And were do you get this information from, this is not somehing I see when looking at the other hosts crunching the same umits as my computers. The average person out there loads the software and runs it, they almost never visit these pages. It is one of the reasons it takes so long to get the BOINC client updated because until the Project insists on a minium version the majority never update it.

Most of the people who post on the Q & P pages, who have credit, do so not realise they would get a faster response, and frequently a more knowledgable one, on this board to the problem they have.
Andy

As I said in my post, I based it on the returns I get on my WUs. If the majority of machines were not optimized I would see more times where I get much less GC than CC, but that is not what I am seeing.

---

Well... one of your computers has currently 71 with granted credit, there your average claimed is... 30.87 CS/result while average granted is... 24.48 CS/result...

If you starts digging deeper into individual wu, you do have some wu there all has used optimized seti-application, but on many others you're the only one. Also, even some is using optimized seti-application, some is not using optimized BOINC-client, meaning they're claiming around 5-10 CS/result...

You need to look back farther. Since the enhanced was released many people have pulled the plug on optimized clients (using the term as was explained to me earlier), so of course it would be as you say. But go back before enhanced was released and you will see that I am right.

---

On something Seti could have done is hire Crunch3r and Trux to do an enhanced app and client, And support an optimized setup like is done in Einstein, Einstein hired a guy named akosf to do just that, Oh and to those that think Einstein will be doing the same as Seti, Einstein won't be going the longer crunch route and the Calibrating client of Trux's is not looked down on there either and no one worries that there are 4 or so different apps as not everyone has newer cpus with MMX, MMX+, 3DNow, 3DNow+, SSE, SSE2 or SSE3. I've read here in Seti that the under 5.11 the Credits were higher, Yet when 5.12 came out they suddenly dropped and that the DEVs are supposedly looking at the problem.

I mentioned this before and It was not even commented on for some unknown reason to Me.
http://einstein.phys.uwm.edu/forum_thread.php?id=4050#33718


The Following is from Mike Hewson a Forum Moderator in the Einstein Forums(Questions are mine):

1. Are optimized Einstein Apps/Clients officially allowed here and encouraged?

Yep. They have just hired the guy, Akos Fekete ( all hail!! ), who produced the optimised apps, in order to begin generalising the benefits to non-Windows boxes. It is preferred that calibrating clients ( eg. Truxoft ) are used to prevent quora being downgraded in credit ( where there is a mix between optimised/non-optimised apps ).

In Seti there are those that call It cheating to use an Optimized app/client.

Don't recall that being said here, but I could be wrong. If anything the fourfold-plus improvement in productivity from optimisations has put pressure on the server, resulting in daily download limits and that has been a contentious issue particularly for the higher end crunchers..... look here for an instance of 'robust' discussion on that....... :-)

2. And what about the credit system and crunching times, Will either be changed as in longer crunching times?

Can't be precise here, as there is quite a variation in the types of WU's presented to the apps ( generically called p's, z's, j's etc according to the initial letter of the file ), hence times/credits etc. These serve different science aims ( true vs. fake signal detection say ) and is a bit complex to cross compare ( the j's have 6 per quorum I think ) but it still comes down to the quora/validation process ....... :-)

Cheers, Mike.

( edit ) Oh, and you have some nice rigs too ..... :-)

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

The problem with version 5.11 is that it should never have been released on the main Seti site. The only official versions released are 5.12 and 5.13 which is for Mac only.

Ingleside has stated that they can detect users that overclaim on enhanced and they can adjust the claimed credits, to 0 if necessary.

It is also interesting that no one with an opposing view of this has an RAC of over 5000!

According to your line of reasoning regarding the SETI.USA/SETI.Germany situation, we ‘small fry’ ought to be the most upset by the change, because now it’ll be that much harder for us to catch up with the ‘big fish’. Or are you just asserting that our opinions are worth less than yours because you’ve contributed more crunching than we have?

---

If you starts digging deeper into individual wu, you do have some wu there all has used optimized seti-application, but on many others you're the only one. Also, even some is using optimized seti-application, some is not using optimized BOINC-client, meaning they're claiming around 5-10 CS/result...

You need to look back farther. Since the enhanced was released many people have pulled the plug on optimized clients (using the term as was explained to me earlier), so of course it would be as you say. But go back before enhanced was released and you will see that I am right.

Highly unlikely.
As has been mentioned earlier in the thread, most people download the software, set it up & then mostly forget about it. Optimised clients are generally only used by those that are in it for the competition. While they have a large total number of machines, they would be only a small percentage of the overall number of users.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

On something Seti could have done is hire Crunch3r and Trux to do an enhanced app and client, And support an optimized setup like is done in Einstein,....

