Seti Enhanced Credit Fair?

Message boards : Number crunching : Seti Enhanced Credit Fair?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 . . . 23 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile zoom3+1=4
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 64983
Credit: 55,293,173
RAC: 49
United States
Message 305221 - Posted: 14 May 2006, 8:27:41 UTC - in response to Message 305218.  
Last modified: 14 May 2006, 8:29:48 UTC

I have nearly the equivilent of jocelyn(2 x 1.8GHz Opteron, 8 GB RAM) right now, It has only 2Gb of ram of course, It sure doesn't cost $100,000.00.

Desktop system, or rackmount?
You can get "decent" priced dual core dual CPU work station systems, but once you start going for managable rackmount gear with redundant power supplies etc, the prices skyrocket.
Also the problem isn't just servers, it's network equipment & suitable UPSs, airconditioning so it all keeps going when the temperature's rise & on & on it goes.


Right now It's more work and less credit,

As has happened before in the days of Seti classic. There was a lot of wailing & knashing of teeth back then as well.
People get used to seeing a certain number next to so many seconds of processing. And if that number gets smaller over time instead of bigger then the world must be ending, even though it's the same for everyone.
*shrug*


What next forbid overclocked computers from running Boinc??? Whole teams are running that way.

BOINC has resulted in just that- because many of the Seti classic Work Units returned were nothing but errors. As long as the work done is valid, it will be accepted & people will get their credits. The more Work Units they do, the more credits they will get per hour. So overclockers have nothing to be concerned about- as long as they produce results, not noise.

I think I have more grey hairs than You, Junior.

Geez, i hope not.
I started going grey in my late 20s & that was some time ago now.
*too depressing to think about*


Joker1(Under Construction)
# Supermicro H8DCE motherboard(w/09/14/05 Bios),
# 4-Corsair 512Mb Reg/ECC PC3200 CMX512RE-3200LL 6-2-3-2.0 Dimms[Buy],
# 2-AMD Dual Core Opteron 285 2.6GHz E6 cpu(OSA285FAA6CB)[Buy],
# Supermicro 645w EPS12v Power Supply,
# 2-PNY 7900GTX 16x PCI Express Video Cards w/512MB ram[Buy],
# Chieftec Matrix Lime Green Mid-Tower ATX case(Modded),
# Seagate Barracuda 7200.8 ST3250823AS 250GB 7200 RPM 8MB Cache SATA hdd,
# Teac DV-W58E 12x DVD/CD Burner,
# 3-Delta 120x38mm 150cfm fans(2-cpu fans, 1-exhaust fan),
# 1-Vantec Tornado 80mm 84.1cfm fan(For Chipset),
# 1-Thermaltake 80mm 75.7cfm fan(For Chipset),
# 1-Chieftec 80mm 20cfm fan(door),
# 1-Vantec Nexus black 3.5" fan controller(Blue LEDs),
# 1-Thermalright XP-120 heatsink,
# 2-Scythe MINE 3 heatsinks[buy],
# usb ActionStar/LinXcel hub/vga/kvm switch(Shared),
# usb Teac 1.44Mb fdd(Shared),
# usb MS 5 Button Optical mouse(Shared),
# usb BTC AT keyboard w/ps/2 adapter & ps/2 to usb adapter(Shared).

Joker2
# MSI K8T Neo2-F MS-6702E v1.0 motherboard(w/9.3 Bios),
# 2-PQI 1Gb PC3200 2x512Mb Dimms(Samsung/TCCD),
# 1-Opteron 165 1.8GHz cpu @ 2.65GHz(To be replaced with a 185 cpu @ maybe 3.82GHz or so),
# Enermax EG651P-VE FM 550w Power Supply,
# MSI MX4000 8x AGP Video Card w/128MB ram,
# Chieftec Dragon Black/Grey Mid-Tower ATX case(not Modded),
# WD 40Gb 7200rpm 2Mb cache hdd,
# Maxtor 20Gb 7200rpm 2Mb cache hdd,
# IBM 48x black cd-rom drive,
# 2-Delta 120x38mm 150cfm fans(1-cpu fan, 1-exhaust fan),
# 2-Thermaltake 80mm 75.7cfm fans(For Chipset),
# 1-Vantec Nexus black 3.5" fan controller(Blue LEDs),
# 1-Thermalright XP-120 heatsink,
# usb Canon CanoScan D1250U2F flatbed scanner,
# usb ActionStar/LinXcel hub/vga/kvm switch(Shared),
# usb Teac 1.44Mb fdd(Shared),
# usb MS 5 Button Optical mouse(Shared),
# usb BTC AT keyboard w/ps/2 adapter & ps/2 to usb adapter(Shared).

