Just jumped back in fray so to speak, a couple months back. Joined seti in 99 and things were simple back then. Your credits showed how many WU you completed and how many hours you donated. Everyone was on an even play field. BOINC messed that up and opened pandora\'s box. The whole project is now an open market. A cruncher gets paid in points for the hours he/she donates. Points being nothing more at this juncture than bragging - status - whatever. Down to brass tax

16K seconds of crunching = 70 units at cosmology@home
20K seconds of crunching - 235 units at einstein@home

I could show others that pay my rigs better units/hours but the bottoms line is a lot of us will go where the \"pay\" is not on the lower end. right now cosmology@home has 51% active users ( users who have contributed points in a month) if that drops a lot in the next 30 days, C@H may want to reconsider its pay scale.


Hope this adds some useful fuel to the fire

Cactus Bob

Just got some credit for 2.14 - 70 credit for a 9 hour monster!

I should have kept quiet ... Most of my pending WUs have received the grand total of zero. I expect the last three stragglers will get zapped too.

Great. Smashing. Super.

Al.

Just got some credit for 2.14 - 70 credit for a 9 hour monster!

I should have kept quiet ... Most of my pending WUs have received the grand total of zero. I expect the last three stragglers will get zapped too.

Great. Smashing. Super.

Al.

Yep, I called it... I mentioned something about the validator handling both properly. Seems as though it declares 2.12 tasks already reported as \"checked but no consensus\" when the quorum is formed with a task processed by 2.14, gets sent to another 2.14, which then causes the 2.12 task to be declared invalid.

The Server Status page, *IF* it is to be trusted, shows that db_purge is running again. I hope I\'m wrong about my other prognostication (that these tasks will purge before the mainly-absent project staff can address things).

---

edit to add:
Bloody thing looks like the stock market.

---

Yeah, no credit degradation in this project, nope, none indeed...

http://boincstats.com/charts/chart_uk_cosmology_project_new_credits.gif

16% of the recent trend in credits. A six-fold decrease.

Now, let\'s be fair - a couple of possible factors, including longer times to crunch means there is a gap from 2.12 to 2.14. Fair enough. That was a week ago, so we should be moving past that, but in fact we are DECREASING further. Perhaps crunchers are leaving the project? Fair enough - might be due to a lower burn rate per hour, might be due to longer crunch times per WU. Might even be due to the fact that grants are [often] lower than claims.

Look on the bright side here - fewer crunchers for an ALPHA project will result in lower server loads, fewer bottlenecks, etc. etc. etc.

It\'s been fun, but for all the frustration, one thing that make it worth sticking around for was fair credit allocation, maybe even generous to a fault. Yet I, for one, find this project has easily moved down to #3 (or LOWER) on each of my clients\' mix of projects.

Sorry, but the frustration coupled with credit PENALTIES no longer make it worth the kwh for me to invest further.

Rgds
XB

Yup, still the same:
http://boincstats.com/charts/chart_uk_cosmology_project_new_credits.gif

XB

If their desire was to vastly reduce the number of work units crunched, and reduce the number of crunchers, they have had an amazing success. And in such a short period of time too! This will help enable them to keep there server running for many years without having to up grade. I wish them the best of luck attracting and maintaining crunchers in the future.

If their desire was to vastly reduce the number of work units crunched, and reduce the number of crunchers, they have had an amazing success. And in such a short period of time too! This will help enable them to keep there server running for many years without having to up grade. I wish them the best of luck attracting and maintaining crunchers in the future.

They can probably sell what Server Equipment they have now & get cheaper Server Hardware, that way they would have some spare change laying around for Coffee & Doughnuts in the Server Room ... LOL

From my vantage point, it would appear that credit needs to be increased by 25% to be just equal to SETI after the claimed reduction there. However, this will only make it roughly equal to the stock SETI application. The optimized SETI application will still be able to get a higher amount of credit/hour...

Justification:

If current rate is approx 70% of SETI, 70/4 = 15. 70+15 = 85. SETI is claiming that they are intending on a reduction of around 15%, so they will be down to 85% of the current level, thus making credit \"equivalent\".

