Negative credit???

Message boards : Number crunching : Negative credit???
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
gkcalhoun

Send message
Joined: 2 Dec 04
Posts: 3
Credit: 11,646,768
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1150064 - Posted: 8 Sep 2011, 15:44:47 UTC

How is it possible to get a negative credit on a result?

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=798944925

While my credit was -0.69 (not a big loss in points) the idea of getting a negative credit on a validated task just seems a little wrong.
ID: 1150064 · Report as offensive
Profile HAL9000
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 99
Posts: 6534
Credit: 196,805,888
RAC: 57
United States
Message 1150067 - Posted: 8 Sep 2011, 15:53:48 UTC

It was thought it was fixed a while back from the discussion in another thread. http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=64611&nowrap=true#1134740
SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours
Join the [url=http://tinyurl.com/8y46zvu]BP6/VP6 User Group[
ID: 1150067 · Report as offensive
EdwardPF
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 26 Jul 99
Posts: 389
Credit: 236,772,605
RAC: 374
United States
Message 1150110 - Posted: 8 Sep 2011, 16:56:37 UTC - in response to Message 1150067.  

it may not be a record , but years ago on the beta site i got -10,660,161.12 for a WU ... things get fixed over time ...

Ed F
ID: 1150110 · Report as offensive
Richard Haselgrove Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 99
Posts: 14656
Credit: 200,643,578
RAC: 874
United Kingdom
Message 1150120 - Posted: 8 Sep 2011, 17:19:29 UTC - in response to Message 1150064.  

How is it possible to get a negative credit on a result?

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=798944925

While my credit was -0.69 (not a big loss in points) the idea of getting a negative credit on a validated task just seems a little wrong.

I think the negative credit in that WU was caused by the second task listed - 2030068133, returned 10 Aug 2011 21:28:54 UTC. That matches the cause we tracked it down to last time (a host running the experimental BOINC v6.13.0), and the timing is just about reasonable - we thought it was fixed around 04 Aug, but it might have been a few days later. I'll repeat the report, anyway, just in case something has come unstuck since last time.

Thanks for pointing it out.
ID: 1150120 · Report as offensive
Richard Haselgrove Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 99
Posts: 14656
Credit: 200,643,578
RAC: 874
United Kingdom
Message 1150191 - Posted: 8 Sep 2011, 20:30:22 UTC - in response to Message 1150064.  

I've had a reply on my report. Yes, it was the same problem as last time - a left-over old result.

There were a few others like that, which have now been cleaned up in the database. And, in a belt-and-braces exercise, the validator should now also look out for any which slip through the net and correct them on the fly.

So, this should have been positively the last one we see.....

....unless, as always, you know better.
ID: 1150191 · Report as offensive

Message boards : Number crunching : Negative credit???


 
©2024 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.