granted credits per work unit, but you must also look at all the factors involved before you go hollering that the system is unfair. Now everyone that crunches a wu claims the same or nearly the same credit. No more "pot luck" credits being issued. Is this not fair? Next, credits depend entirely upon the amount of work done, not arbitrary "benchmarks" that can be manipulated to change the reported credit. Is this not fair? And now the system is reporting credits that are in line with the standard applications issued to everyone and in line with other projects. Is this not fair? Jim Some people plan their life out and look back at the wealth they've had. Others live life day by day and look back at the wealth of experiences and enjoyment they've had. |
![]() Send message Joined: 22 May 99 Posts: 32 Credit: 22,636,357 RAC: 0 ![]() |
People have free choice as to why they crunch, when they cruch, and if they crunch. I don't advocate anyone being excluded from the project, and I don't see where anyone is being excluded. However, if someone is unhappy with the way credits are granted, it's their choice if they no longer wish to support a project. That's each individual's right, to do with their computer's resources as they see fit. However, it's my right to have the opinion that it's rediculous for a person to support a project soley because it grants credit in a manner that person approves of. XaaK ![]() ![]() |
jwhorfin ![]() Send message Joined: 12 Jun 99 Posts: 8 Credit: 1,282,541 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Great post Jim-R !!! |
1mp0£173 Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 8423 Credit: 356,897 RAC: 0 ![]() |
I believe that the curve is a myth. If we're actually counting floating point operations, then the count is the count. We then multiply the count by some scaling factor, and that's the score. If a WU is ten times as long, there will be ten times the number of floating point ops, and we'll multiply a bigger number times the scaling factor. |
1mp0£173 Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 8423 Credit: 356,897 RAC: 0 ![]() |
It is an issue because an hour of SETI is supposed to be about the same as an hour of Einstein and about the same as an hour of Rosetta, or CPDN, or Hash Clash. If SETI suddenly starts giving out "double credit" then those BOINC users who are "shopping" for credits will move to BOINC at the expense of the other projects. So, to compensate, Einstein might artifically increase their credits, and now we've got a shift from SETI to Einstein. Then Rosetta starts giving out 5x credits, and those who like credits over everything start crunching Rosetta. ... and if that continues, someday 1 minute of crunching will be worth about a million cobblestones. SETI is trying to avoid credit inflation. |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 1575 Credit: 4,152,111 RAC: 1 ![]() |
I believe that the curve is a myth. It is possible that you are correct, however I think there is a curve to be considered. We talk about a FLOP count almost exculsively, but that is not complete there is an IOP count as well. There is a logical basis for mostly ignoring the IOP count, SETI is very heavily weighted towards FLOPs. I suspect however that the ratio between IOPs and FLOPs does change depending on the angle range. The question is if this change in the ratio is enough to make a difference in the final numbers. BOINC WIKI ![]() ![]() BOINCing since 2002/12/8 |
sideband@seti.usa ![]() Send message Joined: 19 Jun 99 Posts: 25 Credit: 2,774,864 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Hrm.. An hour and 18 minutes on Einstein on my AMD A64 3000+ Win2KProSP4 machine (on a "Romeo" WU" "Zed"'s take a little longer, but not much)netted around 24 CC and 13.6 GC... SETI Enhanced 5.12 WU's take, on average, FOUR HOURS AND FOURTY-ONE MINUTES on the same machine, on average, and are being CC'ed around 37 minutes and GC'ed around 18 credits, IF I'm lucky Now, you're talking about "fair across the board"... DO THE MATH. Is it any wonder why I've started migrating over to Einstein? Now, it seems to me, that if it's supposed to grant across the board, then either Einstein is broken (which it's not, there ARE no optimized clients for Einstein, that I know of), or SETI Enhanced is.. and I think, from the postings in this thread, it's obvious which is which... 73 de AI8W, Chris Abdico Concussio Fidens Servo Libertas Semper! ![]() ![]() |
![]() Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 21573 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 ![]() ![]() |
I believe that the curve is a myth.It is possible that you are correct, however I think there is a curve to be considered. ... the ratio between IOPs and FLOPs does change depending on the angle range. The question is if this change in the ratio is enough to make a difference in the final numbers. I doubt that the IOP counts are significant. What likely is far more significant is the difference in the mix of the sizes of FFTs run for each range of AR. (Phew, hope you followed that.) In other words, rather than just FLOPs, you are seeing the effects of the FLOPs count and memory bandwidth usage for the FFTs. Some computer architectures will be more sensitive to the mix of big/small FFTs run than others and the FFT mix changes depending on the AR... In summary: Your hardware will likely have a sweet AR for maximum FLOPs gained. If your system is truly CPU limited (and has infinite memory bandwidth), then the FLOPs should always remain constant and rate of credit should hence remain constant. (Ofcourse, most PC systems suffer a memory bandwidth bottleneck. Certain systems far more so than others...) Happy crunchin', Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
Grant (SSSF) Send message Joined: 19 Aug 99 Posts: 13886 Credit: 208,696,464 RAC: 304 ![]() ![]() |
SETI Enhanced 5.12 WU's take, on average, FOUR HOURS AND FOURTY-ONE MINUTES on the same machine, on average, and are being CC'ed around 37 minutes and GC'ed around 18 credits, IF I'm lucky What is cc'd? My machines are getting around 28.7 Credits for doing around 2.8 hours worth of work. Grant Darwin NT |
![]() Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 21573 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 ![]() ![]() |
What is cc'd? cc: Claimed Credit gc: Granted Credit ? Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
Grant (SSSF) Send message Joined: 19 Aug 99 Posts: 13886 Credit: 208,696,464 RAC: 304 ![]() ![]() |
(Ofcourse, most PC systems suffer a memory bandwidth bottleneck. Certain systems far more so than others...) Now, now. Don't be nasty towards Intel. Grant Darwin NT |
Grant (SSSF) Send message Joined: 19 Aug 99 Posts: 13886 Credit: 208,696,464 RAC: 304 ![]() ![]() |
cc: Claimed Credit Initally i thought so too, but then he mentions minutes. Grant Darwin NT |
![]() Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 21573 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 ![]() ![]() |
(Ofcourse, most PC systems suffer a memory bandwidth bottleneck. Certain systems far more so than others...)Now, now. Don't be nasty towards Intel. Now how did you guess that? ;-) (Not to confuse the Intel "Hyperthread" cludge with the AMD "Hypertransport" (fast) CPU-integrated memory management unit.) Happy crunchin', Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
W-K 666 ![]() Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19494 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 ![]() ![]() |
(Ofcourse, most PC systems suffer a memory bandwidth bottleneck. Certain systems far more so than others...)Now, now. Don't be nasty towards Intel. Now, now, if you use an Intel with2 MB L2 cache you hardly need memory bandwidth. Andy |
Idefix Send message Joined: 7 Sep 99 Posts: 154 Credit: 482,193 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Hi, Now, you're talking about "fair across the board"... DO THE MATH. As long as an optimized application is envolved in the math it will become wrong. You must not compare optimized applications which are only used by a minority. The majority uses the standard software. And this software must result in equal granted credits. Regards, Carsten |
©2025 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.