If there is a new limit on total credit then that sucks.

My PC would have ended up in the top ten after the RAC settled down.
Now it won't show up at all..

Total credit should have nothing to do with RAC.

Looks like the total credit cutoff is around 290k. I went from the beginning out to 300th place and did not see a computer with less than 292k total credit.

Yep, you and Batman (at least) are definitely getting hosed right at the moment as far as recognition of your RAC peformance goes. ;-)

Alinator

At my current rate I should reappear on the list in less than a month. That is unless they change the cutoff.

---

Looks like the total credit cutoff is around 290k. I went from the beginning out to 300th place and did not see a computer with less than 292k total credit.

Yep, you and Batman (at least) are definitely getting hosed right at the moment as far as recognition of your RAC peformance goes. ;-)

Alinator

Interesting.

Just thought you'd want to know. :-)

Alinator

Man that ticks me off.

These are the latest Credits for the past week since I tweaked this computer.



4159
4244
4500
4669
4220
4172
4510

But my total credit for this pc is only 75,000 as it has been running only about two weeks. One week being optimized.

That puts this machine in the top 5-10 machines out there but none can see it because of this arbitrary total credit cutoff. It will take me weeks to months to get enough total credits to get on the list.

I beg the powers to be to re-think this discrimination.

Well, it's not much of a consolation and not nearly as clean if it was displayed here, but BonicStats doesn't have any of this "filtering" nonsense, so your hosts should show up there. ;-)

Alinator

Perhaps it is an error. Why not just ask the project to fix it or change it back to the way all the other projects do it?

---

Dublin, California
Team: SETI.USA

Well, it's not much of a consolation and not nearly as clean if it was displayed here, but BonicStats doesn't have any of this "filtering" nonsense, so your hosts should show up there. ;-)

Alinator

Bah, BionicStats has it's own issues. It shows two days this past month that had 0 credits when there were credits. No, neither the days before nor after have the missing credits doubled up.

Don't get me wrong here.. I'm as altruistic as the next guy when it comes to helping SETI but I also have my own reason for running SETI@HOME. SETI wins and I win (or was winning) until now.

I've been with SETI since DEC. 1999, 7 years on my account Lint. This account (Bob) was started for tracking my home PCs.

I'm just hoping a developer will post a message like..
Sorry, that was some code we commented out last year and by mistake re-activated.

Perhaps it is an error. Why not just ask the project to fix it or change it back to the way all the other projects do it?

If I knew who to ask I would.


Otherwise, I'm just letting off steam.


Feeling better now (grin)

There certainly looks to be an "entry qualification" of so many hundred thousand cobblestones, before the RAC then determines the rig rank in the top computers.

My newest C2Q has disappeared (only 166,000 recorded), but my old Prestonia Xeon is at 389 (completed 442,000).

One in and one out!

On the basis of the current RAC for my Quad, it should suddenly appear in the top 30 computers in about 1 month (32 days). So, I assume those that used to be in the top 50 are likely to suddenly appear in a month or six weeks.

All will then be restored to light and tranquility, as it was but slightly later than now!

---

It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues

Well, it's not much of a consolation and not nearly as clean if it was displayed here, but BonicStats doesn't have any of this "filtering" nonsense, so your hosts should show up there. ;-)

Alinator

Bah, BionicStats has it's own issues. It shows two days this past month that had 0 credits when there were credits. No, neither the days before nor after have the missing credits doubled up.

Don't get me wrong here.. I'm as altruistic as the next guy when it comes to helping SETI but I also have my own reason for running SETI@HOME. SETI wins and I win (or was winning) until now.

I've been with SETI since DEC. 1999, 7 years on my account Lint. This account (Bob) was started for tracking my home PCs.

I'm just hoping a developer will post a message like..
Sorry, that was some code we commented out last year and by mistake re-activated.

LOL....

No argument there, and I agree that having to flat out 24/7 crunch a new Quaddy for roughly a month to qualify for RAC scoring just ain't right. ;-)

One thing I did notice is that some tailenders seem to be dead hosts with orphaned and zombie results remaining, so perhaps this is part of the effort to get rid of those.

Alinator

All top 1000 now are with Total credit more than 290 000?! All host who are under that are gone for one or another reason...

---

Well, it's not much of a consolation and not nearly as clean if it was displayed here, but BonicStats doesn't have any of this "filtering" nonsense, so your hosts should show up there. ;-)

Alinator

Bah, BionicStats has it's own issues. It shows two days this past month that had 0 credits when there were credits. No, neither the days before nor after have the missing credits doubled up.

Don't get me wrong here.. I'm as altruistic as the next guy when it comes to helping SETI but I also have my own reason for running SETI@HOME. SETI wins and I win (or was winning) until now.

I've been with SETI since DEC. 1999, 7 years on my account Lint. This account (Bob) was started for tracking my home PCs.

I'm just hoping a developer will post a message like..
Sorry, that was some code we commented out last year and by mistake re-activated.

LOL....

No argument there, and I agree that having to flat out 24/7 crunch a new Quaddy for roughly a month to qualify for RAC scoring just ain't right. ;-)

One thing I did notice is that some tailenders seem to be dead hosts with orphaned and zombie results remaining, so perhaps this is part of the effort to get rid of those.