I think that's what is upsetting many of the people that use Optimised applications. The Enhanced application has been considerably tweaked when compared to the standard application. So instead of getting 3 times the credit per hour of the standard application it's only slightly more.
Hence the world is ending etc.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

I guess I'm competitive by nature, but without the competition and camaraderie of belonging to a competitive team, it has no appeal to me.

I still can't see how the changes reduce the competition; it makes it more competitive IMHO because it won't be a case of pot luck any more as to whether you get 10 credits or 60 for doing a particular WU. It's evened things out.
*shrug*

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Grant, don't worry about it, evidently some don't want to compete when the playing field is even. Some just have to have an advantage or they won't play. They'll just take their ball and go home.

Grant, don't worry about it, evidently some don't want to compete when the playing field is even. Some just have to have an advantage or they won't play. They'll just take their ball and go home.

And that means that I will eventually overtake them. If they are no longer playing, then those that keep on crunching (even slowly) will pass them by.

---

BOINC WIKI

On something Seti could have done is hire Crunch3r and Trux to do an enhanced app and client, And support an optimized setup like is done in Einstein, Einstein hired a guy named akosf to do just that

Akosf was releasing reverse-engineered optimized Windows science apps long before he was hired by Einstein.

Starting a science app from scratch is something completely different.
Same with a BOINC client.

I've read here in Seti that the under 5.11 the Credits were higher, Yet when 5.12 came out they suddenly dropped and that the DEVs are supposedly looking at the problem.

The only problem there seems to be is that people with a lot of credit and lots of RAC, who ran ultra optimized clients and ultra calibrated Boinc versions, see their crunch times go up. This hacks into the credit per hour and thus in your RAC.

No explanation of why this is happening is good enough. Angle Range, variable deadlines, no more credits based on benchmarking, more science per result. No!!! It's credits that the project revolves around, nothing else. Or so it would seem.

And so, if we can't crunch 48 results per 24 hours on Seti anymore, why not go over to a project that can? That'll teach them!

---

It is also interesting that no one with an opposing view of this has an RAC of over 5000!

According to your line of reasoning regarding the SETI.USA/SETI.Germany situation, we ‘small fry’ ought to be the most upset by the change, because now it’ll be that much harder for us to catch up with the ‘big fish’. Or are you just asserting that our opinions are worth less than yours because you’ve contributed more crunching than we have?

Actually what I am stating is that all those with the opposing view are not power users. So, where will you all be once all those of us "big fish" as you say leave? If all the power crunchers leave, say those with an RAC of 15,000 or more, just how long do you think it would take to get any work validated. But I'm guessing that the gripes under the cut credits of v5.12 go even farther down say, those with 9,000+ RAC. Those people are obviously crunching for competition and CREDIT. There, I've said it. That most PROFANE of all words in the English language. The "C" word. CREDIT. There, I've said it again. What happens to a project that treats it's top participants like pariahs. Well, I guess you'll soon find out.

Regards, Daniel.

Hi,

sorry if I'm not telling anything new. It's hard to keep your reading updated ...

Jack Gulley wrote:

Lets compare:

Apples(4.18) to Apples(5.12)

If I do understand various postings correctly this has already been done. The average granted credit per hour of an standard 4.18 application is nearly the same as of an standard 5.12 application (using a standard Boinc client) -- Disclaimer: I haven't tested it. I cannot tell if it is true.

The "problem" is that optimizations done by Crunch3r & Co. found their way into the new standard client. As a result further optimizations aren't as effective as they were with the 4.18 application because 5.12 is already optimized in some degree. This leads to a lower credit per hour rate of 5.12 if you are comparing the optimized applications.

But this leads to the ultimative question again: What are "fair" credits? Is it fair if the standard systems are getting the same credits per hour like before? Is it fair if optimized clients are getting the same credits per hour like before? Is it fair if one project is granting much more credits per hour than another project?

The person who solves this problem in an appropriate manner will have 500,000 new friends ...

SargeD wrote:

As I said in my post, I based it on the returns I get on my WUs. If the majority of machines were not optimized I would see more times where I get much less GC than CC, but that is not what I am seeing.

*Because* the majority runs standard applications with standard boinc clients you got your CC. Keep in mind: the "optimized" boinc clients were only needed to bring the underclaimed CC caused by the optimized science applications back to where it should be (if it was 24 or 32 is another question ...). Without any optimization there wasn't any underclaiming (well, in most cases).

Regards,
Carsten

On something Seti could have done is hire Crunch3r and Trux to do an enhanced app and client, And support an optimized setup like is done in Einstein, Einstein hired a guy named akosf to do just that

Akosf was releasing reverse-engineered optimized Windows science apps long before he was hired by Einstein.

Starting a science app from scratch is something completely different.
Same with a BOINC client.

