Message boards :
Number crunching :
Seti Enhanced Credit Fair?
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 . . . 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 . . . 23 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
W-K 666 ![]() Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19494 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 ![]() ![]() |
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 Don't know what you're doing on Einstein I claim 10 and average granted over 30 for the longer unit which take 45 mins. And I suggest you look more closely, for Akosf, Read this New Scientist article first posted by ML1. Andy |
![]() Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 21579 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 ![]() ![]() |
(Not to confuse the Intel "Hyperthread" cludge with the AMD "Hypertransport" (fast) CPU-integrated memory management unit.)Now, now, if you use an Intel with2 MB L2 cache you hardly need memory bandwidth. Very true for s@h crunching at present. I'll agree that Intel's "Pentium M" and its follow-on processors ("Enhanced P3" architecture) are a good design as opposed to the Marketing driven "P4 Netburst" silliness... Meanwhile, AMD is still doing neat and cool stuff with their designs... But we digress... This comes back to whether the whole Boinc-s@h & host computer system should be "calibrated" to award "accurate" credit? Or whether the FLOPs counting is "accurate enough". For myself, the credits are too inaccurate to be useful for any scientific analysis into the credits themselves or what they might show. They may be 'good enough' for trends analysis. Otherwise, they are a very good ego counter for certain 'competitors'. Myself, I think Berkeley have hit a very good balance. It's just a shame that a very few hot-heads are screaming over the small fractional numbers just because they can see a momentary change when multiplied up by their 10 machines. Note: It's all relative! And meanwhile, if we all learn a little about science and computer architectures and Marketing scams, then all the better! :-) Happy crunchin', Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
sideband@seti.usa ![]() Send message Joined: 19 Jun 99 Posts: 25 Credit: 2,774,864 RAC: 0 ![]() |
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 CC = Claimed Credit GC = Granted Credit 73 de AI8W, Chris Abdico Concussio Fidens Servo Libertas Semper! ![]() ![]() |
sideband@seti.usa ![]() Send message Joined: 19 Jun 99 Posts: 25 Credit: 2,774,864 RAC: 0 ![]() |
The big complaint is this: Let's take my AMD A64 3000+ (FSB 240), 512M DDR400, FC4 machine as an example. Under SETI BOINC, 42 minutes netted around 32 credits.. Under SETI Enhanced, 2 hours and 45 minutes net around.. any guesses? That's right.. 32 credits, plus or minus three credits. There is a big disparity in the amount of work being done and the credits being both claimed and granted. This disparity needs to be fixed. THAT is the big complaint. The sooner we realize the resistance/complaint here is not: 1. SETI Enhanced itself. 2. "cheating" 3. AMD vs Intel 4. Windows vs. Linux vs. NetBSD vs. FreeBSD vs. OS X vs. PickYourFavoriteOS ... the sooner we can get down to the problem and FIX IT. 73 de AI8W, Chris Abdico Concussio Fidens Servo Libertas Semper! ![]() ![]() |
![]() Send message Joined: 6 Feb 01 Posts: 132 Credit: 4,673,738 RAC: 1 ![]() |
The big complaint is this: Hi, just that i can follow your arguments, can you please post a link to some sample results that prove this? I just found results like this 320116254 76859834 7 May 2006 23:03:31 UTC 12 May 2006 21:07:49 UTC Over Success Done 3,034.82 6.96 7.90 320116208 76859799 7 May 2006 23:03:31 UTC 12 May 2006 20:12:18 UTC Over Success Done 3,151.71 7.23 12.60 where neither you claimed 32 credits for 42 minutes nor got them granted. But maybe i've just looked in the wrong place, so i just want to understand. Thanks, Femue |
![]() Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 21579 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 ![]() ![]() |
The big complaint is this... Phew! Scorchin' hot blast of superheated gas also!! Your "s@h boinc" claims must be for the "Optimised Apps" (see my sig!). And there is the source of a few spoilt runaway expectations. It also comes to whether we 'reward' people's efforts or whether we 'reward' people's scientific contribution... With the way that the original s@h application was optimised by some very hard work by a small group of dedicated people, the increase in credit claims were getting to be a little silly. Yes, more "science" was being done, but the contributer's efforts remained the same. I agree with Berkeley that the fairest solution is to as accurately as is reasonable to reward contributer's EXPENDED EFFORT. It's up to Berkeley as to how 'valuable' the science is from that. The release of s@h-enhanced deliberately levels the credits for EVERYONE oncemore. And a good thing too. The squealers complaining about losing their x6 advantage is a good example of why the credits needed realigning (that is rationalising). And yes, much more science is now being done due to s@h-enahnced being built on the optimisations put into the previous client version. Very good too and very good for the science. Sorry, you still get only your 32 credits (or whatever, and not x6 that value). All very fair for EVERYONE. Now, can we get back to some quietly efficient crunchin'? Happy crunchin', Martin (Mmmm, perhaps I'd better update my sig! :-) ) 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 ![]() ![]() |
The big complaint is this: Right lets get things right Claimed has absolutely nothing to your performance, Granted is what conunts. The average granted on Seti 4.18 was/is about 24 credits. So on my computer ID 688149 at the moment I am using standard app because I also crunch for Beta the app_info file and BOINC get confused. But my performance is; 4.18 6300s granted 24.29 credits = 13.88/hr wuid=78045650 5.12 14,287s granted 56.46 = 14.23/hr wuid=78922770 That is the real calculation to make. I also note you are still pushing the edges of the envelope a bit, didn't you read and take note of Inglesides Note message305280 Andy |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 24 Nov 02 Posts: 957 Credit: 3,848,754 RAC: 0 ![]() |
