I have one system with several Seti Enhanced work units crunched. The CPU time varies by more than 50% in completion of the units, but the claimed credit is exactly the same at 19.05. How can this be right if the metrics come from the work?

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/results.php?hostid=1958599

---

Mike

One thing shows is that the Worunits all have an AR of 1.2xx thus the credit claims are the same... Not sure why the time varies so much other than you may be using the computer... Hopefully Eric will See the Errors and have an answer for that...

I have one system with several Seti Enhanced work units crunched. The CPU time varies by more than 50% in completion of the units, but the claimed credit is exactly the same at 19.05. How can this be right if the metrics come from the work?

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/results.php?hostid=1958599

Pappa

---

Please consider a Donation to the Seti Project.

Mike

One thing shows is that the Worunits all have an AR of 1.2xx thus the credit claims are the same... Not sure why the time varies so much other than you may be using the computer... Hopefully Eric will See the Errors and have an answer for that...

I have one system with several Seti Enhanced work units crunched. The CPU time varies by more than 50% in completion of the units, but the claimed credit is exactly the same at 19.05. How can this be right if the metrics come from the work?

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/results.php?hostid=1958599

Pappa

Pappa, correct me please if I am wrong...doesn't the claimed credit directly relate to the number of actual cpu cycles?

---

Pappa, correct me please if I am wrong...doesn't the claimed credit directly relate to the number of actual cpu cycles?

I Think so. This is one of the new things of enhanced.

---

It should be related to the fops but I spotted Mike Gelvins observation too. In a matter of fact , pitty I did'nt posted it , I expected last night already that all the results of the same batch wil claim the same credits despite computing time. I have the 32.03 for the batch tough I do'nt have the big differences in crunching time as Mike Gelvin has.

I have one system with several Seti Enhanced work units crunched. The CPU time varies by more than 50% in completion of the units, but the claimed credit is exactly the same at 19.05. How can this be right if the metrics come from the work?

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/results.php?hostid=1958599

Where did you get the Boinc version 5.5.0 for Windows? The only Boinc version I see with this number was intended for Linux and your boxes are running Windows. Maybe this is the cause?? Your client computers are reporting <core_client_version>5.5.0</core_client_version>

---

Boinc....Boinc....Boinc....Boinc....

... The CPU time varies by more than 50% in completion of the units, but the claimed credit is exactly the same at 19.05. How can this be right if the metrics come from the work?

...hostid=1958599

All those results are showing the exact same number of FFTs performed, so identical credit claims, regardless of the time taken, are to be expected. Note that in each case the other hosts in the quorum also report the same amount of crunching. Why your CPU-times (or the measurements thereof) are so discrepant I have no idea, but the amount of work done on each WU was indeed the same.

---

... The CPU time varies by more than 50% in completion of the units, but the claimed credit is exactly the same at 19.05. How can this be right if the metrics come from the work?

...hostid=1958599

All those results are showing the exact same number of FFTs performed, so identical credit claims, regardless of the time taken, are to be expected. Note that in each case the other hosts in the quorum also report the same amount of crunching. Why your CPU-times (or the measurements thereof) are so discrepant I have no idea, but the amount of work done on each WU was indeed the same.

How is the equation used to calcolate the claimed credit with the new client? It's based only on the number of FFTs performed?

If the credits for the same WU are equal for all hosts, why in this case the pending credits fot one host are less?
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=76676710

---

GHz
BOINC.Italy

... The CPU time varies by more than 50% in completion of the units, but the claimed credit is exactly the same at 19.05. How can this be right if the metrics come from the work?

...hostid=1958599

All those results are showing the exact same number of FFTs performed, so identical credit claims, regardless of the time taken, are to be expected. Note that in each case the other hosts in the quorum also report the same amount of crunching. Why your CPU-times (or the measurements thereof) are so discrepant I have no idea, but the amount of work done on each WU was indeed the same.

I can asure you the fpops differ too, not much in my case but they do . It's only to be seen under the message tab and the difference is not much but range from 2160 Mfpops til 2222 at least.

There error is probably due to a problem with the jpeg file (seti512.jpg) that was downloaded with the enhanced client. It should be 9068 bytes long and have an md5 of 75af6760157fdf8b2178971cb8f27851.

I'm going to have to come up with a way to solve this outside of the jpeg library. :(

Eric

I have one system with several Seti Enhanced work units crunched. The CPU time varies by more than 50% in completion of the units, but the claimed credit is exactly the same at 19.05. How can this be right if the metrics come from the work?