I've read here in Seti that the under 5.11 the Credits were higher, Yet when 5.12 came out they suddenly dropped and that the DEVs are supposedly looking at the problem.

The only problem there seems to be is that people with a lot of credit and lots of RAC, who ran ultra optimized clients and ultra calibrated Boinc versions, see their crunch times go up. This hacks into the credit per hour and thus in your RAC.

No explanation of why this is happening is good enough. Angle Range, variable deadlines, no more credits based on benchmarking, more science per result. No!!! It's credits that the project revolves around, nothing else. Or so it would seem.

And so, if we can't crunch 48 results per 24 hours on Seti anymore, why not go over to a project that can? That'll teach them!

Then You and Your fellows can crunch seti by Yourselves when the 4.18 WU's come to an end, As I won't crunch the 5.12 WU's for less per hour than is earned under 4.18. It would be nice to have a system of checks and balances to keep any programmers from trying to cheat(Some sort of result that would be the same across all apps/clients that couldn't be altered) or even just a flat credit(Non zero), But If science is all that important, Why not just cut the credit to Zero and have done with It? Then the ones who want to crunch for nothing will be happy and alone.

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

And would someone please tell me why crunching PURELY for CREDIT is somehow BAD??? There are those that ARE here JUST for credit. But what you don't or more to the point, CAN'T accept, is that the "greedy credit whores" are the ones who are actually doing the MOST science. Isn't THAT ironic!!! Take away their motivation for crunching, and the bottom line is that it HURTS the SCIENCE, because there won't be many hosts left DOING any science. The project management should be thinking about that, and so should all of YOU.

Regards, Daniel.

And would someone please tell me why crunching PURELY for CREDIT is somehow BAD??? There are those that ARE here JUST for credit. But what you don't or more to the point, CAN'T accept, is that the "greedy credit whores" are the ones who are actually doing the MOST science. Isn't THAT ironic!!! Take away their motivation for crunching, and the bottom line is that it HURTS the SCIENCE, because there won't be many hosts left DOING any science. The project management should be thinking about that, and so should all of YOU.

Regards, Daniel.

Simple, Purely for Credit or Nearly is Captitalistic and those for Science only or nearly are or Seem to be Socialistic, Some might even go so far as to say Communistic though.

Remember this is Berkeley, Others in the USA call California the Left Coast and You wonder why? That's the reason I'd guess.

---

The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's

It is also interesting that no one with an opposing view of this has an RAC of over 5000!

According to your line of reasoning regarding the SETI.USA/SETI.Germany situation, we ‘small fry’ ought to be the most upset by the change, because now it’ll be that much harder for us to catch up with the ‘big fish’. Or are you just asserting that our opinions are worth less than yours because you’ve contributed more crunching than we have?

Actually what I am stating is that all those with the opposing view are not power users. So, where will you all be once all those of us "big fish" as you say leave? If all the power crunchers leave, say those with an RAC of 15,000 or more, just how long do you think it would take to get any work validated. But I'm guessing that the gripes under the cut credits of v5.12 go even farther down say, those with 9,000+ RAC. Those people are obviously crunching for competition and CREDIT. There, I've said it. That most PROFANE of all words in the English language. The "C" word. CREDIT. There, I've said it again. What happens to a project that treats it's top participants like pariahs. Well, I guess you'll soon find out.

Regards, Daniel.

... and my statement is: if credit is suddenly dropped, on the same day, by 50%, for everyone, what difference does it make?

We're talking about racing. Autos race at 200 miles/hour, while a horse race is closer to 35 miles/hour -- but horse racing survives, because all you need is a difference in speed.

---

... and my statement is: if credit is suddenly dropped, on the same day, by 50%, for everyone, what difference does it make?

It looks like you're going to find out. But you're not going to like the answer.

As I said, "And would someone please tell me why crunching PURELY for CREDIT is somehow BAD??? There are those that ARE here JUST for credit. But what you don't or more to the point, CAN'T accept, is that the "greedy credit whores" are the ones who are actually doing the MOST science. Isn't THAT ironic!!! Take away their motivation for crunching, and the bottom line is that it HURTS the SCIENCE, because there won't be many hosts left DOING any science. The project management should be thinking about that, and so should all of YOU."

Regards, Daniel.

We're talking about racing. Autos race at 200 miles/hour, while a horse race is closer to 35 miles/hour -- but horse racing survives, because all you need is a difference in speed.

How many car races do you see at ESPN vs. Horse races? I don't want to see a great Project like S@H become an obscure 3rd. class science program.

My point is: the 4.18 was inneficient to use CPU time, and some users found a VALID way to improve their donation. Now, the new app is better, so optimization is less dramatic.
Instead of granting more credit per hour, because the new app is doing more science per hour, we are receiving less credit per the science.

---