If runtimes are not going to improve, credit here needs to at least be increased to 85/task.

---

I ran some of the SETI Wu\'s with 3 different Optimized Applications that you can get right on the Message Boards in both a Linux & Windows OS Environment & there was very little difference in the amount of credit I received. It was always in the 80-85 Credits Per Hour - Per Core Range. So even if they cut their Credits by 15% that would only be a 12-13 point Credit reduction for me which would still leave me with 72-73 Credits Per Hour - Per Core.

The New & much longer Wu\'s here with the CAMB Turned back on were taking me 4-5 Hours to do which equals about 14-18 Credits Per Hour - Per Core with the new & improved 70 Credits Per Wu Allowance & thats actually being a little bit generous with the figures by rounding them off to the highest number.

So if we increase those Slightly Generous 14-18 Credits Per Hour - Per Core Figures by 25% I would now get 18-23 Credits Per Hour - Per Core & thats once again being Generous with the figures by going to the next highest number.

Soooooooo I see absolutely nothing there Credit Wise that would entice any Credit Chasers as you call them back to the Project that left it because of the Severe Credit Reduction.

As far as I can see Scott not only shot himself in the foot with the recent Credit Reduction but he blew his whole dang foot off by the Severity of it. But of course Scott in trying to sell his new bitter tasting Snake Oil Credits to the Participants called it a Credit Increase back on the 22\'nd of July, 2008.

The new CAMB is now up and work generation has commenced; in addition, credit for the new WUs has been increased, since lensing is now re-enabled.

But as I\'ve always professed while running the BOINC Projects it\'s each Projects Dev\'s Project & they can do as they wish with them when it comes to Credits Granted just as their my Computers & I can do anything I wish with them when it comes to the Credits their getting & there should never be any hard feelings between the two of them ... ;)

So if we increase those Slightly Generous 14-18 Credits Per Hour - Per Core Figures by 25% I would now get 18-23 Credits Per Hour - Per Core & thats once again being Generous with the figures by going to the next highest number.

Don\'t know who originally said this, but yes, that\'s the general point of \"Cross-project parity\". From what I\'ve been able to gather, 15-23, maybe as high as 25, is basically the target range based on the \"standard\" of benchmark * time. If you bring up the subject of the optimized SETI application giving more than that, you are treated as though you have three heads...

---

Just looking at the graphs it seems like there is a great dropout in number of active hosts since this whole new credit scheme came into play. If the trend continues it doesn\'t look too good. Now I\'m usually not too picky on credit, after all one does it for the science, but the drastic reduction of credit is a bit extreme. I went from 30 to 55 minute WU granting 50 credits to 3 to 4+ hrs granting 70. A mere 10 extra credits for a quadruple in time! Compare that to an Einstein unit that goes 3.5 to 4.5 hrs on the same machine and gets 237 credits.

It just seems so out of whack compared to other projects. The 50 beforehand was a bit over generous, but the 70 now is just plain stingy...

And I think a good portion of hosts are thinking that way too...

It\'s nothing to worry about, their just the 1.2-2.4% of the total active user base that Brian said were Credit Chasers, we\'re, eerrrrrr, they are insignificant really and have no impact at all on a Projects Production since their less than 3% of the Total Users ... :)

It\'s nothing to worry about, their just the 1.2-2.4% of the total active user base that Brian said were Credit Chasers, we\'re, eerrrrrr, they are insignificant really and have no impact at all on a Projects Production since their less than 3% of the Total Users ... :)

:-P

Anyway, I couldn\'t help but notice that my estimated completion times had gone up over 5 hours today. Looking around, I noticed that one task in particular took 24,455.05 seconds for a claimed credit of 99.79. I don\'t know how more ironic it could be, as 99.79 was also the figure I posted at SETI for the boiling point of water at 1 atm with a flawed measurement rate of 20%, but I digress...

70 * 3600 / 24,455.05 = 10.30 cr/hr

Guess that will \"bring balance\" to those short-running tasks, eh Saenger?

39.82 + 39.29 + 39.75 + 99.79 = 218.65 claimed (claim avg = 54.66)
In theory 280 granted, for 51.35 (23.48%) over the amount claimed Making out like a bandit, eh?