Alinator

You see my point, having to run it flat out is causing me real issues here. My porn is all jittery and hard to watch.. Oh wait.. Never mind.. that machine is my laptop and if I put it on the desktop things settle down right nice.

On the serious side, I was OC'ing the mobo to 12x266 (standard cooling) for something like 3.44ghz but it was hanging up alot (thought it was VISTA) backed it down to 11x and it is getting better scores in SETI than when at 12x.

Running this mobo,cpu and memory combo with XP is actually slower than running it in Vista. Must just be my setup or something.

I have a machine that should be in the Top 200 and a couple more that should be on the list...I must have been banned for abusing buttons...LOL

---

Official Abuser of Boinc Buttons...
And no good credit hound!

The reason for some hosts showing RAC of 0.11 and being in the TOP 1000 is that the the default filter for the list is Total Credit and not RAC.

It's just that the default view presented on clicking the Top Computers list shows it by RAC.

So all hosts who don't make it to the TOP 1000 by Total Credit have been knocked off the list even though the RAC might be in the Top 1000.

Which once again, I think reinforces the fact that the RAC is a meaningless statistic.....;-)

---

It's my fault, I have an AMD machine that would have made the top 100 RAC list on Wednesday. We cant have that now, can we? Oh well back to Reisel:-)

Fish

The reason for some hosts showing RAC of 0.11 and being in the TOP 1000 is that the the default filter for the list is Total Credit and not RAC.

It's just that the default view presented on clicking the Top Computers list shows it by RAC.

So all hosts who don't make it to the TOP 1000 by Total Credit have been knocked off the list even though the RAC might be in the Top 1000.

Which once again, I think reinforces the fact that the RAC is a meaningless statistic.....;-)

My PC is at position no. 286 for credit and 229 for RAC.

I presume the "sweet spot" is when both positions coincide?

---

The reason for some hosts showing RAC of 0.11 and being in the TOP 1000 is that the the default filter for the list is Total Credit and not RAC.

It's just that the default view presented on clicking the Top Computers list shows it by RAC.

So all hosts who don't make it to the TOP 1000 by Total Credit have been knocked off the list even though the RAC might be in the Top 1000.

Which once again, I think reinforces the fact that the RAC is a meaningless statistic.....;-)

RAC is an average taken over a period and to a formulae that SETI devised. So, it has meaning, when it has settled down.

Regarding the loss of Top RAC performing computers from the list because they don't have the minimum 290,000 cobblestones is just a time delay factor.

Those rigs heading to the top 100, dependent on how new they are to start, will suddenly re-enter the top 1000 within the next 1 to 2 months as they achieve the minimum number of cobblestones. That is unless the minimum number of cobblestones is not set to be a continuously rising figure? Anyone care to comment if it should be?

My top rig should be back at number 29 (or so) by about the third week of April!

---

It's good to be back amongst friends and colleagues

RAC is an average taken over a period and to a formulae that SETI devised. So, it has meaning, when it has settled down.

Regarding the loss of Top RAC performing computers from the list because they don't have the minimum 290,000 cobblestones is just a time delay factor.

Those rigs heading to the top 100, dependent on how new they are to start, will suddenly re-enter the top 1000 within the next 1 to 2 months as they achieve the minimum number of cobblestones. That is unless the minimum number of cobblestones is not set to be a continuously rising figure? Anyone care to comment if it should be?

My top rig should be back at number 29 (or so) by about the third week of April!

I still think, that the Top 1000 should be measured by Total Credit. That is, after all, the sum of the contribution made to SETI by that computer.

RAC is good for measuring the recent health of a PC, but not necessarily achievement in totality.

I don't think there is any prescribed minimum number of credits. It is a starightforward listing of the TOP 1000 as measured by credit.

So yes, that minimum figure will rise, because most of top pc's have a high enough RAC, and they are constantly adding credits to the total.

---

RAC is an average taken over a period and to a formulae that SETI devised. So, it has meaning, when it has settled down.

Regarding the loss of Top RAC performing computers from the list because they don't have the minimum 290,000 cobblestones is just a time delay factor.

Those rigs heading to the top 100, dependent on how new they are to start, will suddenly re-enter the top 1000 within the next 1 to 2 months as they achieve the minimum number of cobblestones. That is unless the minimum number of cobblestones is not set to be a continuously rising figure? Anyone care to comment if it should be?

My top rig should be back at number 29 (or so) by about the third week of April!

I still think, that the Top 1000 should be measured by Total Credit. That is, after all, the sum of the contribution made to SETI by that computer.

RAC is good for measuring the recent health of a PC, but not necessarily achievement in totality.

I don't think there is any prescribed minimum number of credits. It is a starightforward listing of the TOP 1000 as measured by credit.

So yes, that minimum figure will rise, because most of top pc's have a high enough RAC, and they are constantly adding credits to the total.

The point here is there has been a change to the way the high RAC hosts are selected. Previously, RAC was RAC and TC was TC, just like the other projects. IOW, a RAC of less than 1 would never make the list regardless of how much credit it had. IIRC, a host had to have a RAC of well over 500 to even make the RAC list.

It should be pretty obvious that displaying hosts that haven't even produced a single result in almost 2 years as being one of the top 1000 short term producers, while requiring hosts that people have spent thousands of dollars or countless hours on tweaking to the max to crunch flat out for weeks to get past the "chaff" is utterly ridiculous.

Alinator