Joker3
# Asus K8N-DL motherboard(w/1008 Bios),
# 2-SuperTalent 1Gb Reg/ECC PC3200 128x72 64x8 Dimm(Samsung/D32RB1GW),
# 1-AMD Dual Core Opteron 270 2.0GHz @ 2.36GHz E6 cpu(OSA270FAA6CB)[To be replaced by 2-285 cpus @ maybe 3.12GHz,
# Silverstone SST-ST56F 560w Power Supply,
# Leadtek PX7800GTX TDH 16x PCI Express Video Card w/256MB ram,
# X Black Mid-Tower ATX case(Modded),
# WD 80Gb 7200rpm 2Mb cache hdd,
# IBM 48x black cd-rom drive,
# 1-Delta 120x38mm 150cfm exhaust fan,
# 2-Thermaltake 80mm 75.7cfm fans(For Chipset),
# 1-80mm 32.5cfm fan(door),
# 1-Vantec Nexus silver 5.25" fan controller(Blue LEDs),
# 1-zalman 9500LED cpu heatsink,
# usb ActionStar/LinXcel hub/vga/kvm switch(Shared),
# usb Teac 1.44Mb fdd(Shared),
# usb MS 5 Button Optical mouse(Shared),
# usb BTC AT keyboard w/ps/2 adapter & ps/2 to usb adapter(Shared).
The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's
ID: 305221 · Report as offensive
Grant (SSSF)
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 13396
Credit: 208,696,464
RAC: 304
Australia
Message 305225 - Posted: 14 May 2006, 8:32:09 UTC - in response to Message 305219.  

There were a lot of big anonymous farms out there using optimized applications who's machines were only claiming 6 credits or so and this was dragging down the whole setiathome average, despite the efforts of some groups of cheaters to inflate their granted credits.

That is a whole different kettle of fish IMHO.

Once people have migrated to the latest managers & core client, things should start to level out.
Of course the mix of optimised managers & non optimised core clients, optimised core clients & non optimised managers, optimised core clients & optimised managers will cause it's own hiccups, but over time things will become more equitable.
IMHO it would have been nice if the optimised mamagers & clients had been held back till the official manager & clients had become the majority- that way we would then know just what the expected claims & actual processing times should actually be.
Grant
Darwin NT
ID: 305225 · Report as offensive
Profile Ananas
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 14 Dec 01
Posts: 195
Credit: 2,503,252
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 305226 - Posted: 14 May 2006, 8:33:47 UTC - in response to Message 305056.  

You seem to think the excess credits you have benn granted by using Crunch3r's optimised app and Trux's BOINC client are the right figure's. But you live in cloud cockoo land. The correct credits for version 4.18 were about 24 and version 5.12 has been adjusted in testing to reflect that.


um ... sorry, above I compared Enhanced 5.12 / 5.13 with the credits claimed by CC 4.19 which cannot calibrate at all.

Enhanced 5.12 FpOps claimed quite exactly what the CC 4.19 time/benchmark based credits would have claimed, 5.13 claims only 50%

I don't care much about it as I don't crunch so many SETI WUs, but it's a fact.
ID: 305226 · Report as offensive
Grant (SSSF)
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 13396
Credit: 208,696,464
RAC: 304
Australia
Message 305227 - Posted: 14 May 2006, 8:39:12 UTC - in response to Message 305221.  

