Average Credit Decreasing?

Message boards : Number crunching : Average Credit Decreasing?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 . . . 32 · Next

AuthorMessage
Grant (SSSF)
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 13794
Credit: 208,696,464
RAC: 304
Australia
Message 1781180 - Posted: 22 Apr 2016, 5:18:04 UTC - in response to Message 1781125.  

All I can say Richard is that that graph isn't representing what I'm seeing at all here.

If you check out the graph below that one you can see whether credit is rising, falling or treading water- and in your case it's as you said- plummeting.
In my case it peaked on the 9/04/216 & has been dropping since then (although if you look as the BS-RAC you get something very different).
Grant
Darwin NT
ID: 1781180 · Report as offensive
Richard Haselgrove Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 99
Posts: 14659
Credit: 200,643,578
RAC: 874
United Kingdom
Message 1781218 - Posted: 22 Apr 2016, 7:52:04 UTC - in response to Message 1781146.  

[Edit:] @Richard: noticed you have a 970 in with a 750ti in two machines ? both those are likely to claim on the high side for 750ti tasks... (peak_flops_from_wrong_device X elapsed)

I did declare the 970s in my original statement of evidence, m'lud...

But I hadn't picked up from the previous discussion of code that mis-matched GPUs would have that effect (perhaps because I never ran mis-matched GPUs until January). If that's the case, there's no way of applying rigorous mathematics to credit until the server has proper, individual, records of each separate GPU.

On another tack, I'me seeing a remarkably low proportion of shorties in the current Arecibo mix - that's a big plus for my 750s.
ID: 1781218 · Report as offensive
Profile William
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 13
Posts: 2037
Credit: 17,689,662
RAC: 0
Message 1781221 - Posted: 22 Apr 2016, 8:14:10 UTC - in response to Message 1781218.  

[Edit:] @Richard: noticed you have a 970 in with a 750ti in two machines ? both those are likely to claim on the high side for 750ti tasks... (peak_flops_from_wrong_device X elapsed)

I did declare the 970s in my original statement of evidence, m'lud...

But I hadn't picked up from the previous discussion of code that mis-matched GPUs would have that effect (perhaps because I never ran mis-matched GPUs until January). If that's the case, there's no way of applying rigorous mathematics to credit until the server has proper, individual, records of each separate GPU.

On another tack, I'me seeing a remarkably low proportion of shorties in the current Arecibo mix - that's a big plus for my 750s.

please don't mention maths and CreditNew in the same sentence...
Next time I need a RNG I'm just going to use credit.
A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. (Mark Twain)
ID: 1781221 · Report as offensive
Richard Haselgrove Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 99
Posts: 14659
Credit: 200,643,578
RAC: 874
United Kingdom
Message 1781225 - Posted: 22 Apr 2016, 8:36:37 UTC - in response to Message 1781221.  

please don't mention maths and CreditNew in the same sentence...

lol. But to be serious, I do think that we should be able to mention all three of Maths, Science, and Credit in the same BOINC sentence.

It worries me greatly at projects like CPDN, which also has constant struggles to fit within the BOINC credit framework. It's getting better now, but in the early days of that project, it was up against some fairly vociferous opposition from climate change deniers. Every time they had a credit screw-up, I expected posts like "if you can't even get the maths right for your own credits, why should we believe a word you say about the weather?". And I wouldn't have had an answer.

No, now BOINC has created the credit monster, I think it has a responsibility to calculate it with the same rigour as the projects calculate their science. And we have a responsibility to report the problems as fully and accurately as we can.

(before anyone asks, CPDN doesn't use, and has never used, CreditNew)
ID: 1781225 · Report as offensive
Profile William
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 13
Posts: 2037
Credit: 17,689,662
RAC: 0
Message 1781229 - Posted: 22 Apr 2016, 8:50:43 UTC - in response to Message 1781225.  

No, now BOINC has created the credit monster, I think it has a responsibility to calculate it with the same rigour as the projects calculate their science. And we have a responsibility to report the problems as fully and accurately as we can.

No objections, your honour.

But credit should have a sound mathematical basis and a faultless computational algorithm implementation.
And CreditNew hasn't. Not the latter and I'm still not convinced about the former.

Looking at credit in this detail is like looking at a house that is falling down, has gaps all over the planks and a leaking roof, when the architect used a twig for a ruler and the builders used cardboard for wood...
A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. (Mark Twain)
ID: 1781229 · Report as offensive
Ulrich Metzner
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Jul 02
Posts: 1256
Credit: 13,565,513
RAC: 13
Germany
Message 1781241 - Posted: 22 Apr 2016, 9:41:11 UTC - in response to Message 1781229.  

