The WU processed with CUDA appear to be over claiming. You are receiving the credit claimed by your wingman with a CPU processed WU.

So if my wingman has processed his WU with cuda too, then we will receive both higher credit that if my wingman is a CPU-cruncher?

In other words. The credit I get for a WU can vary according to the wingman I have?

Unfortunately, yes. This is one of the imperfections of the current system and is due to the fact that BOINC does not properly calculate the FLOPs for graphics cards to claim the appropriate amount of credit. With the new scheduler being built for BOINC, this should be fixed whenever that version is released.

---

The WU processed with CUDA appear to be over claiming. You are receiving the credit claimed by your wingman with a CPU processed WU.

So if my wingman has processed his WU with cuda too, then we will receive both higher credit that if my wingman is a CPU-cruncher?

In other words. The credit I get for a WU can vary according to the wingman I have?

At the moment that is the case. I'm sure that the dev will eventually recalibrate things to rebalance the credits.

I don't think a recalibration will be necessary. The only thing causing this is the fact that BOINC does not properly count the FLOPs of a video card, which is used in part of the formula for claiming credit. Its not the validator that is at issue, its the CUDA app claiming too high.

---

Raise the granted credit on the cpu calculated w/u's, to the level of the Cuda claimed credit! :P
Problem solved. It will make up for that last credit reduction. :)

---

The Search for Extra Terrestrial KItties!!

Raise the granted credit on the cpu calculated w/u's, to the level of the Cuda claimed credit! :P
Problem solved. It will make up for that last credit reduction. :)

Only then SETI will be over-paying for their work.

Problem is just as easily solved by getting rid of credits altogether, which will make any future discussion of credit reduction unnecessary. :)

---

Raise the granted credit on the cpu calculated w/u's, to the level of the Cuda claimed credit! :P
Problem solved. It will make up for that last credit reduction. :)

Only then SETI will be over-paying for their work.

Problem is just as easily solved by getting rid of credits altogether, which will make any future discussion of credit reduction unnecessary. :)

Can't do that OzzFan, I still don't have enough for my toaster!

---

PROUD MEMBER OF Team Starfire World BOINC

I'm holding out for the platinum level prize: a year's supply of Nibbles and Bits.

I'm glad I found this thread. I just starting doing CUDA and I noticed all these inflated 'claimed' credits. I was worried my slight overclock was somehow corrupting work, so glad that's not the case. It's not really fair that cuda/cuda credit is inflated versus cuda/cpu, hope that gets fixed soon.

wondering what the credit is for?

Nothing tangible. Bragging rights.

---

It's just supposed to be a way to know how you're doing compared to others..or more to the point..something of absolutely no monetary value so you can have something to show for what you've done.

---

Linux laptop:
record uptime: 1511d 20h 19m (ended due to the power brick giving-up)

I'm glad I found this thread. I just starting doing CUDA and I noticed all these inflated 'claimed' credits. I was worried my slight overclock was somehow corrupting work, so glad that's not the case. It's not really fair that cuda/cuda credit is inflated versus cuda/cpu, hope that gets fixed soon.

I wonder what you'd make of this WU, as the app appears to have claimed a little under! http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=423263917
I'm pretty unhappy about it, as you might imagine. Various expressions come to mind, but it may mean that in future, I might consider 'losing' WUs with a CUDA 'wingman'.

---

Don't take life too seriously, as you'll never come out of it alive!

I wonder what you'd make of this WU, as the app appears to have claimed a little under! http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=423263917
I'm pretty unhappy about it, as you might imagine. Various expressions come to mind, but it may mean that in future, I might consider 'losing' WUs with a CUDA 'wingman'.

Since I got a PM from Iona last night, I imagine this link was to a WU I finished. However, now it just says:

"can't find workunit"

Let me know what there is to know. I'm running Raistmer's v10a teamwork app on a gtx295.

WUs are deleted from disk and purged from the database (the results of the WU are saved) 24 hours after everyone is done sending data in and reporting. The best way to "save" one of these WUs are to do screenshots, or if you have something like CutePDF to use as a print driver, you would need to save the WU page, and the task pages for that WU. HostIDs won't go away, even if they go inactive. That's the best chance of diagnosing an issue after being purged, but all the info has to be saved before purging.

---

Linux laptop:
record uptime: 1511d 20h 19m (ended due to the power brick giving-up)

Maybe she mean the little less claimed credits of the CUDA app?

'Shorties' have less claimed credits.. ~ 0.5 or something..

