The curve of AR/time is a pig, see 5.11 Competion times that was posted on the Beta site. The devs do say they might not have the curve correct or got the credits calculation based on that curve right. But they are reviewing the situation as more results are returned before adjusting the formula.

I believe that the curve is a myth.

If we're actually counting floating point operations, then the count is the count.

We then multiply the count by some scaling factor, and that's the score.

If a WU is ten times as long, there will be ten times the number of floating point ops, and we'll multiply a bigger number times the scaling factor.

---

I dont even understand why this is an issue...its not that hard to fix...its not like we are saying the entire core is broken and the project needs a total rework, its as simple as changing a multiplier, and I am in this for both the Stats and the Science, don't belive me...I also crunch Hash Clash.

It is an issue because an hour of SETI is supposed to be about the same as an hour of Einstein and about the same as an hour of Rosetta, or CPDN, or Hash Clash.

If SETI suddenly starts giving out "double credit" then those BOINC users who are "shopping" for credits will move to BOINC at the expense of the other projects.

So, to compensate, Einstein might artifically increase their credits, and now we've got a shift from SETI to Einstein.

Then Rosetta starts giving out 5x credits, and those who like credits over everything start crunching Rosetta.

... and if that continues, someday 1 minute of crunching will be worth about a million cobblestones.

SETI is trying to avoid credit inflation.

---

I believe that the curve is a myth.

If we're actually counting floating point operations, then the count is the count.

We then multiply the count by some scaling factor, and that's the score.

If a WU is ten times as long, there will be ten times the number of floating point ops, and we'll multiply a bigger number times the scaling factor.

It is possible that you are correct, however I think there is a curve to be considered. We talk about a FLOP count almost exculsively, but that is not complete there is an IOP count as well. There is a logical basis for mostly ignoring the IOP count, SETI is very heavily weighted towards FLOPs. I suspect however that the ratio between IOPs and FLOPs does change depending on the angle range. The question is if this change in the ratio is enough to make a difference in the final numbers.

---

BOINC WIKI

BOINCing since 2002/12/8

I dont even understand why this is an issue...its not that hard to fix...its not like we are saying the entire core is broken and the project needs a total rework, its as simple as changing a multiplier, and I am in this for both the Stats and the Science, don't belive me...I also crunch Hash Clash.

It is an issue because an hour of SETI is supposed to be about the same as an hour of Einstein and about the same as an hour of Rosetta, or CPDN, or Hash Clash.

If SETI suddenly starts giving out "double credit" then those BOINC users who are "shopping" for credits will move to BOINC at the expense of the other projects.

So, to compensate, Einstein might artifically increase their credits, and now we've got a shift from SETI to Einstein.

Then Rosetta starts giving out 5x credits, and those who like credits over everything start crunching Rosetta.

... and if that continues, someday 1 minute of crunching will be worth about a million cobblestones.

SETI is trying to avoid credit inflation.

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

Now, you're talking about "fair across the board"... DO THE MATH.

Is it any wonder why I've started migrating over to Einstein?

Now, it seems to me, that if it's supposed to grant across the board, then either Einstein is broken (which it's not, there ARE no optimized clients for Einstein, that I know of), or SETI Enhanced is.. and I think, from the postings in this thread, it's obvious which is which...

---

73 de AI8W, Chris

Abdico Concussio Fidens Servo Libertas Semper!

I believe that the curve is a myth.

If we're actually counting floating point operations, then the count is the count.

We then multiply the count by some scaling factor, and that's the score.

If a WU is ten times as long, there will be ten times the number of floating point ops, and we'll multiply a bigger number times the scaling factor.

It is possible that you are correct, however I think there is a curve to be considered. ... the ratio between IOPs and FLOPs does change depending on the angle range. The question is if this change in the ratio is enough to make a difference in the final numbers.

I doubt that the IOP counts are significant.

What likely is far more significant is the difference in the mix of the sizes of FFTs run for each range of AR. (Phew, hope you followed that.)

In other words, rather than just FLOPs, you are seeing the effects of the FLOPs count and memory bandwidth usage for the FFTs. Some computer architectures will be more sensitive to the mix of big/small FFTs run than others and the FFT mix changes depending on the AR...

In summary: Your hardware will likely have a sweet AR for maximum FLOPs gained. If your system is truly CPU limited (and has infinite memory bandwidth), then the FLOPs should always remain constant and rate of credit should hence remain constant.

(Ofcourse, most PC systems suffer a memory bandwidth bottleneck. Certain systems far more so than others...)

Happy crunchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

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

What is cc'd?
My machines are getting around 28.7 Credits for doing around 2.8 hours worth of work.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

What is cc'd?

cc: Claimed Credit
gc: Granted Credit

?
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

(Ofcourse, most PC systems suffer a memory bandwidth bottleneck. Certain systems far more so than others...)

Now, now. Don't be nasty towards Intel.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

cc: Claimed Credit

Initally i thought so too, but then he mentions minutes.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

(Ofcourse, most PC systems suffer a memory bandwidth bottleneck. Certain systems far more so than others...)

Now, now. Don't be nasty towards Intel.

Now how did you guess that? ;-)

(Not to confuse the Intel "Hyperthread" cludge with the AMD "Hypertransport" (fast) CPU-integrated memory management unit.)

Happy crunchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

(Ofcourse, most PC systems suffer a memory bandwidth bottleneck. Certain systems far more so than others...)

Now, now. Don't be nasty towards Intel.

Now how did you guess that? ;-)

(Not to confuse the Intel "Hyperthread" cludge with the AMD "Hypertransport" (fast) CPU-integrated memory management unit.)

Happy crunchin',
Martin

Now, now, if you use an Intel with2 MB L2 cache you hardly need memory bandwidth.

Andy

Hi,

Now, you're talking about "fair across the board"... DO THE MATH.

As long as an optimized application is envolved in the math it will become wrong. You must not compare optimized applications which are only used by a minority. The majority uses the standard software. And this software must result in equal granted credits.

Regards,
Carsten

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

Now, you're talking about "fair across the board"... DO THE MATH.

Is it any wonder why I've started migrating over to Einstein?

Now, it seems to me, that if it's supposed to grant across the board, then either Einstein is broken (which it's not, there ARE no optimized clients for Einstein, that I know of), or SETI Enhanced is.. and I think, from the postings in this thread, it's obvious which is which...

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

(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)

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

What is cc'd?
My machines are getting around 28.7 Credits for doing around 2.8 hours worth of work.

CC = Claimed Credit
GC = Granted Credit

---

73 de AI8W, Chris

Abdico Concussio Fidens Servo Libertas Semper!

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!

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.

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

The big complaint is this...

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. ... the problem and FIX IT.

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)

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.

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

My rac was over 24,000, and now it's dropping probably to the 10k range. I don't care, as everyone else's will do the same. My fast computers, once things settle down, will still be in the top 20, I'll still be gaining on the same people as I was.

What I can't understand even more is people and teams that aren't switching to enhanced until they absolutely have to simply because their credits will drop.

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.

---