Message boards :
Number crunching :
A very steep decline in Average Credits!!!
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 14 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
Keith Myers Send message Joined: 29 Apr 01 Posts: 13164 Credit: 1,160,866,277 RAC: 1,873 |
Yes, guess so. Have to offer extreme credit to get people interested in crunching for them. Math - Yuck! Seti@Home classic workunits:20,676 CPU time:74,226 hours A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association) |
Brent Norman Send message Joined: 1 Dec 99 Posts: 2786 Credit: 685,657,289 RAC: 835 |
BLC = Bloody Lousy Credit |
Grant (SSSF) Send message Joined: 19 Aug 99 Posts: 13835 Credit: 208,696,464 RAC: 304 |
BLC = Bloody Lousy Credit Nah, it's purely due to Credit New. Some of the highlights- different projects should grant about the same amount of credit per host-hour, averaged over hosts. Projects with GPU apps should grant credit in proportion to the efficiency of the apps. (This means that projects with efficient GPU apps will grant more credit than projects with inefficient apps. That's OK). What does it consider efficiency to be? The efficiency of an application running on a given host is the ratio of actual FLOPS to peak FLOPS. How does it determine peak FLOPS? BOINC estimates the peak FLOPS of each processor. For CPUs, this is the Whetstone benchmark score. For GPUs, it's given by a manufacturer-supplied formula. Actual FLOPs appear to be an estimate by the project. Peak FLOP Count So GPUs are penalized if they aren't "efficient". CPUs aren't. Cross-version normalization If the intent was for a WU to be granted Credit for the work done, not based on what did it then oh boy does it not work as intended! Host normalization Anyone here that keeps an eye on their work will know that jobs are not distributed uniformly among hosts. •The host normalization mechanism reduces the claimed credit of hosts that are less efficient than average, and increases the claimed credit of hosts that are more efficient than average. So CPUs get more Credit for the work they do, and GPUs get less. It has been designed that way. Anonymous platform For those that reschedule Cherry picking Text in italics, my addition. The default value for this feature is off- whether that is the case here at Seti or not, I've no idea. As you can see it's based on a lot of estimates, which for one reason or another often aren't that close to reality. And worse yet- it's idea of efficiency results in GPUs being penalized, even though by any normal measure of efficiency (Watt Hours per WU processed, number of WUs processed per hour etc) A mid-range GPU leaves a mid range CPU way behind, and the high-end GPUs leave everything else way behind. Grant Darwin NT |
rob smith Send message Joined: 7 Mar 03 Posts: 22456 Credit: 416,307,556 RAC: 380 |
In addition to Grant's comments. The basic philosophy of CreditNew is flawed, in that rather than being based on some measurable feature of the data being analysed it is based on the assumed performance and run-time achieved by those performing the analysis. Additionally the process is very rarely "recalibrated" to ensure that it is actually "being fair" in its calculation of awarded credit. One thing to note is that for each valid work unit the credit is first calculated for both hosts, then the awarded credit is based on the lower value. Which is why rescheduling from CPU to GPU results in lower credit than one would get without such rescheduling - the calculation is based on the processor type (CPU/GPU) that the task was intended for, not that actually used. Bob Smith Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society) Somewhere in the (un)known Universe? |
juan BFP Send message Joined: 16 Mar 07 Posts: 9786 Credit: 572,710,851 RAC: 3,799 |
So it's a lose or lose game. If we reschedule we receive less credit, but if we not reschedule our host will run empty on each outage. Who wins the game? Less credit or less WU? Make your bets. |
Iona Send message Joined: 12 Jul 07 Posts: 790 Credit: 22,438,118 RAC: 0 |
Given all that, it could also be said, that if one can't afford the 'latest and greatest' of anything much, they are being penalised. The most efficient of this and that, have a very noticeable initial cost, although their running costs may be lower. It is the same reason that a person who doesn't have a fantastically well-paid job, is driving a ten-year-old car with a diesel engine as opposed to a shiny, new, Tesla! In the last three or four years, we've seen far more efficient PSUs, GPUs etc, etc, etc become available, but not everyone can afford them, especially when there are more important calls on finances. All this being so, one has to wonder if the premise behind the project has been quietly forgotten. Surely the work that done on a seven-year-old (or even older) GPU should be as 'valued' as the work done by the latest, most efficient Amidia GPU to date? If not, then there is clearly a playing field that is anything but flat and seemingly, financially discriminatory. Don't take life too seriously, as you'll never come out of it alive! |