Example:
MB V6.03 AK v8.0 - 14.11 / MB V6.08 CUDA - 13.82


The current CUDA app have not only the overclaim.. ;-)

---

According to Iona, she claimed 42.63 credits. My host claimed 1.41 credits.

Unfortunately it sounds like we cannot troubleshoot anymore.

According to Iona, she claimed 42.63 credits. My host claimed 1.41 credits.

Unfortunately it sounds like we cannot troubleshoot anymore.

What you do(ne) with your rig?

I hope you will never be my 'wingman'.. ;-D

---

SETI@Home has been very considerate of keeping the value of a Cobblestone close to the original standard. Taking this into consideration, that would mean GPUGrid would need to lower theirs because they are granting too high.


...and if it came down to it, I'd rather see those who are only in it for the credits leave SETI than for SETI to participate in any sort of credit inflation just to keep users. Since SETI has plenty of dedicated crunchers who are in it for the goal, and those in it for credits are in the minority, I doubt it would hurt SETI too much for them to leave - it would simply take us longer to sift through data which is already older than anyone alive anyway.

Im sorry, but I have to disagree - Im not a casual cruncher, nearly 10yrs and 2 million workunits and yes - credit does matter for me. Im not scientific, I never went to uni and I work in a manual job, credit is my way to know how much science I have contributed to the project, it is an easy way to visualise my contribution. I take offence to be told to go away, my contribution matters as well, for whatever reason that I do it. The goal is to crunch as much as possible for the scientists to analyse, If I do that to get credit, so what, the end goal is the same. All this snobbery is stupid. There is nothing wrong with being a 'credit hound' - 75% of all my cpu time is devoted to seti, would you rather I went and crunched rosetta or milky way, then the seti goal might not be realised for another 100 yrs if all us credit hounds left and seti crunching dropped by whatever percentage.
Each to their own, for WHATEVER reason you crunch, the end goal is the same, and that is good for the project, so we all win.

---

...and if it came down to it, I'd rather see those who are only in it for the credits leave SETI than for SETI to participate in any sort of credit inflation just to keep users. Since SETI has plenty of dedicated crunchers who are in it for the goal, and those in it for credits are in the minority, I doubt it would hurt SETI too much for them to leave - it would simply take us longer to sift through data which is already older than anyone alive anyway.

You already have your wish - look at the long term trend of active Crunchers. I agree that increasing credits on a "bribery" basis is pointless, it would ignite a credit war amongst admins, very silly and counter productive.

I also think you are being too harsh on some "credit hounds". Yes there are many in that genre who care nothing for the science, and do it just to try and gain a mythical public notority as "number 1" etc. Is that a bad thing? Not really as long as they play by the rules of the "game", everyone wins, whatever turns you on as they say. Its the more obnoxious ones who cheat push and shove trampling over anything and anyone, I personally have little time for.

However many in the "credit hound" catagory are out there on their own - as such - see an opportunity to set a personal challenge and get the satisfaction of knowing they helped out, although its the challenge not the science that motivates them. Their own challenge is to beat "last weeks" totals as a personal motivator, they will never be "number 1" nor wish to be, its their way of getting on with life and achieving what to them is a worthwhile goal.

Should anyone decry that because they think "differently", have a "different" motivation to a so called "norm"? Frankly no, as long as their activities benefit the Project and hurt no one. SETI needs Crunchers, it will get them by being less of an elitist culture. Its human nature to want to help (99% of the time) provided they feel appreciated and valued. It does not take much to do the latter ....

Its these small things that are big and real to the (say) Pentium D Cruncher ploughing their way through an AP WU. The latter takes patience and dedication to do it time and again for small relative credits amongst the maze of zillions similar crunchers. All they want in return is appreciation for what they do, not lumping in the same mold as the rampent couldnt care less credit maniac who will trample over anything and anyone to be so called "number1".

Regards
Zy

---

SETI credits + $2.00 = A cup of coffee anywhere in town

Im sorry, but I have to disagree

As is your right. ...and its mine to disagree as well.

- Im not a casual cruncher, nearly 10yrs and 2 million workunits and yes - credit does matter for me. Im not scientific, I never went to uni and I work in a manual job, credit is my way to know how much science I have contributed to the project, it is an easy way to visualise my contribution.

Then you're not the type of credit hound I'm referring to. Perhaps, instead of taking one sentence out of context, like you did, and you learned my views through either asking me or my posting history, you'd know that.

I take offence to be told to go away, my contribution matters as well, for whatever reason that I do it.

