Advanced search

Forums : General Topics : Cosmology@Home credit discussion
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 13 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile [B^S] Acmefrog
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 Jun 07
Posts: 175
Credit: 446,074
RAC: 0
Message 3171 - Posted: 8 Oct 2007, 19:21:17 UTC - in response to Message 3170.  

Hopefully this won't be modded as being off topic, In the last 426 wu's processed on my acct 8 claimed a high of 40 credits most were well below that. I don't see a problem,,,,,,,

Most of my WUs claim between 26 and 48. I do not know how many of them get restarted (and the clock resets) or that my new pc just gets them done faster. I just know that each WU gets 50 credits. No complaints from me.
ID: 3171 · Report as offensive
Profile [BAT] tutta55
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 7 Jun 07
Posts: 217
Credit: 710,406
RAC: 0
Message 3172 - Posted: 8 Oct 2007, 21:32:54 UTC
Last modified: 8 Oct 2007, 21:34:39 UTC

What I compare in the projects I run are the 64-bit clients. On my top machine these are some averages:
- RieselSieve 64-bit Linux: 2900/day
- Cosmology 64-bit Linux: 3500/day
- ABC 64-bit Windows: 4800/day
- Seti optimized 64-bit Windows: 5000+/day
- APS 64-bit Windows: 5600/day

Of course there are projects with only 32-bit clients where I get far less. But since this machine can handle 64-bit (all Core 2, most Pentium D and most recent AMD can), I prefer projects that get the most out of my CPU.

BOINC.BE: For Belgians who love the smell of glowing red cpu's in the morning
Tutta55's Lair
ID: 3172 · Report as offensive
tjohnscpa

Send message
Joined: 30 Sep 07
Posts: 2
Credit: 289,650
RAC: 0
Message 3174 - Posted: 8 Oct 2007, 22:29:11 UTC
Last modified: 8 Oct 2007, 22:29:39 UTC

When you talk about credits per hour, are you talking about per processor, or per computer? Just wondering.
ID: 3174 · Report as offensive
Profile Jayargh
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Jun 07
Posts: 508
Credit: 2,282,158
RAC: 0
Message 3175 - Posted: 8 Oct 2007, 22:33:46 UTC - in response to Message 3174.  
Last modified: 8 Oct 2007, 22:49:54 UTC

When you talk about credits per hour, are you talking about per processor, or per computer? Just wondering.


examples given ie:tutta55-per host
Acmefrog-per cpu
mine-per cpu
Saenger-per cpu
ID: 3175 · Report as offensive
Profile GalaxyIce

Send message
Joined: 25 Sep 07
Posts: 26
Credit: 312,870
RAC: 0
Message 3185 - Posted: 9 Oct 2007, 20:20:14 UTC

I haven't carried out any scientific tests, but compared with the credit I get from other projects, my impression is that I seem to get enough credit here, and perhaps a little more to make me smile :0)

ID: 3185 · Report as offensive
Profile Keck_Komputers
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Aug 07
Posts: 12
Credit: 802,934
RAC: 0
Message 3189 - Posted: 10 Oct 2007, 4:31:05 UTC - in response to Message 3164.  

The chart at http://boinc.netsoft-online.com/e107_plugins/boinc/get_cpcs.php gets it's figures by averaging the credit ratios on the same CPUs. That is what I base my opinion on.

The cobblestone is defined as a certain amount of computation on a ideal reference machine. Trying to match that as close as possible is not following the herd it is implementing a standard.

The project can lose just as many participants by giving too much credit as giving too little.

BOINC WIKI

BOINCing since 2002/12/8
ID: 3189 · Report as offensive
AnRM

Send message
Joined: 3 Sep 07
Posts: 19
Credit: 2,255,870
RAC: 0
Message 3190 - Posted: 10 Oct 2007, 5:29:44 UTC - in response to Message 3189.  


The project can lose just as many participants by giving too much credit as giving too little.

How so??
ID: 3190 · Report as offensive
Profile [BAT] tutta55
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 7 Jun 07
Posts: 217
Credit: 710,406
RAC: 0
Message 3191 - Posted: 10 Oct 2007, 7:33:37 UTC - in response to Message 3190.  


The project can lose just as many participants by giving too much credit as giving too little.