[quote]# 4-Corsair 512Mb Reg/ECC PC3200 CMX512RE-3200LL 6-2-3-2.0 Dimms[Buy],
# 2-AMD Dual Core Opteron 285 2.6GHz E6 cpu(OSA285FAA6CB)[Buy],
# Supermicro 645w EPS12v Power Supply,
# 2-PNY 7900GTX 16x PCI Express Video Cards w/512MB ram[Buy],
# 2-AMD Dual Core Opteron 285 2.6GHz E6 cpu(OSA285FAA6CB)[Buy],
# Supermicro 645w EPS12v Power Supply,
# 2-PNY 7900GTX 16x PCI Express Video Cards w/512MB ram[Buy],

For a gaming system i'd have gone for a single FX60 system, or even just an FX57. Not many games take advantage of multiple cores.
Although i guess not many machines could still churn out BOINC work uninterrupted while still maintaining their minimum frame rate & transcoding a couple of videos all at the same time...
Grant
Darwin NT
ID: 305227 · Report as offensive
Grant (SSSF)
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 13396
Credit: 208,696,464
RAC: 304
Australia
Message 305228 - Posted: 14 May 2006, 8:42:30 UTC - in response to Message 305226.  

Enhanced 5.12 FpOps claimed quite exactly what the CC 4.19 time/benchmark based credits would have claimed, 5.13 claims only 50%

4.19 CC?
AFAIK 4.18 was the most recently released Core Client.
From memory (what's left of it) 4.19 was the last of the 4.x series BOINC Managers & was known for claiming credits way too high.
Grant
Darwin NT
ID: 305228 · Report as offensive
Richard Haselgrove Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 99
Posts: 14531
Credit: 200,643,578
RAC: 874
United Kingdom
Message 305230 - Posted: 14 May 2006, 8:43:55 UTC - in response to Message 305226.  

Enhanced 5.12 FpOps claimed quite exactly what the CC 4.19 time/benchmark based credits would have claimed, 5.13 claims only 50%

Looking at the two results currently showing for your systems, I think you'll find that Crunch3r's 5.11 (which you are currently using) claims double what it should, and 5.12/5.13 - whether stock or Crunch3r - all claim the same as each other.
ID: 305230 · Report as offensive
Profile zoom3+1=4
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 64983
Credit: 55,293,173
RAC: 49
United States
Message 305233 - Posted: 14 May 2006, 8:49:33 UTC - in response to Message 305227.  
Last modified: 14 May 2006, 8:51:15 UTC

[quote]# 4-Corsair 512Mb Reg/ECC PC3200 CMX512RE-3200LL 6-2-3-2.0 Dimms[Buy],
# 2-AMD Dual Core Opteron 285 2.6GHz E6 cpu(OSA285FAA6CB)[Buy],
# Supermicro 645w EPS12v Power Supply,
# 2-PNY 7900GTX 16x PCI Express Video Cards w/512MB ram[Buy],

For a gaming system i'd have gone for a single FX60 system, or even just an FX57. Not many games take advantage of multiple cores.
Although i guess not many machines could still churn out BOINC work uninterrupted while still maintaining their minimum frame rate & transcoding a couple of videos all at the same time...


True, But there is life beyond Boinc and the H8DCE is technically a server motherboard and is quite expensive to feed as It requires no less than 645w as per Supermicro recommendations for a psu. Please don't add a 2nd pair of 7900 cards to My specs as each takes up a 16x pci-e slot and both are together a True 32x video system on the Pro or Workstation level.

Of course there is some horsepower there in Joker1, But It'll wait until August as that is when It should go live, As I'm awaiting the funding of My late Aunts Trust fund, I'm due to get between $55,000 and about $85,500 and the 1st order of business is a house and land(I rent now), then a newer used car[VW Beetle Diesel](maybe) and then the upgrades and such.
The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's
ID: 305233 · Report as offensive
Profile Ananas
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 14 Dec 01
Posts: 195
Credit: 2,503,252
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 305234 - Posted: 14 May 2006, 8:53:02 UTC - in response to Message 305230.  
Last modified: 14 May 2006, 8:55:52 UTC

Enhanced 5.12 FpOps claimed quite exactly what the CC 4.19 time/benchmark based credits would have claimed, 5.13 claims only 50%

Looking at the two results currently showing for your systems, I think you'll find that Crunch3r's 5.11 (which you are currently using) claims double what it should, and 5.12/5.13 - whether stock or Crunch3r - all claim the same as each other.