(...)
Looking at credit in this detail is like looking at a house that is falling down, has gaps all over the planks and a leaking roof, when the architect used a twig for a ruler and the builders used cardboard for wood...

That - and every serious engineer or architect would only take one choice: Pull it!
Aloha, Uli

ID: 1781241 · Report as offensive
Richard Haselgrove Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 99
Posts: 14659
Credit: 200,643,578
RAC: 874
United Kingdom
Message 1781242 - Posted: 22 Apr 2016, 9:44:03 UTC - in response to Message 1781241.  

(...)
Looking at credit in this detail is like looking at a house that is falling down, has gaps all over the planks and a leaking roof, when the architect used a twig for a ruler and the builders used cardboard for wood...

That - and every serious engineer or architect would only take one choice: Pull it!

But then everyone who crunches for credit would be homeless!
ID: 1781242 · Report as offensive
Profile jason_gee
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Nov 06
Posts: 7489
Credit: 91,093,184
RAC: 0
Australia
Message 1781251 - Posted: 22 Apr 2016, 10:38:53 UTC - in response to Message 1781229.  
Last modified: 22 Apr 2016, 10:39:58 UTC

I'm fairly convinced that for the purposes of estimation/scheduling, +/- 10% would be good enough for most under steady state, along with faster/better adaptation to work or running condition changes, without overshoot or oscillations. Also more than achievable without having to invent any new special technologies.

Keeping the adaptive capability is important for situations such as these new telescopes coming online (or new GPUs, apps, etc).

In these respects I think it works as 'proof of concept', but shows quite a few design limitations and implementation problems, that if budget and resources were allocated to address probably we wouldn't need these discussions everytime something or another changes.

Part of the problems I;ve watched people wrestle with while walking the associated Boinc code, is that there isn;t a clear distinction between the design intent, and the implementation, so dropping in refinements for so much as a test run is bigger than a trivial job.

To be fair on the system in that respect, it shows the same problems with flexibility, and creaking under the demands for change, as the applications are starting to. In the case of the applications, it';s realtively easy to start afresh, and there are existing applications to compare against for correctness and other metrics. For the server code and specifically credit as a measurer/predictor of work, afaik we only have the cobblestone scale value (#operations on a psuedo-currency scale). It's true that number can often have a reasoable value per work unit (as it does here for the most part), however the other part, efficiencies on the different levels: Project-?App-?version/planclass->host->device are not localised to each of those levels.

Completing that estimate chain, for example figuring out the rough overall efficiency of a particular host-app-version-platfor-planclass, and percolating that up to summary statisics would solve a lot of measuremen, prediction, monitoring and control problems. Preferably something better than averages which are wasting database resources, not responsive enough to change, and susceptible to noise+skew.

There's nothing particularly new/innoivative/complex about that, just that such systems require resources to implement properly, along with clear design goals (such as please do steady state estimates to +/- 10% or better). For those parts I think the full potential uses of a real and complete implementation would be well worth it ---> If Boinc wasn't out of dough.
"Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions.
ID: 1781251 · Report as offensive
Profile William
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 13
Posts: 2037
Credit: 17,689,662
RAC: 0
Message 1781255 - Posted: 22 Apr 2016, 11:01:57 UTC

ok, so what we really need is somebody with a bucketful of cash, who says 'here have that - but only if you make sure credit works' ?
A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. (Mark Twain)
ID: 1781255 · Report as offensive
Profile jason_gee
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Nov 06
Posts: 7489
Credit: 91,093,184
RAC: 0
Australia
Message 1781256 - Posted: 22 Apr 2016, 11:06:48 UTC - in response to Message 1781255.  
Last modified: 22 Apr 2016, 11:08:51 UTC

ok, so what we really need is somebody with a bucketful of cash, who says 'here have that - but only if you make sure credit works' ?


And change the godawful name 'CreditNew' to '[Throughput-]Estimator', or something. It makes people think it's about credits, so it never gets fixed.
"Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions.
ID: 1781256 · Report as offensive
Profile Dimly Lit Lightbulb 😀
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Aug 08
Posts: 15399
Credit: 7,423,413
RAC: 1
United Kingdom
Message 1781374 - Posted: 22 Apr 2016, 21:06:31 UTC - in response to Message 1781043.  

For me the earlie Arecibo ~97-104 credit , 0.41 AR, seem to be around the 77-84 Cridt range, though clearly still settling down. Sadly the coming telescope soup is likey to make it much less simple, so I've pretty much resigned myself into buying a VW combivan and touring the world.

Jason and the Algorithms are going on tour?

*books tickets* :)

Member of the People Encouraging Niceness In Society club.

