http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=625954886

I spent about 30 hours of CPU time on it, and my wingman spent well over 100 hours of CPU on it.

---

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=625954886

I spent about 30 hours of CPU time on it, and my wingman spent well over 100 hours of CPU on it.

Your wingman have BOINC V5.2.2 .
IIRC, at least V5.2.6 needed for well Cr.

---

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=625954886

I spent about 30 hours of CPU time on it, and my wingman spent well over 100 hours of CPU on it.

Probably to do with your wingman running Boinc 5.2.2, I'll report it to the developers later,

I reported one of my tasks to the developers on 27th June that got Zero Credit, my wingman reported Zero Run time,
their fix for earlier clients was for the server to use CPU time as run time, (It's all to do with NewCredit and how it's worked out)
Keep an eye out for other tasks with Wingmen with 6.4.x and earlier,

Claggy

Edit: reported to developers.

That makes me feel better about my 23 second 0.00 credit AP. At least mine didn't tie me up forever before zeroing out. My sympathy jraven.

---

PROUD MEMBER OF Team Starfire World BOINC

That has happened to a lot of us over the year or three of AP being in-use. Some people are still running ancient clients that do not report certain values at all, or correctly. I know I have gotten "robbed" of credit for at least half a dozen APs since they came out. The first one I was mad, then I found out I wasn't the only one that had to deal with that on occasion.

Now it doesn't really bother me anymore.

As far as the 23-second runtime.. there's still a few occurrences of having too much blanking. Last week or the week before, I had a handful of those. They happen, too.

I remember there were talks a while back about setting a minimum mandatory boinc version, but it was decided against doing so.

---

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

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=625954886

I spent about 30 hours of CPU time on it, and my wingman spent well over 100 hours of CPU on it.

I see you use ap_5.05r168_SSE3, I use ap_5.05r409_SSE. Which is best, the SSE3 version?

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=625954886

I spent about 30 hours of CPU time on it, and my wingman spent well over 100 hours of CPU on it.

I see you use ap_5.05r168_SSE3, I use ap_5.05r409_SSE. Which is best, the SSE3 version?

the r409_SSE version is Better, probably 20% faster than the r168_SSE or r168_SSE3 versions,

Claggy

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=625954886

I spent about 30 hours of CPU time on it, and my wingman spent well over 100 hours of CPU on it.

Probably to do with your wingman running Boinc 5.2.2, I'll report it to the developers later,

I reported one of my tasks to the developers on 27th June that got Zero Credit, my wingman reported Zero Run time,
their fix for earlier clients was for the server to use CPU time as run time, (It's all to do with NewCredit and how it's worked out)
Keep an eye out for other tasks with Wingmen with 6.4.x and earlier,

Claggy

Edit: reported to developers.

Thanks, Claggy!

---

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=625954886

I spent about 30 hours of CPU time on it, and my wingman spent well over 100 hours of CPU on it.

Although the other answers are correct, they have all left out an important point. BOINC cannot yet count AP tasks completed for the Application details, so the CreditNew system does not yet apply to AP work. Hence, that 0.00 indicated credit is the other side of the coin which has most full-run AP tasks giving 1,294.84 credits, the raw claim. Once CreditNew applies, hosts which don't report fpops_cumulative will no longer cause 0 credit grants.

Hosts where tasks run in standalone mode so have no CPU time may still be a problem, particularly since that usually happens with older BOINC clients which don't report Elapsed time at all.

                                                                 Joe

I have the same problem:

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=636407007

Me and my wingman got 0 points for this.

---

Petition against 1366x768 glare displays: http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_153240404724993

the r409_SSE version is Better, probably 20% faster than the r168_SSE or r168_SSE3 versions,

Claggy

OK :)

The host i reported to the developers first with Boinc 5.2.5 has done another Astropulse Wu and has got Zero Credit again,
but this time, for added complication his wingman is running Boinc 6.4.7, which also doesn't report Elapsed time!!

All tasks for computer 1589699

All tasks for computer 4850790

Claggy

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=625954886

I spent about 30 hours of CPU time on it, and my wingman spent well over 100 hours of CPU on it.

The problem is that the wingman's machine is returning zero claimed credit and the validator is using the lower of the credit claims. We don't have a functioning astropulse validator with Davids new credit scheme yet. I thought we had fixed this, but there have been changes that might have reintroduced it. Anyway I was able to grant the proper claimed credit to the machine not claiming zero credit.

I'll try to fix the rest shortly.

Eric

---

@SETIEric@qoto.org (Mastodon)

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=625954886

I spent about 30 hours of CPU time on it, and my wingman spent well over 100 hours of CPU on it.

The problem is that the wingman's machine is returning zero claimed credit and the validator is using the lower of the credit claims. We don't have a functioning astropulse validator with Davids new credit scheme yet. I thought we had fixed this, but there have been changes that might have reintroduced it. Anyway I was able to grant the proper claimed credit to the machine not claiming zero credit.

I'll try to fix the rest shortly.

Eric

Thanks, Eric, I appreciate your help.

---