You looked at the wrong project ;-)

This would have been the place :

http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/beta/results.php?hostid=4105

An example for 5.12 claiming the same by FpOps and by Benchmark would be here - with one 5.13 result claiming only 50% :

http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/beta/workunit.php?wuid=183789

An example for 5.13 claiming only half is here :

http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/beta/workunit.php?wuid=184243

In Beta I am using only "stock" programs as I want to see what's going on.
ID: 305234 · Report as offensive
Richard Haselgrove Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 99
Posts: 14531
Credit: 200,643,578
RAC: 874
United Kingdom
Message 305238 - Posted: 14 May 2006, 9:01:08 UTC - in response to Message 305234.  

You looked at the wrong project ;-)
Sorry, but you posted here and I was looking here, so it seemed the obvious place to start....!

Seriously, that sounds like somebody finger-fumbled when compiling the beta 5.13 - and BETA is exactly the right place to make those finger-fumbles, that's what it's there for - so mistakes can be made in (semi) private, without frightening the masses.

I hope you've reported in the (apparent) bug - not being a 'volunteer tester' myself, it's not so easy to check.
ID: 305238 · Report as offensive
Profile Speedy67 & Friends
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Jul 99
Posts: 335
Credit: 1,178,138
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 305240 - Posted: 14 May 2006, 9:10:15 UTC - in response to Message 305228.  

Enhanced 5.12 FpOps claimed quite exactly what the CC 4.19 time/benchmark based credits would have claimed, 5.13 claims only 50%

4.19 CC?
AFAIK 4.18 was the most recently released Core Client.
From memory (what's left of it) 4.19 was the last of the 4.x series BOINC Managers & was known for claiming credits way too high.


4.19CC (core client) - Boinc Core Client - boinc.exe (like 4.45, 5.2.6 and so on)
4.18 (science application)- setiathome executable (like 4.11, 5.12 and so on)

The older CC's (before 5.2.6) claim credit with benchmarking and time used (by science app) to finish a workunit, no matter which science app is used.

The newer CC's (5.2.6 and newer) do the same thing for the old science applications (4.11/4.18), but for the 5.* (enhanced) science app they claim credit by looking at the flop count of the science application.

Greetings,
Sander


ID: 305240 · Report as offensive
Profile Ananas
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 14 Dec 01
Posts: 195
Credit: 2,503,252
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 305244 - Posted: 14 May 2006, 9:32:25 UTC - in response to Message 305238.  
Last modified: 14 May 2006, 9:38:14 UTC

... Seriously, that sounds like somebody finger-fumbled when compiling the beta 5.13 ...


Dang, you're right, I assumed that the binaries are identical in both projects as that's how we work in our company : The latest successfully tested beta binary goes directly into production, without compiling it again.

The binaries are not identical between Beta and the main project so maybe not fully comparable. Sorry :-/


p.s.: the reason why I'm still using CC4.19 on some boxes is the squid/auth that 5.x cannot handle - or could not handle, the latest core client has some changes there so it might go through the firewall.
ID: 305244 · Report as offensive
Jack Gulley

Send message
Joined: 4 Mar 03
Posts: 423
Credit: 526,566
RAC: 0
United States
Message 305247 - Posted: 14 May 2006, 9:40:38 UTC - in response to Message 305225.  

Once people have migrated to the latest managers & core client, things should start to level out.
Of course the mix of optimised managers & non optimised core clients, optimised core clients & non optimised managers, optimised core clients & optimised managers will cause it's own hiccups, but over time things will become more equitable.

So a whole line of decisions were made that discourage migration and consolidation?

43 years of using, working with, fixing and designing new computers and their software has taught me that just because something is "new and better" does not mean people will migrate to it, or should. They have to have a good reason to make the change from the old and comfortable. Force (as in "you don't get no more WU's if you don't upgrade to the newest version") is not a very acceptable incentive. Causes "migration" to other hobbies. I know people who still use WP 5.1 for DOS on their Windows 98/ME systems. I still use a text editor written for use with DOS 1.1 as it does things I use that the best Windows applications will not do. That and a few other old DOS programs are more useful to them and me than anything Windows XP or VISTA can offer to replace them. No incentive to migrate, and the old programs usually don't work!