rob smith Send message Joined: 7 Mar 03 Posts: 22456 Credit: 416,307,556 RAC: 380 |
Thus spake a true credit hound. Perhaps it is a scheme to get rid of the credit hounds? All my machines run out of tasks during the Tuesday outrage, which means other projects get a chance to run. All you are doing by rescheduling is assisting in the continued crash in the credits/task . Bob Smith Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society) Somewhere in the (un)known Universe? |
Al Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 1682 Credit: 477,343,364 RAC: 482 |
Would someone please try to explain to me, in somewhat simple terms, why it seems to be so difficult to come up with a way to award a standard amount of credit for a standard WU? I did read the info presented by Grant, but it just seems to me that if enough information is known about each WU, (it's range, level of difficulty, or whatever goes into it) it should be able to be calculated a given amount of credit, regardless of what platform or device it is ran on. If it takes 6 minutes on a GTX1080Ti or 6+ hours on a duo core processor, I guess I feel that really shouldn't matter, you are crunching something, and popping out a (presumably valid) result at the end. The fact that it took longer or shorter I don't believe should really come into play, because at the end of the day, we are all crunching for the same results, for the same WU, regardless of the hardware. Is this an incorrect presumption? I understand from reading that there are apparently ways of cheating the system, I don't know enough about it to even attempt to speak on that issue, and the fact that it happens really sucks. Brings up that saying That's why we can't have nice things.. But, is that the main reason that CreditScrew is the mess that it is in, to attempt to eliminate as much as possible the ability to cheat the system? I know that this has been discussed for years, pretty much since it was introduced, and I suppose if it were either easy or a priority (not sure which, or maybe both) it would have been addressed by now. I'm just trying to get my head around why it has to be the way it is, and why it can't seem to be properly fixed to assign consistent awards for same/very similar WU's. And not trying to stir the pot, but if someone could shed more light on this in a relatively easy to understand manner, I know many people would appreciate it. Or direct me to a previous post where it has been covered in that manner so I can wrap my head around it and understand the situation. |
rob smith Send message Joined: 7 Mar 03 Posts: 22456 Credit: 416,307,556 RAC: 380 |
It isn't. But somebody decided to have an immensely complex credit system, which is poorly documented, and poorly implemented, which makes maintaining it a very hard task. Even to "unpick" the CreditNew code from the rest of the BOINC source is a bit off a struggle because bits of it are buried in apparently unrelated locations. Bob Smith Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society) Somewhere in the (un)known Universe? |
rob smith Send message Joined: 7 Mar 03 Posts: 22456 Credit: 416,307,556 RAC: 380 |
In theory there are ways to "stop" those that "cheat the system", but there may be consequences that are very hard to predict.... Bob Smith Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society) Somewhere in the (un)known Universe? |
Al Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 1682 Credit: 477,343,364 RAC: 482 |
And I guess we'd have to define 'cheating the system' as well. Is rescheduling tasks that were assigned to a CPU but would actually run much more efficiently on a GPU considered cheating? And if this is what is happening, why in the world would it even be assigned to a CPU in the first place, if it would be so much better to run said WU on the GPU? I understand that there is so much I don't know, but am trying to get a good grasp of the basics. |
Keith Myers Send message Joined: 29 Apr 01 Posts: 13164 Credit: 1,160,866,277 RAC: 1,873 |
It isn't. But somebody decided to have an immensely complex credit system, which is poorly documented, and poorly implemented, which makes maintaining it a very hard task. It would require hiring a developer to either modify or remove the CreditNew algorithm from the BOINC code. Two choices. Modify the code to properly award credit consistently for the flops used to complete the task the same across all devices or simply assign a fixed amount of credit for task type. This is the method the Einstein project uses. I get 3465 credits for EVERY FGRPB1G task whether it takes 600 seconds on a 1070Ti or 1150 seconds on a 970. Seti@Home classic workunits:20,676 CPU time:74,226 hours A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association) |
