Got a spreadsheet somewhere on Googledocs for analysing Albert data [Edit: may have been seti-beta CPU, will see], Will dig it out on the weekend.

Data from Eve, now sadly demised. Beta iirc, only place that keeps results almost indefinitely and is best if you need to compare stuff.

I'll rummage.

edit: on second thought, you may have a spreadsheet, I've got the original data... somewhere. dang.
edit 2: I did find the spreadsheet though. I can't find the original graph on the cloud. Must be somewhere though...

---

A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. (Mark Twain)

Oh I definitely have the spreadsheet, just going to have to wait until the weekend. Yeah, Eve's Seti-Beta credits for shorties-only, versus Correct credit driven with controllers, versus /3 to compare spikiness/instabilities.

Will have to find it, but IIRC the cool observation was some really obvious self similar (non-identical repeating) patterns, which are evidence of undamped chaotic behaviour (Seems so much easier to explain after time)

---

"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.

Ok, i'm done with this futile discussions...
I'm off to milkyway, see you again, if this mess is sorted out...

---

Aloha, Uli

Got a spreadsheet somewhere...

The source problem is that we are not measuring reality, or even a consistent consistently measurable abstraction of anything tangibly real. The "Cobblestone" was a useful but imperfect measure for compute-intensive projects. However, since then, we have other considerations and also even vastly differing measures of compute rates between old x86-FPU, SIMD, GPU, and others...

... Try following some of the ideas of NIST calibration to get real?...

(Note, this is a very old discussion...)


Myself, I favor NIST-style calibration to award for transistor-transitions. That should work well for for both compute intensive and network intensive tasks until we move into quantum computing...


Happy crunchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Let's be clear, for estimates that drive the whole thing, Don't need perfect precision here. +/-10% prediction from measured runtime would be excellent compared to the wackiness now in play.

There's a difference between having a pet hamster and petting it, and petting it so much you strangle it to death.

---

"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.

I'm still taking bets as to the date we get our RAC down to half of what it should be.

I'm still taking bets as to the date we get our RAC down to half of what it should be.

It's been around 1/3.3 +/- since creditNew introduction, in two main downward jumps. (Initial, then stock CPU AVX optimisation)

---

"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.

I just look at my credit and start singin' like the Boss.

I'm goin' down, down, down, down
I'm goin' down, down, down, down.....

---

Follow that song with Tom Petty's song Free Fallin'

Freefall - Skydive


"Ï Feel Wondeful..."

---

"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.

And follow that with Roy Orbison's "It's Over" - or would "Crying" be more appropriate :).

And, sadly, you can probably add to the playlist "You Ain't Seen Nuthin' Yet" by BTO...

---

Why care, it is commonly known CN is gibberish. I shall crunch on.

---

If it's impossible to calculate the correct amount of Cobblestones for any wu, why not just change the credit to be a WU-credit, giving 100 credit for a WU and if some WU are more calculation-intensive then give them some more - like 125. (don't focus on the numbers here, only the idea - which seems more like Einstein@home's approach)

This would follow the KISS priciple and I have a feeling that everyone would be happy as the credit would rise to something similar to before the last CreditDropdown started.

If it's impossible to calculate the correct amount of Cobblestones for any wu, why not just change the credit to be a WU-credit, giving 100 credit for a WU and if some WU are more calculation-intensive then give them some more - like 125. (don't focus on the numbers here, only the idea - which seems more like Einstein@home's approach)

This would follow the KISS priciple and I have a feeling that everyone would be happy as the credit would rise to something similar to before the last CreditDropdown started.

No-one ever said (to my knowledge) that it's impossible to calculate the 'correct credit', only that the current mechanism is broken.

---

"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.

No-one ever said (to my knowledge) that it's impossible to calculate the 'correct credit', only that the current mechanism is broken.

OK - I rest my case....

No-one ever said (to my knowledge) that it's impossible to calculate the 'correct credit', only that the current mechanism is broken.

OK - I rest my case....

I'd stretch it to cobblestone scale award (~3.3x now), and call it good.

---

"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.

I notice some AP work is being split.
That should slow the rate of fall for those that get some.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

how was that about a wise (wo)man accepting the things she/he cannot change?

*ducks*

---

A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. (Mark Twain)

Well my 3570K rig (that was out of action for several weeks at the end of V7 MB and came back online just after the V8 MB intro) has gone from a nice gentle rise to a 28,800 RAC under stock (expected to reach around 29,500 at the time), to an extreme drop (currently down to 22,000) which doesn't look like stopping any time soon.

My 2500K has just topped out at just over a pitiful 14,000 RAC (which has only been using it's GPU's here since the 19th of April) and I'm expecting that to drop now as well.

What was wrong with the system we were using back in the MB V5-6 days?

At least a person could make direct comparisons back then, but then we got slammed (thanks to you know who) coming up to V7 and now after the weeks of CPU's only and the combo CPU/GPU V8 stock testing I've been doing has been made totally useless and for nothing now as the try line is being moved again.

It's just good that I like this project so much or I'd be off to other projects that pay just as much as SETI@home use to or even better.

Cheers.