And who wants to crash their smooth working Seti setup (and system) with something some people are having trouble with? And that will Grant them less satisfaction than they have, after the time and effort spent obtaining what they have. They migrated to optimized applications and then optimized managers due to an incentive. And now you want them to give those up for what they perceive is less? One stock application instead optimized MMX/SSE/SSE2 versions for their different machines?

In a world of fast computers, broadband response times and instant gratification, Enhanced WU crunch times of what were originally projected would have caused me, and I suspect others also, to shut down the systems when we were not actually using them, instead of leaving them on 24/7.
ID: 305247 · Report as offensive
Grant (SSSF)
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 13396
Credit: 208,696,464
RAC: 304
Australia
Message 305259 - Posted: 14 May 2006, 10:04:53 UTC - in response to Message 305247.  

43 years of using, working with, fixing and designing new computers and their software has taught me that just because something is "new and better" does not mean people will migrate to it, or should.

Because something is new isn't a reason to move to it.
If it is better then they should.


Force (as in "you don't get no more WU's if you don't upgrade to the newest version") is not a very acceptable incentive.

Nor is supporting 12 previous versions of software (and hardware) just to keep those that are happy as things stand isn't acceptable either.


I know people who still use WP 5.1 for DOS on their Windows 98/ME systems.

I know people that use homeopathy.


I still use a text editor written for use with DOS 1.1 as it does things I use that the best Windows applications will not do.

Right tool for the right job. If it's not broken, then don't fix it.
Seti classic was broken, hence the BOINC version came about.
There were perceived problems with it, and over time they have been addressed. This present change addressess one of the longest running & more contentious issues.


They migrated to optimized applications and then optimized managers due to an incentive. And now you want them to give those up for what they perceive is less? One stock application instead optimized MMX/SSE/SSE2 versions for their different machines?

I have read & read & reread what i previously posted & can't for the life of me see where you came up with the idea that i'm advocating people give up their optimised software.
All i said was that mix will mean it will take longer for things to settle down. It would have been nice if they had waited a month or so before releasing them (or however long it took for things to stabilise). I didn't say anywhere that they should never have released them or that they should be blocked.


In a world of fast computers, broadband response times and instant gratification, Enhanced WU crunch times of what were originally projected would have caused me, and I suspect others also, to shut down the systems when we were not actually using them, instead of leaving them on 24/7.

Your choice.
I expect many people did the same thing when Seti classic crunch times were increased dramatically by a new client.
However i personally don't see the need for instant gratification. Some things are not only worth waiting for, the wating makes them so much better.
Grant
Darwin NT
ID: 305259 · Report as offensive
Grant (SSSF)
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 13396
Credit: 208,696,464
RAC: 304
Australia
Message 305260 - Posted: 14 May 2006, 10:07:12 UTC


It would be nice if the forum software didn't put spaces in after the quoted text.
:~|
Grant
Darwin NT
ID: 305260 · Report as offensive
Daniel Schaalma
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 May 99
Posts: 297
Credit: 16,953,703
RAC: 0
United States
Message 305262 - Posted: 14 May 2006, 10:09:58 UTC - in response to Message 300434.  




"Is Enhanced Credit Fair?"

The New Seti Boinc Enhanced has doubled my WU processing time and cut in half my claimed Credit (using the stock client).


Yes, on many machines it will reduce your claimed credit. The question is "Does it reduce your granted credit?"

I tried my best to make the answer to the second question be "No" on average at least.

Eric


Currently, all the enhanced workunits sent to me are being granted around 62 credits, or about twice the credit for a regular workunit. But even with the fastest optimized enhanced apps, it is taking SIX times longer to process a workunit. Simple math will tell you that granted credit will now be only ONE THIRD of what we were getting. My Pentium D 950, running x86_64 Linux, with the x86_64 optimized enhanced app takes ~2 hours and 10 minutes per workunit, per thread, running 2 threads. For standard workunits, the same machine took 21 minutes per workunit, per thread, running 2 threads. So, it takes 3.25 times LONGER to produce the same amount of credit. It is the same on my Dual Opteron 248 WinXP machine. That box took ~40 minutes 20 seconds per workunit, per processor to crunch standard workunits. Now, it takes FOUR HOURS per workunit, per processor to crunch enhanced, using Crunch3r's optimized enhanced app. That box now takes 3.0 times LONGER to produce the same amount of credit. So, "Does it reduce your granted credit?" YES, by a factor of THREE, in fact.

