Message boards :
Number crunching :
Seti Enhanced Credit Fair?
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 . . . 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 24 Nov 02 Posts: 957 Credit: 3,848,754 RAC: 0 ![]() |
That is based on the old system. I just changed my machines over to enhanced on Friday. My daily credit has dropped from almost 10,000 to just a little under 7000 in 3 days. That is a 30% drop no matter how you look at it. (Notice I did not use RAC since it is meaningless). The drop would probably have been more except I still have some old WUs working on a few machines and several in pending status. At this rate I expect to see those numbers you mention going the other way in about a week. |
1mp0£173 Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 8423 Credit: 356,897 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Everybody observed the drop of the RAC. If the RAC really is as important as some of you want that it is why don't the total credits of the project show any evidence? Remember that you were running optimized apps, and now you are not. Because the optimized apps were something like six times faster, then yes, your production credits have dropped. That will be true until such time as there are new, faster optimized Enhanced applications. No one denies that the advantage you received from optimized applications (and I did not say "cheat" because it was not cheating) is gone. It may come back when the optimizers have had time to study and adjust the Enhanced application. |
![]() Send message Joined: 19 Jul 99 Posts: 75 Credit: 2,470,428 RAC: 0 ![]() |
i am probably being stupid but how much difference are you all finding the enhanced is making. for example we have some new P4 2.8 machines. Old version crunch time with crunch 3R about 40 minutes, credits claimed about 8. Enhanced (but not yet optimized) crunch time about 40 hours credits claimed 40. We are a school, not in it for the credits but for the science (SETI is on the curriculum) However as I am interested in the science it means I am interested in getting units crunched. So I want as many SETI units crunched as possible, how many people in it for the glory will just dump seti and move to another project. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing all the projects have great science in them. I think this will rumble on and the solution is not obvious |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 24 Nov 02 Posts: 957 Credit: 3,848,754 RAC: 0 ![]() |
The unoptimized folks who were in a quorum got the same credits as everyone else in the quorum. If they were awarded low credits, then even the optimized folks in that quorum got low credit. If the credits awarded were higher then the unoptimized folks got the higher credits as well. That was the equalizer. So whether you were optimized or not is irrelevant. And please tell me where you came up with X6? I never saw that kind of increase in the entire time I ran optimized. Most of my awarded credits were in the neighborhood of 23-30. Are you insinuating that granted credits should have been only 4-5? Even before optimizing I was getting 12-14 on my fast machines not 4-5. |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 31 Jul 01 Posts: 2467 Credit: 86,146,931 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Sarge........... I'm sure you remember the happy day you discovered "optimized" seti clients and installed them. Do you not remember that the number of work units you were able to crunch each day was increased by a factor of 5 or 6 because of the reduced time required to crunch each work unit? THAT is the advantage you received by moving to the optimized app. The credits received were nearly the same as you have pointed out for each work unit but you suddenly were crunching 5 to 6 times more work units. That advantage you previously enjoyed no longer exists, well not to the same degree anyway! Now the standard Seti app is itself optimized and the available optimized apps do not have the 5 to 6 times advantage as before. [edit]I also got caught in this and have seem my RAC drop from 6500 to it's present number. Now it's a level playing field and that is good! Also a deeper search is now done on the data, also good![/edit] Boinc....Boinc....Boinc....Boinc.... |
![]() Send message Joined: 25 Nov 01 Posts: 21573 Credit: 7,508,002 RAC: 20 ![]() ![]() |
Great care has been taken to attempt to keep the s@h-enhanced scoring the same as was awarded for the standard s@h application. Ofcourse this will be less than was achieved for those that followed and used the improvements offered by all the optimised clients. Those optimisations are now incorporated into s@h-enhanced so that everyone takes advantage of those optimisations for generating more science. To keep everything fair, the credits have been rationalised to what they were before the x6 optimised clients inflated the credits rates by x6 of what most other participants (unoptimised) were being awarded.The unoptimized folks who were in a quorum got the same credits as everyone else in the quorum. ... That was the equalizer. So whether you were optimized or not is irrelevant. And please tell me where you came up with X6? I never saw that kind of increase in the entire time I ran optimized. Most of my awarded credits were in the neighborhood of 23-30. Are you insinuating that granted credits should have been only 4-5? ... Maintaining a reasonable quorum claim was why there were 'optimised' Boinc-clients with the benchmarking adjusted to match the performance seen with the optimised s@h project clients... Hence, if you got it right, the quorum claims were also about right. However, a few people didn't get that right for whatever reasons... So the quorum claims could be a little 'wild'... The "x6" was that you could process up to x6 the number of WUs over a given time period over that possible with the standard app. The credit claim per WU should remain the same, however you instead work through the WUs x6 times faster and so gain x6 the credit over a given time period. Same credits, you just got them faster. And "RAC" uses a variable time period to calculate its rate! See if you can meaningfully work that one out!!! Please be patient for the optimisers to do their magic on the present s@h-enhanced client. Or you could try helping them with the optimisation code! Happy crunchin', Martin See new freedom: Mageia Linux Take a look for yourself: Linux Format The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3) |
1mp0£173 Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 8423 Credit: 356,897 RAC: 0 ![]() |
