... NewCredit is basically working as designed.

In other words... The random number generator is working fine...

There are any other rational explanation to understand why, in the same host, a faster to crunch WU (less processing time) receive more credit than a slower (more processing time)?

---

... NewCredit is basically working as designed.

In other words... The random number generator is working fine...

There are any other rational explanation to understand why, in the same host, a faster to crunch WU (less processing time) receive more credit than a slower (more processing time)?

depends on the app versions involved:

since credit is granted based on the most efficient app version

Claggy

... NewCredit is basically working as designed.

In other words... The random number generator is working fine...

There are any other rational explanation to understand why, in the same host, a faster to crunch WU (less processing time) receive more credit than a slower (more processing time)?

depends on the app versions involved:

since credit is granted based on the most efficient app version

Claggy

The same app, i only use cuda50... and processed by the same GPU... the host have 2x690... but don´t loose your time, i stop trying to understand how realy creditnew works a long time ago... I just keep crunching...

---

The same app, i only use cuda50... and processed by the same GPU... the host have 2x690

But your wingmen won't be using the same app every time, if all your wingmen used the Stock CPU app then you'll get consistent credit since that will be the most efficient app_version involved, but some of them use one of the GPU apps, then it's a pissing contest between you and your wingman to decide the who has the most efficient app_version (for that single Wu) and since the GPU apps are less efficient than the CPU apps, so less credit.

Claggy

(...) and since the GPU apps are less efficient than the CPU apps, so less credit.

So the slower stock app is more "efficient" than the faster app regarding the same result?
Well, this completely defies *my* former understanding of efficiency as such.
I think, i don't have to understand this - like many others as well...

*meshakinghead*

---

Aloha, Uli

(...) and since the GPU apps are less efficient than the CPU apps, so less credit.

So the slower stock app is more "efficient" than the faster app regarding the same result?
Well, this completely defies *my* former understanding of efficiency as such.
I think, i don't have to understand this - like many others as well...

*meshakinghead*

For their high peak FLOPs, they aren't as fast as they should be:

GPUs typically have a higher (10-100X) peak FLOPS than CPUs. However, application efficiency is typically lower (very roughly, 10% for GPUs, 50% for CPUs).

Claggy

LOL...
I long ago quit trying to understand CreditNew.
I just crunch 'em up and spit 'em out and whatever everybody's favorite random number generator spits out is what I getz.

---

"Time is simply the mechanism that keeps everything from happening all at once."

The same app, i only use cuda50... and processed by the same GPU... the host have 2x690

But your wingmen won't be using the same app every time, if all your wingmen used the Stock CPU app then you'll get consistent credit since that will be the most efficient app_version involved, but some of them use one of the GPU apps, then it's a pissing contest between you and your wingman to decide the who has the most efficient app_version (for that single Wu) and since the GPU apps are less efficient than the CPU apps, so less credit.

Claggy

Sorry i don´t agree with you, that´s not exactly what i see in the logs (validated WU) but no matter it´s a waste of time go deep on that question.

In other hand, I could understand your explanation, but still makes no sense for me, a WU is a WU whatever app´s/host crunch it, is the "human" way to think. If i receive a task to crunch, and i could do the same task in less time than my wingmate, my app/host/GPu is "more efficient" (do the task in less time). So why i receive less credit? just because my wingmate takes days to process the same task, it´s not fair. The work done is the same, slower or faster makes no sense.

The credit of a WU could not depend on what host/app´s it was processed, if you have a faster host/app´s is good for you & the science, you could do more WU per day.

A simple analogy, a pound of anything have the same weith, nomather if it is a pound of iron (a small amount) or cotton (a large amount) and the instrument you use to measure... think on that... that´s why creditnew fails if you look by "humman eyes"... but as we are talking about "ET´s"... forget all... Go for a beer and keep crunching...

@Ulrich Metzner... I totaly agree with you... that bug´s my mind too, maybe we all need back to the ET mad science school to understad why a faster host is less efficience than a slower host if they produce the same resoult...

@Mark... You are right, Keep the kitties happy by crunching anything they could send. It´s a waste of time to try to understand the way creditnew random number generator works. And congrats again for the SETI #1 place. The kitties flag shinning at the top of the hill.

---

The solution is to fix the credit system. When this is done, people will stop trying to game the system and things should settle towards a natural equilibrium.

The only solution is to fix the credit system.

Let's put it this way:

You go to the grocer's and you wait 5 minutes before the other customers buy their things. You ask for 100g of ham. They ask you 2$. You pay 2$

Then you go to another grocer's.
Here you do not have to wait. You ask 100g of the very same ham. They ask you 2$. But you say that since in this place it was faster, you only give them half. You hand on 1$ and (try to) go away.

What do you think is going to happen before you step out the second shop?

But for CreditNew paying 1$ would perfectly be OK.

100g of ham is 100g of ham.

Happy crunching!

Sleepy

Let's put it this way:

You go to the grocer's and you wait 5 minutes before the other customers buy their things. You ask for 100g of ham. They ask you 2$. You pay 2$

Then you go to another grocer's.
Here you do not have to wait. You ask 100g of the very same ham. They ask you 2$. But you say that since in this place it was faster, you only give them half. You hand on 1$ and (try to) go away.

What do you think is going to happen before you step out the second shop?

But for CreditNew paying 1$ would perfectly be OK.

100g of ham is 100g of ham.

Happy crunching!

Sleepy

Let's put it THIS way....

Since I cannot buy kibble with my Seti creds, the kitties are just fine with whatever the going rate is these days.

