There is another possibilities like task re-scheduling that will do the same w/o any harm to project itself.

I thought task rescheduling screwed up granted credit even more than Credit New does?

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Re-scheduling does screw the credit granted for a task, and also degrades the base level of credit for all tasks. This could well explain some of the drop in credit per hour we are all seeing.
NEVER, EVER advise anyone to reschedule between CPU and GPU, or CPU families (Intel - Nvidia), further, if you are re-scheudling STOP DOING SO IMMEDIATELY.

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Thanks Rob, you saved me a bunch of reading / configuring :)

It makes me wonder now ... Is this how people are getting thousands of tasks on a device?

There is another possibilities like task re-scheduling that will do the same w/o any harm to project itself.

I thought task rescheduling screwed up granted credit even more than Credit New does?

Consider and compare 2 options:
1) to abort task
2) to re-schedule task.

1 - if 10 peoples do this task will lost. Completely. Any data it contains will be lost.
2- task processed, project science not harmed at all. Credits _possibly_ little changed. I saw no definitive prove that credit will be screwed, only theories. And definitely not in such degree to worry about, consider overflows get full credit and x2 credit mis-granting common.

What one who interested in project results, not in competition for imaginary toaster, will chose?

1 - if 10 peoples do this task will lost. Completely. Any data it contains will be lost.

So no matter how often people say Credits aren't important, this indicates they are. And as it runs the risk of impacting on the science being done it would bolster the argument that something needs to be done to fix Credit New.
IMHO.

What one who interested in project results, not in competition for imaginary toaster, will chose?

Just to let the WUs run on the GPU.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

1 - if 10 peoples do this task will lost. Completely. Any data it contains will be lost.

So no matter how often people say Credits aren't important, this indicates they are. And as it runs the risk of impacting on the science being done it would bolster the argument that something needs to be done to fix Credit New.
IMHO.

Absolutely no objections on this point. I would little re-formulate it as "to fix credit granting scheme for SETI project". Actually, this could be more really doable than fixing CreditScrew itself...

What one who interested in project results, not in competition for imaginary toaster, will chose?

Just to let the WUs run on the GPU.

Again, that third choice will be best one indeed. In long run constructive suggestions and tuning/run experience will improve GPU performance even for this type of work. But some wanted to exclude it from consideration.

There is good suggestion in this thread about server scheduler priorities - worth to present it to Eric for possible implementation.

Time for a bit of selective cheating I thinks:-)

Just so that more WU's can be processed.

Don't worry, all WU's will be done.

I am not aborting or re-scheduling any WU's.

---

Kevin

Is anybody else having an issue with false positives from Windows10 Defender software when it scans the SOG application ?

---

What one who interested in project results, not in competition for imaginary toaster, will chose?

It depends on whether such person would consider the results as the only part of the experiment, or if they consider the pain of change as part of the science too.

IOW: probably making the choices en-masse that feel right as individuals, add together to guide where things will head next. At some point the imaginary toaster/credits will be important, but for now it's more about understanding who's affected most.

Nash's Equilibrium (game theory) would suggest the most helpful situation would be for everyone to run as horribly as possible, so as to expose all the weaknesses. For some 'horribly as possible' would mean aborting, for others rescheduling, for others crunching CPU only. Probably since there aren't known 'best options' yet, I'd say we're likely to end up with a good outcome.

---

"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.

What one who interested in project results, not in competition for imaginary toaster, will chose?

It depends on whether such person would consider the results as the only part of the experiment, or if they consider the pain of change as part of the science too.

IOW: probably making the choices en-masse that feel right as individuals, add together to guide where things will head next. At some point the imaginary toaster/credits will be important, but for now it's more about understanding who's affected most.

Nash's Equilibrium (game theory) would suggest the most helpful situation would be for everyone to run as horribly as possible, so as to expose all the weaknesses. For some 'horribly as possible' would mean aborting, for others rescheduling, for others crunching CPU only. Probably since there aren't known 'best options' yet, I'd say we're likely to end up with a good outcome.

Ever the optimist, eh?
OTOH, maybe it's that bad, it can only get better...

---

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

Ever the optimist, eh?
OTOH, maybe it's that bad, it can only get better...

Also, 'Any port in a [sh#t]storm', lol

---

"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.

Ever the optimist, eh?
OTOH, maybe it's that bad, it can only get better...

Also, 'Any port in a [sh#t]storm', lol

The kitties are waiting for it to get better...
My output is less than half what it was a few weeks ago.
RAC still in decline.

Meowsigh.

---

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

Gave me a Trojan alert.
"Trojan:Win32/Varpes.M!cl"
file:C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows Defender\LocalCopy\{834C27FD-CB6E-4487-937B-5D53DBC468F4}-mb8_win_x86_sse3_opencl_nv_r3430_sog.7z

I had downloaded OpenCL NV MultiBeam v8 SoG edition for Windows I think from Raistmer's link but I havn't had time to do anything with it yet.

Just letting you know, that M$ is always watching.

Is anybody else having an issue with false positives from Windows10 Defender software when it scans the SOG application ?

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=79642

---

While checking the one machine I have going I notice Sog and Sah units .

Not only do they take longer but you don't get any extra credit for it .

FIX THE CREDIT SCREW it is getting out of hand or fire the rick that refuses to seriously look into it

The credits are the only reward there is and this B/S about it only being about the science is B/S and we all know it

I suggest you follow Einstein the longer it takes to do a unit the higher the reward

Cobblestones is irrelevant theses days with Multi cored CPU's and extremely fast GPU's

CPU doing AP's nearly 2 days doing same on GPU 2 hrs 20 mins but SAME CREDIT that's total B/S

Fix the credit system and lose that f-ing EGO you have and do what the USERS are asking .

No names needed as the person knows whom I'm talking about

---

CPU doing AP's nearly 2 days doing same on GPU 2 hrs 20 mins but SAME CREDIT that's total B/S

No, that's the way things should be- getting the same amount of credit for doing the same amount of work.
If you're able to more WUs in a shorter period of time, then you will get more credit per day than those that can't do as many in the same period.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

CPU doing AP's nearly 2 days doing same on GPU 2 hrs 20 mins but SAME CREDIT that's total B/S

No, that's the way things should be- getting the same amount of credit for doing the same amount of work.
If you're able to more WUs in a shorter period of time, then you will get more credit per day than those that can't do as many in the same period.

Yes you are correct Grant wrong example to use .

Theses new SoG and Sah files thou are a joke the GPU seems to be only working 1/3 the time if that and times are over 2 hrs !!!!!

I've had to stop doing 3 and go to 2 as the times where soming like 6 hrs doing 3 threads compared to 1 hr 5 mins doing Cuda with 3 threads

(opps I realized I haven't done AP's on the CPU for long time forgot how long they took to do )

---

On Einstein@home I get 4400 credits for a GPU task and 2000 credits for a CPU task. The CPU task takes much longer.
Tullio

---