ID: 1781374 · Report as offensive
Profile Jord
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Jun 99
Posts: 15184
Credit: 4,362,181
RAC: 3
Netherlands
Message 1781382 - Posted: 22 Apr 2016, 21:58:12 UTC - in response to Message 1781225.  

No, now BOINC has created the credit monster, I think it has a responsibility to calculate it with the same rigour as the projects calculate their science.

How about setting up a project that recalculates everyone's credit gained through CN and any other credit generation and adjusts it all down to one common numeral? We can call it "[Throughput-]Numerator-Denominator-Estimator".

A bit like WUProp, but for credit. :)
ID: 1781382 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1781390 - Posted: 22 Apr 2016, 22:32:35 UTC - in response to Message 1781382.  

No, now BOINC has created the credit monster, I think it has a responsibility to calculate it with the same rigour as the projects calculate their science.

How about setting up a project that recalculates everyone's credit gained through CN and any other credit generation and adjusts it all down to one common numeral? We can call it "[Throughput-]Numerator-Denominator-Estimator".

A bit like WUProp, but for credit. :)


I think I like the name "Fairly UnderCut Kredit Estimator Denominator". Now if only we could come up with a good acronym for it.
ID: 1781390 · Report as offensive
Richard Haselgrove Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 99
Posts: 14659
Credit: 200,643,578
RAC: 874
United Kingdom
Message 1781391 - Posted: 22 Apr 2016, 22:34:20 UTC - in response to Message 1781382.  

How about setting up a project that recalculates everyone's credit gained through CN and any other credit generation and adjusts it all down to one common numeral? We can call it "[Throughput-]Numerator-Denominator-Estimator".

A bit like WUProp, but for credit. :)

Actually, we have one of those already.

Project granted credit comparison

Check the units those numbers are expressed in, very carefully.
ID: 1781391 · Report as offensive
Profile Zalster Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 27 May 99
Posts: 5517
Credit: 528,817,460
RAC: 242
United States
Message 1781393 - Posted: 22 Apr 2016, 22:35:11 UTC - in response to Message 1781386.  

Maybe we should go back to the something like set amount of credit for VALIDATED work. That would resolve a lot of things.
ID: 1781393 · Report as offensive
Profile Wiggo
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Jan 00
Posts: 35510
Credit: 261,360,520
RAC: 489
Australia
Message 1781396 - Posted: 22 Apr 2016, 22:39:41 UTC - in response to Message 1781393.  

Maybe we should go back to the something like set amount of credit for VALIDATED work. That would resolve a lot of things.

Yes, at least that system worked with any degradation.

Cheers.
ID: 1781396 · Report as offensive
Grant (SSSF)
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 13794
Credit: 208,696,464
RAC: 304
Australia
Message 1781441 - Posted: 23 Apr 2016, 0:11:50 UTC - in response to Message 1781393.  
Last modified: 23 Apr 2016, 0:12:14 UTC

Maybe we should go back to the something like set amount of credit for VALIDATED work. That would resolve a lot of things.

I think the emphasis there should be on set amount of credit; as things are now you still only get credit for validated work. It's just that the amount varies- generally downwards.
Grant
Darwin NT
ID: 1781441 · Report as offensive
Profile Brent Norman Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 1 Dec 99
Posts: 2786
Credit: 685,657,289
RAC: 835
Canada
Message 1781447 - Posted: 23 Apr 2016, 0:43:20 UTC - in response to Message 1781441.  

I have to disagree Grant, only Credits for Valid work is a bad thing?

I could crank up my clock and spit out 14,000 invalids and increase my RAC in that case.
ID: 1781447 · Report as offensive
Grant (SSSF)
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 13794
Credit: 208,696,464
RAC: 304
Australia
Message 1781453 - Posted: 23 Apr 2016, 0:55:42 UTC - in response to Message 1781447.  

I have to disagree Grant, only Credits for Valid work is a bad thing?

I'm not saying it's a bad thing. The fact is that is what we already have, it doesn't need changing so why emphasize that and ignore the very thing that is being discussed here- the random nature of credit being granted?
Hence my emphasis on a fixed a mount of credit for a given amount of work. That's what's broken, hence the emphasis. Credit only for valid work isn't broken, so why emphasise it?
Grant
Darwin NT
ID: 1781453 · Report as offensive
Profile Zalster Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 27 May 99
Posts: 5517
Credit: 528,817,460
RAC: 242
United States
Message 1781456 - Posted: 23 Apr 2016, 1:04:17 UTC - in response to Message 1781453.  

I emphasised that section, as in the past, credit was granted for work done, not validated work.

So yes, people cranked up their GPUs and returned tons of invalid work.

A fixed amount would help but the work needs the validation so that we don't have a repeat.

But you are right, we are off topic...
ID: 1781456 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 . . . 32 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : Average Credit Decreasing?


 
©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.