I find this extremely funny, considering the posts by you and your teammates on the BBR board. This is 180 degrees from what you and most of them were saying when you thought Seti.USA was threatening your position. Oh, I forgot, the reduction in credits granted will extend our time to overtake you by a factor of about 3 (or more). Hmmm, that may be a very good reason to flop sides. |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 24 Nov 02 Posts: 957 Credit: 3,848,754 RAC: 0 ![]() |
And can you tell me how that is equalized by Berkeley's new credit system? I thought the goal was to make them as equal as possible across the different projects? Seems to me that is not the case based on your comment above. Berkeley's goal will only work if all projects participate and apparently they are not. |
W-K 666 ![]() Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19494 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 ![]() ![]() |
I was commenting on sideband's lack of observation, inability to understand what he reads and lack of understanding simple facts, and was making no comment on the levelness of the credits across the BOINC projects. If sideband was to use the right app he can for a short period until the end of S4, due to finish mid June, still keep his credits/time up. Andy |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 5 Sep 04 Posts: 189 Credit: 1,016,797 RAC: 0 ![]() |
I think sideband's observations were valid and well-informed. He has plenty of experience crunching SETI, and I share his concerns about the new credit system providing less credit for more work. ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 5 Sep 04 Posts: 189 Credit: 1,016,797 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Sarge, I believe you are insinuating that Xaak is being hypocritical. And, I believe you are correct. ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Idefix Send message Joined: 7 Sep 99 Posts: 154 Credit: 482,193 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Hi, I think sideband's observations were valid and well-informed. He has plenty of experience crunching SETI, and I share his concerns about the new credit system providing less credit for more work. Steve (and sideband and Sarge and others), could you please show us the "less credit for more work" on this graph? Thank you. Regards, Carsten |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 5 Sep 04 Posts: 189 Credit: 1,016,797 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Carsten: Our team RAC has 'only' dropped from 605k to 549k so far, and ONLY because most of us kept crunching the old 4.18 WUs for as long as we could get them - I still have a day's worth of 4.18 WUs on my notebook. Our RAC is currently in freefall, but there has not been enough time lapse yet to illustrate this dramatically in that chart. It will become dramatic over the next 2 weeks though! ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Hans Dorn ![]() Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 2262 Credit: 26,448,570 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Carsten: Since Seti.Germany has hardly been as "optimized" as Seti.USA, there will be a shift w.r.t RAC in the next weeks. Regards Hans P.S: I have no doubt that Seti.USA won't grow enough to catch us again, though :o) |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 5 Sep 04 Posts: 189 Credit: 1,016,797 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Since Seti.Germany has hardly been as "optimized" as Seti.USA, there will be a shift w.r.t RAC in the next weeks. Actually, Hans, I am seeing very similar and proportional RAC decreases for all 3 top producing teams - SETI.USA, BBR Starfire, and SETI.Germany. Here are the changes I have observed thus far... SETI.USA: approx. 605k -> 549k BBR Starfire: approx. 597k -> 512k SETI.Germany: approx. 520k -> 457k ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 15 Apr 99 Posts: 1546 Credit: 3,438,823 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Carsten: Hello, if i'm getting this correct you can allready see the trend of what Steve referes to Anyhow i'm not a "statistical guy" corect me if i'm wrong. P.S. i realy do hate statistics :-( ![]() Join BOINC United now! |
Hans Dorn ![]() Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 2262 Credit: 26,448,570 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Since Seti.Germany has hardly been as "optimized" as Seti.USA, there will be a shift w.r.t RAC in the next weeks. Right. We're dropping even faster than you, oh well... Regards Hans |
kevint Send message Joined: 17 May 99 Posts: 414 Credit: 11,680,240 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Carsten: I have seen my RAC drop from 30K to 25K as more and more of my machines start crunching the enhanced version. And YES they are all optimized both with 4.11 and enhanced. The drop in daily credits and work produced is across the board, fewer WU's are being crunched, less credit is being claimed/granted. From what I can see on my current machines there will be a 40% total reduction on the work performed. Two steps back, one step forward. If Berkeley/Seti wants to maintain the current amount of work performed they will have to rethink their position on credits granted per WU, otherwise there will be an exodus to other projects that crunchers have determined will grant them the credit due for work completed. I don't think this is what Berkeley had in mind, but I can already see it happening. RAC is going up across the board in other projects, this can only mean one thing, that crunchers are moving away from seti to other projects, and this will continue. |
Idefix Send message Joined: 7 Sep 99 Posts: 154 Credit: 482,193 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Hello all, *riesenseufzer* I give up ... It's useless ... 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.