rob smith Send message Joined: 7 Mar 03 Posts: 22456 Credit: 416,307,556 RAC: 380 |
The reason for assigning tasks to (random) types of processor is to try to reduce the impact of a "busted" application screwing up the results. Given the high degree of optimisation even with the stock applications it wouldn't take much of hick in say a GPU driver to causse lots of folks to start spewing back "rubbish" results. Bob Smith Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society) Somewhere in the (un)known Universe? |
JohnDK Send message Joined: 28 May 00 Posts: 1222 Credit: 451,243,443 RAC: 1,127 |
or simply assign a fixed amount of credit for task type. This is the method the Einstein project uses. I get 3465 credits for EVERY FGRPB1G task whether it takes 600 seconds on a 1070Ti or 1150 seconds on a 970. Simple and fair, someone press DA to use it on SETI. |
Keith Myers Send message Joined: 29 Apr 01 Posts: 13164 Credit: 1,160,866,277 RAC: 1,873 |
or simply assign a fixed amount of credit for task type. This is the method the Einstein project uses. I get 3465 credits for EVERY FGRPB1G task whether it takes 600 seconds on a 1070Ti or 1150 seconds on a 970. DA has very little to do with project lately. He isn't the one to directly approach about fixing the credit system. Better to direct an appeal to Richard Haselgrove who can present it to the BOINC Management Committee for action. ProjectGovernance PMC_Minutes_2017_12_15 Seti@Home classic workunits:20,676 CPU time:74,226 hours A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association) |
rob smith Send message Joined: 7 Mar 03 Posts: 22456 Credit: 416,307,556 RAC: 380 |
Awarded credit is actually a project issue, not a "BOINC wide" issue. Very few projects actually use CreditScrew for various reasons, most appear to prefer a simple credit per task system rather than the "chicken bones and stairwell" that is CreditScrew. Bob Smith Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society) Somewhere in the (un)known Universe? |
Keith Myers Send message Joined: 29 Apr 01 Posts: 13164 Credit: 1,160,866,277 RAC: 1,873 |
Awarded credit is actually a project issue, not a "BOINC wide" issue. Very few projects actually use CreditScrew for various reasons, most appear to prefer a simple credit per task system rather than the "chicken bones and stairwell" that is CreditScrew. This is true. What I meant in my previous post is to either fix how the CreditNew algorithm in BOINC works or remove the CreditNew algorithm from the SETI servers code and simply assign credit for a task type. To give an example of the extreme lunacy of CreditNew I present 3 cpu work units completed at GPUGrid.net 16814899 12962662 456812 3 Jan 2018 | 23:35:06 UTC 3 Jan 2018 | 23:59:57 UTC Completed and validated 1,004.25 3,726.36 164.20 Quantum Chemistry v3.14 (mt) 16815108 12962868 456812 3 Jan 2018 | 23:38:48 UTC 4 Jan 2018 | 1:37:30 UTC Completed and validated 987.55 3,685.36 21.94 Quantum Chemistry v3.14 (mt) 16819557 12967258 456812 5 Jan 2018 | 2:10:17 UTC 5 Jan 2018 | 4:10:34 UTC Completed and validated 601.33 2,164.18 8.37 Quantum Chemistry v3.14 (mt) We questioned the project scientists about the huge variance in credit assigned for similar flops used and cpu_time and they responded they didn't understand how the BOINC CreditNew algorithm worked and simply were using the BOINC software as delivered to them. They said they had no control over credit awarded, it was up to the BOINC software to assign credit. Seti@Home classic workunits:20,676 CPU time:74,226 hours A proud member of the OFA (Old Farts Association) |
Mike Send message Joined: 17 Feb 01 Posts: 34353 Credit: 79,922,639 RAC: 80 |
It is project related. Some projects don`t use Credit New if i`m not mistaken. With each crime and every kindness we birth our future. |
Brent Norman Send message Joined: 1 Dec 99 Posts: 2786 Credit: 685,657,289 RAC: 835 |
or simply assign a fixed amount of credit for task type. This is the method the Einstein project uses. I get 3465 credits for EVERY FGRPB1G task whether it takes 600 seconds on a 1070Ti or 1150 seconds on a 970.Simple and fair, someone press DA to use it on SETI. A flat credit rate MINUS the percentage of rubbish returned for the last 10,000 tasks ... you run errors, you get penalized ... encouragement to fix your system :) |
Kissagogo27 Send message Joined: 6 Nov 99 Posts: 716 Credit: 8,032,827 RAC: 62 |
lack of AP make me falling down ... |
©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.