If the blanked tasks take less time than using v6 (as they will), then you would expect less credit per task, but more tasks per day, resulting in the same RAC.

If the credit system worked as documented, that is. ;)

Richard, you are wrong about daily RAC.

AP v6: average run time circa 3800 seconds, credit circa 650.

AP v7: average run time circa 3000 seconds, using credit circa 200 (actually seeing any where between 120 and 160 credits per v7 AP WU as the norm).

The equivalence point based on the circa data above is 513 credits for v7. The implication is a 61% reduction in AP credits per unit time.

I appreciate that run times can be less, but if you factor that in with the credits being actually granted/seen, there is still a significant gap.

Daily RAC will not be the same.



cheers

---

If the blanked tasks take less time than using v6 (as they will), then you would expect less credit per task, but more tasks per day, resulting in the same RAC.

If the credit system worked as documented, that is. ;)

Richard, you are wrong about daily RAC.

AP v6: average run time circa 3800 seconds, credit circa 650.

AP v7: average run time circa 3000 seconds, using credit circa 200 (actually seeing any where between 120 and 160 credits per v7 AP WU as the norm).

The equivalence point based on the circa data above is 513 credits for v7. The implication is a 61% reduction in AP credits per unit time.

I appreciate that run times can be less, but if you factor that in with the credits being actually granted/seen, there is still a significant gap.

Daily RAC will not be the same.



cheers

It's now only just onto day two, only (as far as I can tell) Windows Nvidia OpenCL and AMD OpenCL app versions have reached their 100 validations, there are another 22 app versions that have to reach their 100 validations,
then each host needs to reach their 11 validations for each app version, Have more patience.

Claggy

If the blanked tasks take less time than using v6 (as they will), then you would expect less credit per task, but more tasks per day, resulting in the same RAC.

If the credit system worked as documented, that is. ;)

Richard, you are wrong about daily RAC.

AP v6: average run time circa 3800 seconds, credit circa 650.

AP v7: average run time circa 3000 seconds, using credit circa 200 (actually seeing any where between 120 and 160 credits per v7 AP WU as the norm).

The equivalence point based on the circa data above is 513 credits for v7. The implication is a 61% reduction in AP credits per unit time.

I appreciate that run times can be less, but if you factor that in with the credits being actually granted/seen, there is still a significant gap.

Daily RAC will not be the same.

cheers

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=75810&postid=1584709#1584709

---

SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours
Join the BP6/VP6 User Group today!

If the blanked tasks take less time than using v6 (as they will), then you would expect less credit per task, but more tasks per day, resulting in the same RAC.

If the credit system worked as documented, that is. ;)

Richard, you are wrong about daily RAC.

Anyone who knows me will attest that the "If the credit system worked as documented" conveys a huge margin of scepticism.

If the blanked tasks take less time than using v6 (as they will), then you would expect less credit per task, but more tasks per day, resulting in the same RAC.

If the credit system worked as documented, that is. ;)

Richard, you are wrong about daily RAC.

AP v6: average run time circa 3800 seconds, credit circa 650.

AP v7: average run time circa 3000 seconds, using credit circa 200 (actually seeing any where between 120 and 160 credits per v7 AP WU as the norm).

The equivalence point based on the circa data above is 513 credits for v7. The implication is a 61% reduction in AP credits per unit time.

I appreciate that run times can be less, but if you factor that in with the credits being actually granted/seen, there is still a significant gap.

Daily RAC will not be the same.



cheers

It's now only just onto day two, only (as far as I can tell) Windows Nvidia OpenCL and AMD OpenCL app versions have reached their 100 validations, there are another 22 app versions that have to reach their 100 validations,
then each host needs to reach their 11 validations for each app version, Have more patience.

Claggy

Claggy, I'm not impatient and am quite happy to sit back and see what happens however, the early indication is that daily RAC will be lower on v7 than on v6, not like as Richard asserted.

cheers

---

4851...

Patience, Julie. I'm just now starting to see an uptick in my home machine and overall RAC. Perhaps the APv7 results are starting to have an effect. Or maybe it's just a statistical blip...

---

If the blanked tasks take less time than using v6 (as they will), then you would expect less credit per task, but more tasks per day, resulting in the same RAC.

If the credit system worked as documented, that is. ;)

Richard, you are wrong about daily RAC.

Anyone who knows me will attest that the "If the credit system worked as documented" conveys a huge margin of scepticism.

I think part of the problem on main is the absurdly High Time Estimates. On my machine the stock estimate is 14 hours for an ATI task. Actual Time is 33 minutes, which it is now estimating since achieving 11 completions. From experience with 2 dissimilar GPUs, the GPU finishing under the estimate receives a Lower 'score'. 33 minutes is Much Lower than 14 hours, hence a Lower 'score'. Unfortunately it took around 50 validations to receive 11 'Completions' so now all the Bad history must be overcome. Unlike SETIv7, APv7 is producing a Higher APR than APv6 and SHOULD produce HIGHER Scores than APv6. That assumes CreditFew actually follows basic math principles. It would have been Nice if it wouldn't have recorded 50 valid tasks at an Estimate of 14 Hours...

