I just looked at some of my validated results and things may actually be looking up. I've had a series of 300+ credit results and actually had one over 700! I'll keep watching.

@ExchangeMan: I just had a look at your results and they have definitely trended up. At the moment I would say that you seem to be landing around the breakeven for MB that I calculated.

cheers

Thanks Lionel. Ya, things are definitely looking up. I may be forced to take back everything bad I've ever said about CreditScrew.

---

Hi Folks,
Well I ended up with an AP task anyway.. ran on my gtx970 with a cuda 5
WU..
--
14/10/2014 17:49:22 | SETI@home | Starting task ap_05my10aa_B4_P0_00276_20141014_10244.wu_1
14/10/2014 18:13:13 | SETI@home | Started upload of ap_05my10aa_B4_P0_00276_20141014_10244.wu_1_0

The AP raced ahead of the Cuda WU.

NB:- This WU slowed down a cuda 50 WU to a crawl when run in tandem! Took about 3 times as long as usual to complete.

14/10/2014 18:19:18 | SETI@home | Started upload of 19mr14aa.29503.8247.438086664203.12.73_1_0

I've yet to look at either of the WU so far as S@H was down for maint.
Also had a transitory power outage just after those WU completed:-(
PC rebooted mid task of course, so at least 1 WU was scrambled.

Regards,
Cliff

@ExchangeMan: Your average on the small machine is circa 353. Your average on the large machine over the last 10 results (neglecting outliers) is 354. At this point I can't see any evidence of significant increase to come when I look back into your results, but here's hoping.

cheers

L.

---

Based on what I am seeing things are improving as far as credit given for APV7. I currently have 60 valid tasks.

If I throw out the real short runs of less than 100 seconds, the most recent twenty had an average time of 14,643 seconds and an average credit of 333.35. That is about 1 credit every 43.9 seconds.

The oldest twenty had an average time of 13,388.5 seconds and an average credit of 243.25 per WU. That works out to about 1 credit every 55 seconds

I know the sample size is small and may not be truly representative and CPU results might be different than GPU results, but the fact that it reflects a substantial improvement (25%) indicates to me that things are moving in the right direction. Of course that pessimist might say it still is not up to APV6 standards but I remain hopeful.

My main machine is showing a few 400s, and a few more high 300s; http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/results.php?hostid=6796479&offset=0&show_names=0&state=4&appid=20

A better understanding may come from the machine that only runs a couple tasks a day; http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/results.php?hostid=6813106&offset=0&show_names=0&state=4&appid=20

14 Oct 2014, 0:38:52 UTC 	14 Oct 2014, 23:54:41 UTC 	Completed and validated 	17,479.48 	664.95 	412.46 	AstroPulse v7 Anonymous platform (NVIDIA GPU)
13 Oct 2014, 21:40:52 UTC 	14 Oct 2014, 20:59:11 UTC 	Completed and validated 	17,479.23 	590.17 	375.56 	AstroPulse v7 Anonymous platform (NVIDIA GPU)
13 Oct 2014, 17:04:35 UTC 	13 Oct 2014, 21:56:19 UTC 	Completed and validated 	17,470.05 	602.88 	358.69 	AstroPulse v7 Anonymous platform (NVIDIA GPU)
12 Oct 2014, 13:49:47 UTC 	12 Oct 2014, 18:42:36 UTC 	Completed and validated 	17,466.42 	591.14 	254.02 	AstroPulse v7 Anonymous platform (NVIDIA GPU)
11 Oct 2014, 16:52:53 UTC 	11 Oct 2014, 21:44:36 UTC 	Completed and validated 	17,471.50 	594.22 	213.23 	AstroPulse v7 Anonymous platform (NVIDIA GPU)

I wasn't going to run SETI on the bedroom machine, then decided it might be interesting to have CreditFew ponder over a card that runs APs at a higher APR than MBs but was being rewarded much fewer credits per hour :-)

Just had one in the 700's and they are all coming up again for credit


http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=3779608716

Most are now getting more credit then the last couple of days
Once things settle out it will go back to AP normal credits

Michael

My very first v7 AP WU had a credit of 1400, after that they all cratered. In looking at various peoples results, you occasionally get a result at 400+ however, the average appears to be hovering around 350. I can't really see any indication in anyone's data at present that it is going to get any better. The best it appears to be doing is heading towards equalibrium with MB.

cheers

L.

---

My very first v7 AP WU had a credit of 1400, after that they all cratered. In looking at various peoples results, you occasionally get a result at 400+ however, the average appears to be hovering around 350. I can't really see any indication in anyone's data at present that it is going to get any better. The best it appears to be doing is heading towards equalibrium with MB.

cheers

L.

Are you forgetting that with V6 there were a significant number of High Blanking tasks that would take between 3 and 5 times longer to process on a GPU.

For my computer this would mean using V6 I probably only did 30 tasks per day. Now with V7 and without the High Blanking tasks time penalty, and the speed up that the magicians have conjured up again, The same GPU can do 48 tasks per day easily.

This for me means the credits only need to be about 62.5% of the previous V6 average to maintain parity. On recent tasks completed we are almost there.

In my case a v6 AP task was taking circa 1 hour to do, so with 2xGPU along with 2 instances running per GPU I was pumping through nearly 100 v6 AP per day per i7 puter. The Qs run a bit less than that with their GPUs.

