again less credits?

Message boards : Number crunching : again less credits?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 4 · 5 · 6 · 7

AuthorMessage
Profile Dirk Sadowski
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 6 Apr 07
Posts: 7105
Credit: 147,663,825
RAC: 5
Germany
Message 952815 - Posted: 6 Dec 2009, 19:22:26 UTC
Last modified: 6 Dec 2009, 19:24:13 UTC


IIRC, I started this thread because I saw that for the same AR WU - ~ 10 %.

Finally.. a mistake in the 'credit adjust script'.

Then the credits increased again.


Maybe this time also?


If I look to other projects.. I don't say which.. I guess it's known which projects pay much much more..

This is like an inflation of the credit system.


AFAIK, ATI GPUs are now welcome at SETI@home because of the kind opt. crew.
So, maybe more advertisement for to recruit more members..?

OTOH, not enough AP WUs available.




ID: 952815 · Report as offensive
1mp0£173
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 8423
Credit: 356,897
RAC: 0
United States
Message 952818 - Posted: 6 Dec 2009, 19:27:54 UTC - in response to Message 952815.  

IIRC, I started this thread because I saw that for the same AR WU - ~ 10 %.

Finally.. a mistake in the 'credit adjust script'.

Then the credits increased again.

Maybe this time also?

Have you read the script, or the explanation of how it works?

Because Multibeam in particular does not grant a linear amount of credit (because the kind of floating point operations change with angle-range) a run of "high paying" or "low paying" work will cause the overall credit to adjust.

That isn't entirely what we'd like, but the good news is that whenever it adjusts away from the correct value, it'll adjust back later -- and in the longer term, we'll be paid what should be paid.
ID: 952818 · Report as offensive
Profile Dirk Sadowski
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 6 Apr 07
Posts: 7105
Credit: 147,663,825
RAC: 5
Germany
Message 952821 - Posted: 6 Dec 2009, 19:35:53 UTC - in response to Message 952818.  
Last modified: 6 Dec 2009, 19:37:52 UTC

Have you read the script, or the explanation of how it works?
[...]


AFAIK, IIRC, because the GPU cruncher were counted also. So we got a deflation.

Then change of the script (only CPU PCs) and the credits increased again.




ID: 952821 · Report as offensive
Josef W. Segur
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 30 Oct 99
Posts: 4504
Credit: 1,414,761
RAC: 0
United States
Message 952857 - Posted: 6 Dec 2009, 22:34:28 UTC - in response to Message 952821.  

Have you read the script, or the explanation of how it works?
[...]

AFAIK, IIRC, because the GPU cruncher were counted also. So we got a deflation.

Then change of the script (only CPU PCs) and the credits increased again.
[/color]

The script hasn't been changed since September 2008 (at least the one in the BOINC source), so considers only CPU time. The way it works ignores the extremes at either end anyhow.

With about 293 thousand active hosts with a total RAC near 72.9 million, the average RAC is slightly under 250. I believe the median host would have a lower RAC than that, the average is unduly influenced by the few hosts with very high RAC. IMO, the median host isn't running CUDA so variation of the credit rate is still strictly related to the mix of ARs being split.

David Anderson's latest approach to a revised credit system is CreditNew. Some test code was checked in nearly a month ago, commented with "It seems to work!". It will be interesting if it is put into actual use.
                                                                 Joe
ID: 952857 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 4 · 5 · 6 · 7

Message boards : Number crunching : again less credits?


 
©2025 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.