If true that's very short term damage.

---

Got 28 validations on 2 different machines, but credit scores are still low. Hope you are right about it getting better. Lowest credit I've had is 42. Highest 200. Will see what happens as they get closer to 100 validations(I don't know if that number has any relevance but it's what I'm going to use to see how the credits adjust as they get done.) That is probably going to take most of the weekend.

Got 28 validations on 2 different machines, but credit scores are still low. Hope you are right about it getting better. Lowest credit I've had is 42. Highest 200. Will see what happens as they get closer to 100 validations(I don't know if that number has any relevance but it's what I'm going to use to see how the credits adjust as they get done.) That is probably going to take most of the weekend.

The number that counts is;

Number of tasks completed 18
Max tasks per day 89
Number of tasks today 291
Consecutive valid tasks 56
Average processing rate 906.20 GFLOPS

Once it reaches 11 completed, the time estimate is based on APR. Of course, you probably need your WingPersons to also reach 11 completions before the Credit changes much.

Looks like we just had a large number of APv6 results validate;

Got 28 validations on 2 different machines, but credit scores are still low. Hope you are right about it getting better. Lowest credit I've had is 42. Highest 200. Will see what happens as they get closer to 100 validations(I don't know if that number has any relevance but it's what I'm going to use to see how the credits adjust as they get done.) That is probably going to take most of the weekend.

The number that counts is;

Number of tasks completed 18
Max tasks per day 89
Number of tasks today 291
Consecutive valid tasks 56
Average processing rate 906.20 GFLOPS

Once it reaches 11 completed, the time estimate is based on APR. Of course, you probably need your WingPersons to also reach 11 completions before the Credit changes much.

Looks like we just had a large number of APv6 results validate;

[im g]http://setistats.haveland.com/munin-cgi/munin-cgi-graph/setiathome/setiathome/ap_workunits-day.png[/img] [img ]http://setistats.haveland.com/munin-cgi/munin-cgi-graph/setiathome/setiathome/ap_workunits-week.png[/img]

It is still going as well. I was at 580 Valid AP v6 & then 673 after only a few seconds. I think someone must be running a script to force the WUs to be checked for validation.
Looks like tomorrow will be our epic stat day.

---

SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours
Join the BP6/VP6 User Group today!

   Wormhole Effect

This thing's going to fly apart...

does anyone ever complain about too much RAC?

does anyone ever complain about too much RAC?

Never had the opportunity.


Given that when MBv7 came out it used code that had been used in the optimised versions which resulted in a 50% drop in RAC for those that had been using optimised versions, I'd expect similar results for the move to APv7 if it's making use of optimised code.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Looks like we just had a large number of APv6 results validate;

Just another 200,000 or so to go.
Should give AP crunchers a RAC spike to rule all spikes.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

30mr09ac seems to have most of its channels finishing in error. Anyone get MB work from that data set yet?

---

SETI@home classic workunits: 93,865 CPU time: 863,447 hours
Join the BP6/VP6 User Group today!

does anyone ever complain about too much RAC?

Never had the opportunity.


Given that when MBv7 came out it used code that had been used in the optimised versions which resulted in a 50% drop in RAC for those that had been using optimised versions, I'd expect similar results for the move to APv7 if it's making use of optimised code.

Gee, the way I remember it SETIv7 was Much Slower than SETIv6, causing Much Longer Run-Times for the Same Credit resulting in Lower RAC. Yes, I'm Positive about it. SETIv7 was Slower than SETIv6 as seen in the APRs;
SETI@home Enhanced (anonymous platform, NVIDIA GPU): Average processing rate 126.50 GFLOPS
SETI@home v7 (anonymous platform, NVIDIA GPU): Average processing rate 91.06 GFLOPS

The situation with AstroPulse v7 is the Opposite, APv7 is Faster than APv6 as seen in the previously posted APRs.

A bunch of mine went through it seems, a 20k jump in RAC, daaaang.....

---

Gee, the way I remember it SETIv7 was Much Slower than SETIv6, causing Much Longer Run-Times for the Same Credit resulting in Lower RAC. Yes, I'm Positive about it.

The part that slowed things down were the auto correlations, which shouldn't have resulted in a 50% reduction in RAC as the processing time didn't double.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Gee, the way I remember it SETIv7 was Much Slower than SETIv6, causing Much Longer Run-Times for the Same Credit resulting in Lower RAC. Yes, I'm Positive about it.

The part that slowed things down were the auto correlations, which shouldn't have resulted in a 50% reduction in RAC as the processing time didn't double.

You might want to check on that. There is proof the old nvidia cards, such as mine, ran a v6 shorty in 4 minutes and produced around 40 credits. I still have one of those cards running. Check out how long it takes to produce 40 credits today; http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/results.php?hostid=6796475&offset=20&show_names=0&state=4&appid=11
Granted...it's a little slower in Win 8, but, 1000secs is much slower than 240secs in most everyone's book.