You are not going to convince us that this new credit system is not flawed!

How much pending credit do you have?

---

I wasn't in most of yesterday and then forgot to send a reply.

I assume you will withdraw your accusation.

regards
Andy

Hi Andy:

There was no insult intended. I found it amusing that in that specific example you claimed 5.6 time more granted credit (CS/hr) than the poor fellow who took 79,523 seconds to complete his work unit. The Table below shows the 4 sets of results you referred to in your example:

79,523.20 sec., CC = 194.71, GC = 56.46 CC = 8.81 CS/hr, GC = 2.56 CS/hr
46,570.62 sec., CC = 49.37, GC = 56.46 CC = 3.82 CS/hr, GC = 4.36 CS/hr
14,287.27 sec., CC = 56.46, GC = 56.46 CC = 14.23 CS/hr, GC = 14.23 CS/hr
22,595.64 sec., CC = 56.46, GC = 56.46 CC = 9.00 CS/hr, GC = 9.00 CS/hr

The results that I posted with the different combinations of TruXsoft’s BOINC client and various versions of the Seti app were for everyone’s information so that they may see the differences. The data was copied from the Seti results page into MS Excel and results presented as is below. Why certain results were obtained is irrelevant and saves on a lot of useless jaw flapping.

Genuine Intel (R) Pentium(R) 4 650 CPU 3.40GHz running Microsoft Windows XP Professional Edition, Service Pack 2, (05.01.2600.00)

5.3.12.tx36 BOINC client and standard Seti V4.18 (average of 23 work units)
CPU time = 2,072.61 sec., Claimed credit = 16.81 CS/hr., Granted credit = 23.30 CS/hr.

5.3.12.tx36 BOINC client and Crunch3r’s Seti SSE3 V4.11 (average of 97 work units)
CPU time = 3,110.58 sec., Claimed credit = 34.90 CS/hr., Granted credit = 29.81 CS/hr.

5.3.12.tx36 BOINC client and Crunch3r’s Seti SSE3 V5.11 (average of 34 work units)
CPU time = 12,654.50 sec., Claimed credit = 40.92 CS/hr., Granted credit = 15.71 CS/hr.

5.3.12.tx36 BOINC client and Crunch3r’s Seti SSE3 V5.12 (average of 31 work units)
CPU time = 13,751.11 sec., Claimed credit = 14.38 CS/hr., Granted credit = 14.13 CS/hr.

Authentic AMD AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3000+ running Linux 2.6.16-1.2108_FC4

5.3.12.tx36 BOINC client and Crunch3r’s Seti SSE3 V5.12 (average of 11 work units)
CPU time = 9,033.28 sec., Claimed credit = 13.56 CS/hr., Granted credit = 13.93 CS/hr.

Authentic AMD Athlon (tm) 64 Processor 3000+ running Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional Edition, Service Pack 4, (05.00.2195.00)

5.3.12.tx36 BOINC client and Crunch3r’s Seti SSE3 V5.11 (average of 26 work units)
CPU time = 11,120.90 sec., Claimed credit = 53.18 CS/hr., Granted credit = 20.08 CS/hr.


Today, I signed up with Einstein@home and I am running it on a 50:50 basis with Seti. Upon signing up, Einstein’s version 4.37 for the improved all-sky pulsar search was loaded onto my computer. They also have an optimized SSE3 version U41.04 made available by Akosf which I promptly installed.

From exploring the site, their optimized version is returning the following results:

Authentic AMD Athlon (tm) 64 Processor 3000+ running Microsoft Windows XP Professional Edition, Service Pack 2, (05.01.2600.00)
5.3.12.tx36 BOINC client and Akosf’s SSE S41.07 optimized client (average of 9 work units)
CPU time = 3,087.11 sec., Claimed credit = 44.49 CS/hr., Granted credit = 42.78 CS/hr.

Authentic AMD Dual Core AMD Opteron (tm) Processor 165 running Microsoft Windows XP Professional Edition, Service Pack 2, (05.01.2600.00)
5.3.12.tx36 BOINC client and Akosf’s SSE3 U41.04 optimized client (average of 40 work units)
CPU time = 2,395.42 sec., Claimed credit = 56.16 CS/hr., Granted credit = 54.83 CS/hr.

From the discussions at Einstein the preferred BOINC client is TruXoft’s 5.3.12.tx36 client.

The conclusion to all of this is that if the optimized Seti Clan wants to keep up to the optimized Einstein Clan then you had better lock and load TruXoft’s 5.3.12.tx36 BOINC client and Crunch3r’s 5.11 Seti app. otherwise you will be left eating their dust.

We should all be very grateful to Crunch3r for having done such an excellent job of developing an optimized Seti client that so closely matches Einstein’s optimized client.

I had to download my version of the Einstein optimized SSE3 version U41.04 at the following mirror site. The 1 from the Einstein site was corrupt. http://einstein.terrorfront.info/en/index.htm

Regards
Franz

Daily production isn't a good indicator as it is very dependant on server outages & will be affected considerably by the variable processing times.
Weekly or monthly will give a better idea of what the average daily or hourly crunching is like.

Okay, now I am really confused. When I was quoting my RAC I was being told it was meaningless and that I should be looking at daily or weekly numbers. Now all of a sudden daily numbers are also no good.

Didn't make myself as clear there as i would have liked.
If you look at your daily numbers on those graphs, some days you have huge amounts, others small amounts of credit. Dependant on server outages & so on- even if there is no change in your output.
A daily number of credits, based on a weeks (or a months) crunching would give a more accurate idea of what the daily production really is.

Well I checked my weekly average as well and it has already dumped by 10% in just 3 days. As my higher production days (which do not mean as much)go off the chart then the weekly numbers will drop dramatically as well. So now which numbers should I look at? No matter which I look at the drop is happening. It may take longer to show on the weekly or monthly numbers but it will happen just the same.

To quote myself, reusing the section you also quoted. "And once again, as mentioned by Eric, those that have been using Optimised applications will see a greater reduction in credit per hour than thouse using the standard application, as the standard application is what his efforts were based on."


BTW was April the month you switched to optimised clients, or did you bring more machines on line? There was a huge jump in credit for that month compared to the previous ones. This month so far has given more credits in the month than those early ones, but certainly not as much as in April.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

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.

Agree 100%! If they are not going to fix this new abortion called a credit system, at least reset the stats!

Try this on for size. Total up all the members here who used optimzed apps for version 4.xx. Guess what......you are in the minority here. No matter how much good you did for the project, crunching massive amounts of data, purchasing more and more equipment, you are still in the minority of users here and cannot dictate to the majority.

And remember I am part of the optimized 4.xx croud also!

We are not trying to dictate. We are asking for a fair shake. If they want a truly level playing field with the new system, then reset the stats and let us all start over under the new system.

or just simply differentiate the scores between SETI and SETI Enhanced :)

---

You are not going to convince us that this new credit system is not flawed!

How much pending credit do you have?

251 credits at the moment - not much.

---

http://www.setiusa.net