I'm sorry that you took offense, but I think the offense was taken unnecessarily. Of course your contribution matters.

The goal is to crunch as much as possible for the scientists to analyse, If I do that to get credit, so what, the end goal is the same.

That depends on if your view is "the ends justify the means" or if you believe that the journey is every bit as important as the destination.

...but yes, in the end, if ETI is found, it won't matter if it came from someone who's sole interest was collecting credit or the goal(s) of the science. I'm sure Dr. Anderson or Dr. Korpela wouldn't care which cruncher found the best signal candidate.

Regardless, I still don't think its wise to put too much emphasis into credits. The reasons you've stated in your post seem perfectly reasonable usage of the "credit system" as a tool. What I have a problem with is people who get angry when credits are changed to keep the playing field level with other BOINC projects as if the change is going to harm them in some way, or they become irate, irrational beings over this. If you want to see how much you're contributing and you like racking up points, then by all means, have at it.

All this snobbery is stupid. There is nothing wrong with being a 'credit hound' - 75% of all my cpu time is devoted to seti, would you rather I went and crunched rosetta or milky way, then the seti goal might not be realised for another 100 yrs if all us credit hounds left and seti crunching dropped by whatever percentage.

What you call 'snobbery' I call realistic. I don't find those who get pissed or angry over something that essentially means nothing, no matter what value you've placed on it yourself, to be very realistic when changes need to happen.

In science we learn that things need to be tweaked or modified from time to time as new information becomes available. In religion, we learn that it is something that is not to be questioned or examined closely lest we insult those who believe.

Credits are a science and need to be changed from time to time as new information becomes available. Credits are not a religion, even if you like to use them to show your contribution.

The credit hounds that I am referring to in the post you quoted are the types that do not care about a level playing field across all BOINC projects, and get angry when an adjustment is made to the credit system. The credit hounds I do not care for are the ones that insist that credit will never be level (because of various reasons) so each project should offer whatever credits they want to attract whatever users they want to get their science done, which I believe to be morally wrong, especially among scientists. I have higher expectations out of these higher education type people (scientists), so I expect them to behave as professionals and not capitalists, and I expect them to not be 'enablers' by feeding this credit addiction that some have. It is specifically these types of people that I think could leave SETI and not hurt it nearly as much as they overstate will happen if they go.

Each to their own, for WHATEVER reason you crunch, the end goal is the same, and that is good for the project, so we all win.

Agreed. ..but lets remain rational people while doing so.

---

I also think you are being too harsh on some "credit hounds". Yes there are many in that genre who care nothing for the science, and do it just to try and gain a mythical public notority as "number 1" etc. Is that a bad thing? Not really as long as they play by the rules of the "game", everyone wins, whatever turns you on as they say. Its the more obnoxious ones who cheat push and shove trampling over anything and anyone, I personally have little time for.

However many in the "credit hound" catagory are out there on their own - as such - see an opportunity to set a personal challenge and get the satisfaction of knowing they helped out, although its the challenge not the science that motivates them. Their own challenge is to beat "last weeks" totals as a personal motivator, they will never be "number 1" nor wish to be, its their way of getting on with life and achieving what to them is a worthwhile goal.

Should anyone decry that because they think "differently", have a "different" motivation to a so called "norm"? Frankly no, as long as their activities benefit the Project and hurt no one. SETI needs Crunchers, it will get them by being less of an elitist culture. Its human nature to want to help (99% of the time) provided they feel appreciated and valued. It does not take much to do the latter ....

Its these small things that are big and real to the (say) Pentium D Cruncher ploughing their way through an AP WU. The latter takes patience and dedication to do it time and again for small relative credits amongst the maze of zillions similar crunchers. All they want in return is appreciation for what they do, not lumping in the same mold as the rampent couldnt care less credit maniac who will trample over anything and anyone to be so called "number1".

Regards
Zy

Zy, I think you just summed up my entire view of credit hounds right here in this one post.

I don't have a problem with people who simply want to collect credits and want to be number 1. I don't have a problem with people who are only interested in credits and don't care about the goal so long as they aren't the type to get pissed over nothing.


...but I don't think my post was overly harsh if one were to take in all of my views and not just one quote in one thread. Which reminds me that with all the new people posting here, it would be quite easy to get the wrong idea of my views if they are to only read snippets of what I type here and there. Of course, I would expect people to remain open-minded and not assume malicious intent when it comes to mine, or anyone else's views, and simply ask for clarification instead of taking immediate insult to something that might be taken out of context.

---