---

"Time is simply the mechanism that keeps everything from happening all at once."

The solution is to fix the credit system. When this is done, people will stop trying to game the system and things should settle towards a natural equilibrium.

The only solution is to fix the credit system.

The only person who could change creditnew doesn't
seem to consider it broken. Nobody here has
changed his mind.

The solution is to fix the credit system. When this is done, people will stop trying to game the system and things should settle towards a natural equilibrium.

The only solution is to fix the credit system.

The only person who could change creditnew doesn't
seem to consider it broken. Nobody here has
changed his mind.

But I'm sure he knows people are complaining about.

The solution is to fix the credit system. When this is done, people will stop trying to game the system and things should settle towards a natural equilibrium.

The only solution is to fix the credit system.

The only person who could change creditnew doesn't
seem to consider it broken. Nobody here has
changed his mind.

But I'm sure he knows people are complaining about.

Yes he does. I told him so myself.

But unless someone can show him an error in his code
nothing will change. Merely complaining in the forum will
achieve nothing. I doubt he ever reads this forum.

But unless someone can show him an error in his code nothing will change.

There isn't an error with the code- it's working as designed. The error is with the design- applying a theoretical concept of efficiency that results in real world devices that are more efficient being penalised by real world devices that are less efficicent.
ie a device that produces more work in a shorter period of time is considered (by the theory) to be less effcient than a device that takes longer to do the same work.
In the real world the slower device is considered less efficient. In the theoretical world based on the potential of the devices, it's not.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

But unless someone can show him an error in his code nothing will change.

There isn't an error with the code- it's working as designed. The error is with the design- applying a theoretical concept of efficiency that results in real world devices that are more efficient being penalised by real world devices that are less efficicent.
ie a device that produces more work in a shorter period of time is considered (by the theory) to be less effcient than a device that takes longer to do the same work.
In the real world the slower device is considered less efficient. In the theoretical world based on the potential of the devices, it's not.

We're not in the real world. We're in the world of academia.
From the lab side there is nothing wrong.

Now if some one wants to come up with $100.00 USD an hour
to pay the coder in question to come up with a Creditnew
that pleases the complainers something might get done.
Until such time...

But unless someone can show him an error in his code nothing will change.

There isn't an error with the code - it's working as designed. The error is with the design - applying a theoretical concept of efficiency that results in real world devices that are more efficient being penalised by real world devices that are less efficient.
ie a device that produces more work in a shorter period of time is considered (by the theory) to be less efficient than a device that takes longer to do the same work.
In the real world the slower device is considered less efficient. In the theoretical world based on the potential of the devices, it's not.

We're not in the real world. We're in the world of academia.
From the lab side there is nothing wrong.

Now if some one wants to come up with $100.00 USD an hour
to pay the coder in question to come up with a Creditnew
that pleases the complainers something might get done.
Until such time...

Bill, and there in lies the problem. There are two issues with what you are suggesting: the first issue is that the academics are not willing to move <colourful_language> and for all appearances have their heads in the sand </colourful_language>, the second is that you cannot go to solution mode without identifying the issue and its root cause first.

The starting point is the work units that are being completed and returned to Berkeley coupled with analysis of type, floating point operations, credit, run time, cpu time, application, device, etc (in short as much data as you can collect that is associated with each task/work unit to aid with analysis).

The data should be collected and placed in an offline database. Analysis of the data then needs to start at testing against the original intent of the logic that formed the credit system (not the code that was developed, but the intent) with observation of impact (what is actually happening).

Bill, I give you this. When I ran only "enhanced" daily credit was circa 220+/-k. When I only run AP, daily credit is circa 220+/-k. When I run only v7, daily credit is circa 110+/-k (roughly 50% less). Prima facia, doesn't this tell you that something is wrong!!

I am not the only one who sees a 50% drop in credit on v7 work units and with so many people complaining doesn't this also tell you that something is amiss!!

You can also look at it this way, when a work unit that asks for a higher level of processing(v7 wu) gets less credit than a work unit that asks for less processing then the logic of the code must be wrong. Would you not agree.

If we can all see this, then why can't "they"?

As to cost, I'm quite sure they could get a bunch of 2nd or 3rd year computer science students to do the analysis, write new code and test it for the appropriate credit.

---

Well,look at it from their side, why should they do it?

It costs them nothing to do nothing.

Edit Cost is not only in dollars. There's also time and effort.

Well,look at it from their side, why should they do it?

Because some people (not me, not you) might leave SETI for other projects to crunch and get more credits.
I know I know it is not about credits.
But for someone may be.
When I look at general (BOINC general) ranking, I see people with 3e6 RAC, who are not in SETI and who in SETI would get much less, but still would do a big fair amount of work. If THEY are after credit, they are lost for SETI.
Is this good?

We must not introduce inflation in the credit system, but here we are causing the same deflation effect that is affecting economy in the real world.
Which is not good all the same.

Happy crunching!

Sleepy
_____________________________________________________
100 g of ham is 100 g of ham and must be paid as such.

---

Well,look at it from their side, why should they do it?

It costs them nothing to do nothing.

Edit Cost is not only in dollars. There's also time and effort.

This is not scientific thinking, this is commercial thinking.
So newbies to the project could think this is a commercial project, but in reality it is a scientific project. What will the newbies do? After some crunching they will leave the project because it's not scientific!

Two conclusions: 1. unluckily they left, we now don't have their power of computation or 2. glad they left so they don't use bandwith by up-/downloading.
For SETI (including Astropulse) as a scientific Project, which one is better 1. or 2.?