How so??


I suggest we not go into this. That would lead the thread away from the purpose it is intended for.

BOINC.BE: For Belgians who love the smell of glowing red cpu's in the morning
Tutta55's Lair
ID: 3191 · Report as offensive
AnRM

Send message
Joined: 3 Sep 07
Posts: 19
Credit: 2,255,870
RAC: 0
Message 3193 - Posted: 10 Oct 2007, 14:09:11 UTC - in response to Message 3191.  


The project can lose just as many participants by giving too much credit as giving too little.

How so??


I suggest we not go into this. That would lead the thread away from the purpose it is intended for.


You're right, of course.....my apologies. However, Keck's statement does have a obvious 'spin' to it and I was curious.....Cheers, Rog.
ID: 3193 · Report as offensive
Profile Jord
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Jun 07
Posts: 345
Credit: 50,500
RAC: 0
Message 3199 - Posted: 10 Oct 2007, 21:08:54 UTC
Last modified: 10 Oct 2007, 21:12:28 UTC

To bring peace to this thread and forum, I've opened a credit discussion thread on the BOINC forums. If you've never been there before, you need to register separately, but at least you can discuss anything credit related to your heart's content, not necessarily credits for this project only.

The big credit discussion.
ID: 3199 · Report as offensive
Profile Conan
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Aug 07
Posts: 169
Credit: 1,280,875
RAC: 0
Message 3212 - Posted: 13 Oct 2007, 2:04:49 UTC - in response to Message 3170.  

Hopefully this won't be modded as being off topic, In the last 426 wu's processed on my acct 8 claimed a high of 40 credits most were well below that. I don't see a problem,,,,,,,


In the last 308 results that I have, I show 21 that have earned greater than 40 credits per hour, or 6.8%.
Without those 21 my average of 23/24 cr/h would be very much lower than this.

So if the already rare short work units become rarer or are removed then this is actually a quite low crediting project (as in under 20 cr/h on 285 Opteron), not a high crediting one.
ID: 3212 · Report as offensive
Profile Jayargh
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Jun 07
Posts: 508
Credit: 2,282,158
RAC: 0
Message 3213 - Posted: 13 Oct 2007, 2:21:19 UTC - in response to Message 3212.  

Hopefully this won't be modded as being off topic, In the last 426 wu's processed on my acct 8 claimed a high of 40 credits most were well below that. I don't see a problem,,,,,,,


In the last 308 results that I have, I show 21 that have earned greater than 40 credits per hour, or 6.8%.
Without those 21 my average of 23/24 cr/h would be very much lower than this.

So if the already rare short work units become rarer or are removed then this is actually a quite low crediting project (as in under 20 cr/h on 285 Opteron), not a high crediting one.


From my understanding the ratio of short,middle,and long work should not change much but the credit given will be when everything is put in place.

Also as has happenned in the past,twice,is pending work being cancelled causing a further drop of recent credit for those affected. If you factor that in long term so far the credit averages out in the ballpark of many other projects in my opinion.

ID: 3213 · Report as offensive
Desti

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 07
Posts: 12
Credit: 279,092
RAC: 0
Message 3216 - Posted: 13 Oct 2007, 9:53:00 UTC

Ok, some observations based on the first result of my Core2Duo:

Cosmology: 0,0152 credits/second
Einstein (S5R2): 0,0066 c/s
SIMAP: 0,0064 c/s
climateprediction: 0,0076 c/s



Linux Users Everywhere @ BOINC
ID: 3216 · Report as offensive
Profile [XTBA>XTC] ZeuZ

Send message
Joined: 14 Jul 07
Posts: 4
Credit: 308,385
RAC: 0
Message 3220 - Posted: 13 Oct 2007, 16:46:55 UTC

Hi guys

Some of my team and me have problem with a lot of wu ...

The claimed credit on some wu is higher than the granted crédit, what's wrong with these?

Exemple:

http://www.cosmologyathome.org/workunit.php?wuid=595637

http://www.cosmologyathome.org//workunit.php?wuid=594813

http://www.cosmologyathome.org//workunit.php?wuid=593583

The time of calculation is long, 2h30 for a wu and 50 credits on a Core2Duo @ 3.2ghz, it's too low, few day ago the higher wu was calculated in 1h30 maximum

Why the new units are so long, and why the granted crédit is the same as before?