I have been crunching Seti for SEVEN years now. I have donated financially to this project. I have spent tens of thousands of dollars on ever faster computers, not to say anything about the high electric bills. Yes, I crunch for the science, but also, I crunch for the competition. The competition is what feeds my interest to do more science. The devs recieve the benefits of all this crunching power, and all I expect in return is to have fair credit granted for the work I do. This huge reduction in granted credit feels like a slap in the face after all the time, effort and money I have devoted to this project. I am realizing now the frustration that drove Paul D. Buck to pull the plug on BOINC. I'm guessing that there will be a very large number of the top 1000 crunchers here that will also be leaving for greener pastures or shutting down entirely.

Regards, Daniel.
ID: 305262 · Report as offensive
Richard Haselgrove Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 99
Posts: 14531
Credit: 200,643,578
RAC: 874
United Kingdom
Message 305265 - Posted: 14 May 2006, 10:20:17 UTC - in response to Message 305262.  

... <snip> ... but also, I crunch for the competition. ... <snip> ... I'm guessing that there will be a very large number of the top 1000 crunchers here that will also be leaving for greener pastures or shutting down entirely.
Chill, man.

This credit change isn't aimed at you personally. Every one of those top 1000 crunchers will be claiming, and receiving, 3x fewer credits than before - as will the rest of us. The competition between you remains on a level playing field.

It's like hyperinflation / revaluation. There's no point in earning 1,000 times more or fewer brass washers per hour, if you have to exchange the same 1,000 times more or fewer brass washers for a pint of beer!
ID: 305265 · Report as offensive
Grant (SSSF)
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 13396
Credit: 208,696,464
RAC: 304
Australia
Message 305268 - Posted: 14 May 2006, 10:32:05 UTC - in response to Message 305262.  

Currently, all the enhanced workunits sent to me are being granted around 62 credits, or about twice the credit for a regular workunit.

?
For me Regular Work Units were generally being granted around the 15-20 mark, although using the official manager & core client my machines were claiming around 30. With Enhanced for around the same processing time i'm getting around 22 credits, so it's slightly more. Once again using the official software.


But even with the fastest optimized enhanced apps, it is taking SIX times longer to process a workunit. Simple math will tell you that granted credit will now be only ONE THIRD of what we were getting.

So what it boils down to is those that have been using optimised applications are upset that Seti has put effort into optimising their client, and that their new optimised clients aren't giving them the throughput that they're used to.


I have spent tens of thousands of dollars on ever faster computers, not to say anything about the high electric bills. Yes, I crunch for the science, but also, I crunch for the competition.

It appears to me that a lot of people have lost sight of what Seti is all about, and with it their perspective.
Seti classic was about using unused processor time to try & find Extra Terrestrial Intelligece. Note the bit about unused processor time.
If you decided to spend bucket loads of money of computer systems & power bills, well that was your choice. It may well have been better for the project if you had just donated the money directly to Seti, or now BOINC. But you chose to go the harware route & that's fine. But it was your choice to do so, and to get all worked up because you're no longer getting the credits you once did because the project is actually doing more science is just so childish i can't find the words to describe it.


I'm guessing that there will be a very large number of the top 1000 crunchers here that will also be leaving for greener pastures or shutting down entirely.

It would be a shame if that were the case, but then it's their decision to do so.


The allocation of credit has been one fo the longest running sorepoints for many people with BOINC. That problem has now been fixed, and people are all upset because it has been fixed.
It beggars beleif.
Grant
Darwin NT
ID: 305268 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 17847
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 305276 - Posted: 14 May 2006, 10:59:32 UTC - in response to Message 305247.  

Once people have migrated to the latest managers & core client, things should start to level out.
Of course the mix of optimised managers & non optimised core clients, optimised core clients & non optimised managers, optimised core clients & optimised managers will cause it's own hiccups, but over time things will become more equitable.

So a whole line of decisions were made that discourage migration and consolidation?

43 years of using, working with, fixing and designing new computers and their software has taught me that just because something is "new and better" does not mean people will migrate to it, or should.