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/results.php?hostid=1958599

---

@SETIEric@qoto.org (Mastodon)

How is the equation used to calcolate the claimed credit with the new client? It's based only on the number of FFTs performed?

I don't know the formula or ratio—they've done a fair bit of tinkering with it to make it come out with similar earning rates, on average, to other projects—but yes.

See this message from Eric Korpela, posted a few months back in the Test Project forum, showing the kind of analysis that's been done to develop the formula.

If the credits for the same WU are equal for all hosts, why in this case the pending credits fot one host are less?
wuid=76676710

That host is using an old BOINC client, v4.45. Clients earlier than v5.2.6 (? or so) can only claim credit according to time-&-benchmarks, ignoring an app's reported Flop count; there's been talk of cutting them off at some point in the future, when Enhanced has become 'the only game in town'.

---

How is the equation used to calcolate the claimed credit with the new client? It's based only on the number of FFTs performed?

The application keeps a running total of the number of floating point operations performed. The application reports credit for 3.35 times this number of floating point operations. (3.35 was chosen to make the median credits/hour to equal what the non-enhanced application was reporting).

Eric

---

@SETIEric@qoto.org (Mastodon)

I have one system with several Seti Enhanced work units crunched. The CPU time varies by more than 50% in completion of the units, but the claimed credit is exactly the same at 19.05. How can this be right if the metrics come from the work?

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/results.php?hostid=1958599

Where did you get the Boinc version 5.5.0 for Windows? The only Boinc version I see with this number was intended for Linux and your boxes are running Windows. Maybe this is the cause?? Your client computers are reporting <core_client_version>5.5.0</core_client_version>

From the DEV site

---

Please point it out to me. ;)
All I see there are the Linux versions... None for Windows (2003).

---

I think people said that benchmarking results doesnt count in this "new credit system"... But- with optimized client benchmarks I claimed much more credits than "ordinary" benchmarks.. so, I dont know how this new credit system works... But it has something to deal with benchmarks

---

eL Nino

If you are running a Bencmark based COINC Core Client then credits will be wacked out... The application was designed for Fpops.. In a quorum that has two Fpop's BOINC Core Client 5.2.6 or higher you will lose... The thing that makes it work is a BOINC Core Client (currently 5.2.13) Then it does not matter if it is a High power Xeon, AMD X2 or my PII 350... The credits are the same...

I think people said that benchmarking results doesnt count in this "new credit system"... But- with optimized client benchmarks I claimed much more credits than "ordinary" benchmarks.. so, I dont know how this new credit system works... But it has something to deal with benchmarks

Pappa

---

Please consider a Donation to the Seti Project.

Please point it out to me. ;)
All I see there are the Linux versions... None for Windows (2003).

The default source code when you check it out is now 5.5.0. As far as I know, there are no pre-compiled versions available.

---

There error is probably due to a problem with the jpeg file (seti512.jpg) that was downloaded with the enhanced client. It should be 9068 bytes long and have an md5 of 75af6760157fdf8b2178971cb8f27851.

I'm going to have to come up with a way to solve this outside of the jpeg library. :(

Eric

I have one system with several Seti Enhanced work units crunched. The CPU time varies by more than 50% in completion of the units, but the claimed credit is exactly the same at 19.05. How can this be right if the metrics come from the work?

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/results.php?hostid=1958599

How does the .jpg file affect the crunching times/credit claims?

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Grant

The seti512.jpg probably had a download error... That cause the Client Errors that were identified.

The fact that the times were different on the same machine, something was ahppeing that was taking time away from the 5.12 application... As the actual Floating Point Operations (Fpop) were what was count by the application the credit came out the same... All the results that were identified were teh same Angle Range (AR). One of the last things to have happen was to get all results no matter what AR to report the same amount or minimize the differences in credit...

Pappa

There error is probably due to a problem with the jpeg file (seti512.jpg) that was downloaded with the enhanced client. It should be 9068 bytes long and have an md5 of 75af6760157fdf8b2178971cb8f27851.

I'm going to have to come up with a way to solve this outside of the jpeg library. :(

Eric

I have one system with several Seti Enhanced work units crunched. The CPU time varies by more than 50% in completion of the units, but the claimed credit is exactly the same at 19.05. How can this be right if the metrics come from the work?

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/results.php?hostid=1958599

How does the .jpg file affect the crunching times/credit claims?

---

Please consider a Donation to the Seti Project.

How does the .jpg file affect the crunching times/credit claims?

Sorry, I guess I could have been more clear. :) I was explaining the error results that were reported by that host, not trying to explain the credits...

Eric

---

@SETIEric@qoto.org (Mastodon)