Thanks
ID: 3220 · Report as offensive
vaio

Send message
Joined: 26 Aug 07
Posts: 4
Credit: 35,780
RAC: 0
Message 3221 - Posted: 13 Oct 2007, 19:02:50 UTC

I just run my projects and get whatever they get.
ID: 3221 · Report as offensive
tjohnscpa

Send message
Joined: 30 Sep 07
Posts: 2
Credit: 289,650
RAC: 0
Message 3222 - Posted: 13 Oct 2007, 20:20:49 UTC

Looks like France is making a run on this project. To stay in the top 50 of average work done I need to bring online more computers. Good for them.

tj
ID: 3222 · Report as offensive
Profile Jayargh
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Jun 07
Posts: 508
Credit: 2,282,158
RAC: 0
Message 3223 - Posted: 14 Oct 2007, 2:22:09 UTC - in response to Message 3220.  

Hi guys

Some of my team and me have problem with a lot of wu ...

The claimed credit on some wu is higher than the granted crédit, what's wrong with these?

Exemple:

http://www.cosmologyathome.org/workunit.php?wuid=595637

http://www.cosmologyathome.org//workunit.php?wuid=594813

http://www.cosmologyathome.org//workunit.php?wuid=593583

The time of calculation is long, 2h30 for a wu and 50 credits on a Core2Duo @ 3.2ghz, it's too low, few day ago the higher wu was calculated in 1h30 maximum

Why the new units are so long, and why the granted crédit is the same as before?

Thanks


I am finding the same thing. I think some parameters in some of the workunits are making some workunits take longer unless Scott has increased wu length without telling us.
ID: 3223 · Report as offensive
Desti

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 07
Posts: 12
Credit: 279,092
RAC: 0
Message 3226 - Posted: 14 Oct 2007, 11:10:08 UTC

I noticed the same, the last three workunits on my Athlon X2:

1265951 	598846  	13 Oct 2007 10:09:41 UTC  	14 Oct 2007 10:41:11 UTC  	Over  	Success  	Done  	9,058.40  	39.82  	50.00
1260333 	596072 	13 Oct 2007 10:09:26 UTC 	14 Oct 2007 10:41:11 UTC 	Over 	Success 	Done 	10,053.64 	44.19 	50.00
1256759 	594367 	13 Oct 2007 10:09:11 UTC 	14 Oct 2007 10:41:11 UTC 	Over 	Success 	Done 	5,286.62 	23.24 	50.00


If this is normal, we need a credit system which reflects the CPU time more.

Is it possible to pre-calculate how many integer/floating point operations are needed to crunch a workunit?

Linux Users Everywhere @ BOINC
ID: 3226 · Report as offensive
Profile [XTBA>XTC] ZeuZ

Send message
Joined: 14 Jul 07
Posts: 4
Credit: 308,385
RAC: 0
Message 3235 - Posted: 14 Oct 2007, 16:19:42 UTC

Thanks guys

I hope this will return to the normal very soon :)
ID: 3235 · Report as offensive
Profile Conan
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Aug 07
Posts: 169
Credit: 1,280,875
RAC: 0
Message 3243 - Posted: 15 Oct 2007, 5:34:18 UTC - in response to Message 3212.  

Hopefully this won't be modded as being off topic, In the last 426 wu's processed on my acct 8 claimed a high of 40 credits most were well below that. I don't see a problem,,,,,,,


In the last 308 results that I have, I show 21 that have earned greater than 40 credits per hour, or 6.8%.
Without those 21 my average of 23/24 cr/h would be very much lower than this.

So if the already rare short work units become rarer or are removed then this is actually a quite low crediting project (as in under 20 cr/h on 285 Opteron), not a high crediting one.


My last statement about getting less short Wu's dropping granted credit has come true.
With all these long Work Units (some of which claim more than the granted amount of 50 due to their run times), cr/h has dropped from 23/24 to 20 cr/h, over the last 44 work units I have processed (one ran for 5 1/2 hours granting just 9.44 cr/h).

ID: 3243 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 13 · Next

Forums : General Topics : Cosmology@Home credit discussion