Totally agree

They have to have a good reason to make the change from the old and comfortable.

They do the new software is more sensitive meaning that there is more chance of detecting ET, if they are there.
Force (as in "you don't get no more WU's if you don't upgrade to the newest version") is not a very acceptable incentive.

Why shouldn't the boffins insist that you use this better package?

Causes "migration" to other hobbies.

People come and go, it is their choice, nobody is forcing anybody to stay.

I know people who still use WP 5.1 for DOS on their Windows 98/ME systems. I still use a text editor written for use with DOS 1.1 as it does things I use that the best Windows applications will not do. That and a few other old DOS programs are more useful to them and me than anything Windows XP or VISTA can offer to replace them. No incentive to migrate, and the old programs usually don't work!

Of course if isn't broke and it does the job why change. I'm quite happy with WP5 didn't like the upgrade to 5.1, but if you, like me, have to produce output for clients then you have to use a package capable of producing output to their specification, even if their choice is wrong, or you don't get paid.

And who wants to crash their smooth working Seti setup (and system) with something some people are having trouble with?

And why should it crash your system, if it does then from my limited experience, with 8 computers, there is something wrong with your system(s).

And that will Grant them less satisfaction than they have, after the time and effort spent obtaining what they have. They migrated to optimized applications and then optimized managers due to an incentive. And now you want them to give those up for what they perceive is less? One stock application instead optimized MMX/SSE/SSE2 versions for their different machines?

Nobody is stopping the programmers out there from producing improved clients and apps again, you just seem to want it all now. Due to lack of manpower and funds, and the wishes of the community to support obselete systems, Berkeley produces one Seti application per general OS. If you want a version tailored to your specifications the source is open and you can compile your own. Don't you think that Eric K could have been more worthwhile employed since the release of 5.12 than to go chasing timer problems for an OS that the 'owner' no longer supports.

In a world of fast computers, broadband response times and instant gratification, Enhanced WU crunch times of what were originally projected would have caused me, and I suspect others also, to shut down the systems when we were not actually using them, instead of leaving them on 24/7.


Exactly why you should be grateful to the optimisers like TMR and Joe et al, who shared their knowledge and expertise to bring 5.12 with processing times that are acceptable to you, without waiting for the optimisers to do there stuff.

Andy
ID: 305276 · Report as offensive
Daniel Schaalma
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 May 99
Posts: 297
Credit: 16,953,703
RAC: 0
United States
Message 305302 - Posted: 14 May 2006, 13:01:21 UTC

Suppose you show up at work tomorrow. Your boss tells you that he is cutting your wages by a factor of three. He tells you that you shouldn't feel bad about this, because everyone else at that company is also getting their wages cut. So, you think about all the years you spent at college training for your career, and all the years of service you've put in, only to suddenly recieve a severe wage cut for your troubles. So, will you and the rest of the workers at your company stay and deal with it? Sure, there will be some who stay. But when a "company" (project) slashes their "workers" (volunteer participants) "wages" (credits), most of the "workers" will either leave for a different "company", or for those that can afford to, just outright QUIT. We can live without Seti, but the project cannot exist without US. And what about all the other projects that would not even be here, if not for the success of Seti. Like it or not, credits are the "wages" of the D.C. world.

I don't know the exact statistics, but there is a very large percentage of hosts are either owned or controlled by a very small number of volunteers. If you start alienating those people who crunch for the competition, then what happens to the project? When you start seeing everyting you've worked to produce start crumbling before your eyes, it is difficult not to become frustrated. Just because an injustice happens to "everyone" does not make it right. More later, when I have the time.

Regards, Daniel.
ID: 305302 · Report as offensive
Astro
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Apr 02
Posts: 8026
Credit: 600,015
RAC: 0
Message 305304 - Posted: 14 May 2006, 13:06:23 UTC

LOL I see it more like this analogy:

For the last year an employee has had his friend clock him in 3 hours before he actually got to work. Now the boss has caught on and stopped him. Does the employee have a right to complain that his fraud was stopped, or should he be grateful to still have a job???
ID: 305304 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 . . . 23 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : Seti Enhanced Credit Fair?


 
©2022 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.