Parity with MB occurs around 369 credits per v7AP WU. Parity with v6AP occurs around 484 credits per v7AP WU.

The average credits for a v7AP WU are near parity with MB but just slightly under. The average credits for a v7AP WU are well off parity with v6AP.

To look at it another way, average credits for v6 were circa 650. Average credits for v7 are circa 350 (at present). This is represents about 54% of what they were previously per WU. At 30 tasks per day, you would need to increase throughput to 55.7 tasks per day to breakeven. At 48 tasks per day, you are still under water.

cheers

L.

---

In my case a v6 AP task was taking circa 1 hour to do, so with 2xGPU along with 2 instances running per GPU I was pumping through nearly 100 v6 AP per day per i7 puter. The Qs run a bit less than that with their GPUs.

Parity with MB occurs around 369 credits per v7AP WU. Parity with v6AP occurs around 484 credits per v7AP WU.

The average credits for a v7AP WU are near parity with MB but just slightly under. The average credits for a v7AP WU are well off parity with v6AP.

To look at it another way, average credits for v6 were circa 650. Average credits for v7 are circa 350 (at present). This is represents about 54% of what they were previously per WU. At 30 tasks per day, you would need to increase throughput to 55.7 tasks per day to breakeven. At 48 tasks per day, you are still under water.

cheers

L.

But for my computer since 22:00 UTC the average granted has been 402.67, and average run time is 1806 sec. Which will give about 19,300 every 24 hours, which compares quite well with the 650 * 30 V6 tasks, 19,500.

In my case a v6 AP task was taking circa 1 hour to do, so with 2xGPU along with 2 instances running per GPU I was pumping through nearly 100 v6 AP per day per i7 puter. The Qs run a bit less than that with their GPUs.

Parity with MB occurs around 369 credits per v7AP WU. Parity with v6AP occurs around 484 credits per v7AP WU.

The average credits for a v7AP WU are near parity with MB but just slightly under. The average credits for a v7AP WU are well off parity with v6AP.

To look at it another way, average credits for v6 were circa 650. Average credits for v7 are circa 350 (at present). This is represents about 54% of what they were previously per WU. At 30 tasks per day, you would need to increase throughput to 55.7 tasks per day to breakeven. At 48 tasks per day, you are still under water.

cheers

L.

But for my computer since 22:00 UTC the average granted has been 402.67, and average run time is 1806 sec. Which will give about 19,300 every 24 hours, which compares quite well with the 650 * 30 V6 tasks, 19,500.

@WinterKnight: I haven't looked at your run times yet but I am not seeing what you appear to be seeing.

Looking at your machine 7006214. Taking the last 20 results (no outliers) gives an average of 380.1635.

Looking at your machine 6714690. Taking the last 20 results (no outliers) gives an average of 349.6995.

Average across both your machines, 364.9315.

cheers

L.

Edit:
I just looked at your run times.
7006214: 1761.754 seconds
6714690: 1788.103 seconds
Average across both: 1774.928 seconds

cheers

---

On a slightly different note, all the AP V7 tasks I've downloaded have a ridiculously long estimated time (150:14:34). The actual run time is about 5:30. I assumed at first that the estimated times would straighten themselves out over time, but I have now completed 185 tasks, yet the inflated estimated times remain the same.

Increasing my work buffer to 10,10 days does little to help me get tasks since the scheduler thinks each one's going to take over 6 days to complete.

Is this a bug, or is there something I configured wrong?

---

On a slightly different note, all the AP V7 tasks I've downloaded have a ridiculously long estimated time (150:14:34). The actual run time is about 5:30. I assumed at first that the estimated times would straighten themselves out over time, but I have now completed 185 tasks, yet the inflated estimated times remain the same.

Increasing my work buffer to 10,10 days does little to help me get tasks since the scheduler thinks each one's going to take over 6 days to complete.

Is this a bug, or is there something I configured wrong?

None of your 3 machines have hit the 10(non-outlier) valid work unit plateau as of yet, once they do the estimate will come down.

---

Thank you, Sir!

---

At least 11 Units are required to normalize estimates.

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

Are non-outlier tasks classed as tasks that run for less than 30 seconds because they are 100% blanked? Sorry if this is a very basic question I have no idea

---

I have a similar slower machine, where the trendline for credit granted is also clear. Unfortunately, I'm getting a lot of delayed validations, so we'll have to wait for the gaps to be filled in.

All AstroPulse v7 tasks for computer 7118033

For me the returned AP7 WUs start to generate credit above 400, so CreditFew seems to slowly start paying attention to AP7. ;)

---

Aloha, Uli

Are non-outlier tasks classed as tasks that run for less than 30 seconds because they are 100% blanked? Sorry if this is a very basic question I have no idea

Those 100% blanked / 30 second tasks are certainly classed as outliers, but so are less extreme cases with lower blanking, or which exit early because 30 pulses are found.

If v7 is the same as v6 was, "completed tasks" are those that match all of the following:

- Less than 10% blanked
- Did not 30/30 early exit
- exit status: 0 (0x0)

As far as I know, finding 30 single or repetitive pulses are still fine, as long as it doesn't find 30 of both and therefore early-exit.

Back when v6 launched, it took me nearly 40 tasks to get to 10 "completed tasks." Others were able to get their 10 non-outliers in as little as 15-20 WUs, and a rare few got some bad luck and had to do nearly 100 to get to that point.

---

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