The total claimed credit of all my 70-credit tasks comes to 1361.49. There are 22 tasks. 1361.49 / 22 = 61.89 avg. claim...for only 178.51 credits over the claimed amount, or a mere 13.11% over the claim.

Yet, SETI\'s optimized application will give me much more than that, if I were to use it... The lowest pending cr/hr I have right now over at SETI with my Pentium 4 (the AMD has no tasks) is around 17 cr/hr... My AMD usually runs in the 25-35 range... (per BOINCstats, .009661 cr/s, or 34.78 cr/hr) or \"triple\" the amount of LHC, yet that chart won\'t reflect that, only the \"average\".

Nobody can seem to define what \"parity\" really means. It is like when Liberal Democrats want \"the rich\" to \"pay their \'fair share\' of taxes\", but you cannot ever get a Lib to define who are \"the rich\", nor what a \"fair share\" really means... It\'s all a bunch of class warfare hoopla to try to win on the populist sentiment...

[/rant]

Missing Credits

Hi; Just will like to know what happen with the credits for this WU\'s

wu_072508_105347_0
wu_072508_111823_1
wu_072708_025119_0

Thank you

---

As a new participants in this project i dont think its fear that credits given are much less then the work units would have regarded me.
Unless it was to high before the credits now given isnt attractive to new participants perhaps i\'ll get back some day but for now i will finnish the rest of my WU\'s and turn to another project

As a new participants in this project i dont think its fear that credits given are much less then the work units would have regarded me.
Unless it was to high before the credits now given isnt attractive to new participants perhaps i\'ll get back some day but for now i will finnish the rest of my WU\'s and turn to another project

If the credit was increased at the same rate as the length of the work units my numbers show it should be 190. That would equal the 50 I was getting for about 45 minutes of work. Sure seems like the project is losing many former hosts!

If the credit was increased at the same rate as the length of the work units my numbers show it should be 190. That would equal the 50 I was getting for about 45 minutes of work. Sure seems like the project is losing many former hosts![/quote]


Sounds about right to me

As a new participants in this project i dont think its fear that credits given are much less then the work units would have regarded me.
Unless it was to high before the credits now given isnt attractive to new participants perhaps i\'ll get back some day but for now i will finnish the rest of my WU\'s and turn to another project

If the credit was increased at the same rate as the length of the work units my numbers show it should be 190. That would equal the 50 I was getting for about 45 minutes of work. Sure seems like the project is losing many former hosts!

Credit has always been acceptable to generous here at Cosmo in spite of what some people believe. Participants and their hosts are \"leaving\" because they (like me) think the project is out of control and mired with problems that cause \"no work sent\" and \"there was work but for other platforms\" messages. Some are content to let their BOINC message logs fill up with these messages but I choose to suspend until the problems are fixed. Anyone seen OhioMike lately, a long time contributor now aloof?

Credit has always been acceptable to generous here at Cosmo in spite of what some people believe. Participants and their hosts are \"leaving\" because they (like me) think the project is out of control and mired with problems that cause \"no work sent\" and \"there was work but for other platforms\" messages. Some are content to let their BOINC message logs fill up with these messages but I choose to suspend until the problems are fixed. Anyone seen OhioMike lately, a long time contributor now aloof?

I agree with that pretty much, I do feel the Credit has been cut to far though & needs a little adjustment upwards of around 20% - 25% ... Although it was nice the Credit had to be adjusted downward here at Cosmo to satisfy the Cross Parity people. It\'s being done at other Projects too so people may as well get used to it because it is what it is as the saying goes ... :)

I think OhioMike just got feed up with the Project and moved on as many people have. His Account Data Page shows a little activity at Einstein but other than that he\'s dormant @ the BOINC Projects. He could be running some of the DC Projects instead though ... :)

The credit that was granted before the lensing portion was disabled was 100. Now that lensing has been re-enabled, we should get that again.

I am definitely taking a break from here, but will be back when all the download/upload/reporting issues have been worked out.

---

Calm Chaos Forum...Join Calm Chaos Now