While the optimized clients got the same per work unit as everyone else, they did the work units much faster. If you were averaging 25 credits per WU (just to pick a random number between 22 and 30 from your message) and you were averaging 3 times as many work units per day, then that was an advantage. Note, I did not say "unfair advantage" or "cheat" -- it wasn't unfair, and it was not cheating. It was temporary. You may be able to get this advantage again if Hans Dorn and Howard Naparst, and TMR and Crunch3r (and others that I should name, but don't know) can find a way to make the enhanced app faster. |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 24 Nov 02 Posts: 957 Credit: 3,848,754 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Even on my fastest machines I did not see 5 or even 6 times as many WUs a day. I do not know where those figures came from but they are way out of line, at least in my case. I did see a decrease in the time to do a WU, but I think at most it was cut in half on the older machines and maybe by 1/3 on the newer fast machines. And that was good for the science, but undoubtedly bad for Berk's servers. |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 24 Nov 02 Posts: 957 Credit: 3,848,754 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Why should they bother? If they manage to speed things up again, we will just start overloading the servers and Berkeley will find another way to slow us down. I really do not mind the longer WUs (though some of them are to the extreme). To change the credit system in mid stream is what I am against. I am liking the earlier suggesion of starting over again (since the method changed drastically) more and more. |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 31 Jul 01 Posts: 2467 Credit: 86,146,931 RAC: 0 ![]() |
I don't know where the 5 to 6 came from. I personally believe it was closer to 4 times. At any rate it was a dramatic increase at that time that created that advantage. I personally agree with what has happened. It was not fair to everyone for some of us to use that advantage even though it was perfectly legal. I much prefere the level playing field now. If you want to increase your RAC now you must bring more cpu's to the party! Boinc....Boinc....Boinc....Boinc.... |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 24 Nov 02 Posts: 957 Credit: 3,848,754 RAC: 0 ![]() |
So because some people either chose not to take advantage of the technology or just never paid attention to it, those of us who did have to suffer? I am sorry but that is not what I call fairness. |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 31 Jul 01 Posts: 2467 Credit: 86,146,931 RAC: 0 ![]() |
ok......your obviously very angry over this. This is the way it's going to be so get over it! Boinc....Boinc....Boinc....Boinc.... |
1mp0£173 Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 8423 Credit: 356,897 RAC: 0 ![]() |
... because that's the way you got the higher credit rate under 4.x and that's the only way you'll get higher credit under 5.x. |
W-K 666 ![]() Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 19494 Credit: 40,757,560 RAC: 67 ![]() ![]() |
Think you might have just shot yourself in the foot there, with both barrels. Everybody now has access to the technology, because most of the optimisation is now included within Enhanced, thats fairness. |
jamin ![]() Send message Joined: 21 Mar 06 Posts: 65 Credit: 100,008 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Must agree :) Strange is that people who has RAC under 100 are so strongly after the Enhanced ;) If you take average SETI geek he will not be happy to be cut down in the chase. There are some people who had ex 100.000 credits already half a year ago and RAC of ex 2.000. If you started half a year ago with RAC of ex 2.500 you got in mind that you will some day catch up with them and overtake them :> I know that some people don't care - so let it be but if you got 30 credits for ex 1h of crunching and now you get ~12 for the same period you could feel unhappy :D The positive things when it comes to people obsessed with SETI is that they tend to have their application optimised - so work is going faster. Why should I care about SETI servers? They supposed to be happy when they get more WUs/day crunched... It is only the suggestion but the fair thing would be to clear the scores :P ![]() |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 31 Jul 01 Posts: 2467 Credit: 86,146,931 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Must agree :) Everyone on instinct looks at the world and "how does this effect me?" You have to remember that EVERYONE who was using optimized apps for 4.xx is seeing the same thing. Every one of them is seeing the same reduction on their RAC and daily totals. Any chance you had to overtake someone else who was also using the same advantage should still exist! Boinc....Boinc....Boinc....Boinc.... |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 15 Apr 99 Posts: 1546 Credit: 3,438,823 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Hi Don, the 6x faster originaly came from the linux app. which was extremly slow... Later the code was ported to windows which was 1.5 to 2x faster using the standard app. ![]() Join BOINC United now! |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 31 Jul 01 Posts: 2467 Credit: 86,146,931 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Hi Crunch.......nice to see you and thanks for the clarification! Boinc....Boinc....Boinc....Boinc.... |
jamin ![]() Send message Joined: 21 Mar 06 Posts: 65 Credit: 100,008 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Of course it exists - I have no doubt - and I believe that there will be again the optimised Enhanced Seti application which will be quicker than Enhanced alone :) It's like in real life - we got inflation and deflation on money.. ee.. credits market :> my buying power is decreasing - I got less credits for harder work - and this is fair? How will I live now on 700 RAC instead of 1000 RAC. Anyone who can lend me spare RAC is wanted :D Cruncher's life is much easier on less populated and less popular projects ;))) but not that interesting :) ![]() |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 24 Nov 02 Posts: 957 Credit: 3,848,754 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Some not most and definitely not all. And as has been said in a previous post, I could accept that if there was a reset and we all started over at zero. That would be a truly level playing field. Anything short of that is unfair to those of us who spent a lot of time and effort building up what we had. |
©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.