Advanced search

Message boards : Wish list : More Credit Needed

1 · 2 · 3 · Next
Author Message
Rapture
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 27 Oct 07
Posts: 85
Credit: 644,621
RAC: 166
Message 8137 - Posted: 18 Apr 2009, 22:12:54 UTC

Ben, thanks for the update today! While the credit increase is welcome, it is still too low. I suggest raising it to at least 400.

Anshul Kanakia
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Send message
Joined: 30 Sep 08
Posts: 70
Credit: 164,860
RAC: 0
Message 8138 - Posted: 18 Apr 2009, 23:25:00 UTC

Thanks for your input! Lets wait a bit longer to hear what other users have to say about this. We have no issues with granting more credit for WUs but such matters of fine tuning are notorious for getting out of hand quickly so lets try to get a majority consensus at least among the people who care before changing anything.

Profile Misfit
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 9 Jun 07
Posts: 150
Credit: 237,789
RAC: 0
Message 8139 - Posted: 19 Apr 2009, 1:44:22 UTC - in response to Message 8138.

Thanks for your input! Lets wait a bit longer to hear what other users have to say about this. We have no issues with granting more credit for WUs but such matters of fine tuning are notorious for getting out of hand quickly so lets try to get a majority consensus at least among the people who care before changing anything.

Wait until you get the project back into proper working order. Then we can see the work results on a more consistent basis. You've been granting more credit than was claimed for a long time. Users should be thankful and return the favor by having more patients when it comes to credit.
____________
me@rescam.org

Bill & Patsy
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 27 Jul 08
Posts: 25
Credit: 1,045,640
RAC: 0
Message 8140 - Posted: 19 Apr 2009, 2:47:19 UTC

When you settle on the new credit amount, make it retroactive to all such WUs.
____________
--Bill

Brickhead
Send message
Joined: 15 Nov 07
Posts: 4
Credit: 2,587,580
RAC: 0
Message 8152 - Posted: 19 Apr 2009, 21:47:28 UTC

Have a look at the claimed credit when things have settled a bit, that should clue you in on a fair level for the granted credit. For the time being, I see a lot claimed in the 300-350 range.

Rapture
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 27 Oct 07
Posts: 85
Credit: 644,621
RAC: 166
Message 8153 - Posted: 19 Apr 2009, 22:23:42 UTC - in response to Message 8138.

Thanks for your input! Lets wait a bit longer to hear what other users have to say about this. We have no issues with granting more credit for WUs but such matters of fine tuning are notorious for getting out of hand quickly so lets try to get a majority consensus at least among the people who care before changing anything.


Anshul, thanks for the quick reply! I have to agree with you that we need more time and to hear from others. As someone else said earlier, taking a look at other users' claimed credit will reveal where your credit target should be. The claimed credit of others between 300 to 350 sounds reasonable to me. You probably will need several weeks at least before making any changes.

Profile Paul D. Buck
Send message
Joined: 20 Apr 08
Posts: 11
Credit: 1,240,290
RAC: 0
Message 8156 - Posted: 20 Apr 2009, 6:25:37 UTC

Since the start of the defugulty I have seen very long run times to the point where I have few systems attached and running work for the project. I want to do the science, but, the only recognition I get is the pay in cobblestones ... SO ... (Side note, were the world the way I want, LHC, MW, Cosmology would be my top projects)...

The tasks in *MY* task list are running claims up to 500 CS from the recent work though the later and faster systems seem to be lower (I don't know why). What I do know is that the 140 is way too low, 200 is certainly not high enough to entice me back for a large commitment.

Perhaps you should call Eric at SaH and talk to him about the "magical" figure it out tool he has ... though I do prefer the flat rates on beta projects to cover for the inevitable errors, that is another alternative.

If you do go with a flat rate, something in the range of 400-450 is about right for the current tasks as I have seen them these last couple months.

Fundamentally as a participant, if you are paying me less than I claim, and I am not cheating, well, sorry the psychology is that you are cheating me ... I have tried to make this point, but developers don't seem to get the idea that participants are actually people and react as people do ... mostly irrationally ...

Paul Forsdick
Send message
Joined: 4 Apr 09
Posts: 7
Credit: 28,719
RAC: 0
Message 8157 - Posted: 20 Apr 2009, 8:30:37 UTC

Hi
I have been doing some stats on the 11 different projects I do.

I found i have been doing them for 60 days and have a work done of 38173
which works out at 636 a day or 318 per CPU.
if I had been doing cosmology and the first one took 22 hours this cpu would only have been about 220 a day, i actually got 140 for 22 hours.

it looks like it needs to be at least 300 to be the average of the other 10 projects.
paul

Profile Ageless
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 15 Jun 07
Posts: 345
Credit: 50,500
RAC: 0
Message 8159 - Posted: 20 Apr 2009, 10:24:56 UTC - in response to Message 8156.

Perhaps you should call Eric at SaH and talk to him about the "magical" figure it out tool he has ...

Nothing magical about it, more of a hands on job. This API is available from SVN these days as well and needs one or more trusted PCs to do some work, then check what their credits do and then follow a 9 step manual to get it to do what you want it to do. We were using it at Hydrogen to check on credits there, before the NCI DB locked us out.
____________
Jord.

Profile Labbie
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 8 Nov 07
Posts: 64
Credit: 859,370
RAC: 0
Message 8160 - Posted: 20 Apr 2009, 14:05:04 UTC - in response to Message 8156.
Last modified: 20 Apr 2009, 14:05:35 UTC

If you do go with a flat rate, something in the range of 400-450 is about right for the current tasks as I have seen them these last couple months.


Paul has it about right, 400 would be the minumum I think would be acceptable.
____________

Calm Chaos Forum...Join Calm Chaos Now

Magister
Send message
Joined: 22 Nov 07
Posts: 11
Credit: 87,910
RAC: 0
Message 8161 - Posted: 20 Apr 2009, 15:54:05 UTC

My old Athlon XP 2200+ gave me 16 credit/hour before the crash, now at 140 credit for a 32 hour unit it's less than 5 c/h, with 200 c/u it makes about 6c/h which is still very poor.

LHC gives me about 12 c/h, einstien gives me 10 c/h, so they give the double!!

400 credit / unit should be the minimum.

pluk
Send message
Joined: 15 Nov 07
Posts: 22
Credit: 243,170
RAC: 0
Message 8165 - Posted: 20 Apr 2009, 20:24:24 UTC
Last modified: 20 Apr 2009, 20:30:21 UTC

If I gathered correctly, this new 2.16 job should've received 200 credit, yet somehow it got just the old 140...

http://www.cosmologyathome.org/workunit.php?wuid=6342985

that said; previously, jobs took somewhere between 5 and 6 hours (CPU time) on average to complete on my machine (that is, that's what I think I remember the number was; my own list of completed jobs has been purged so can't back this up)

But if it is so, then this one took between 4 and 5 times as long. Shouldn't awarded credit simply be multiplied by the same factor?

If so, that would imply something between 560 and 700 to be more in the ballpark than the figures I currently see suggested here...

This would also be on par with the observation that credit granted used to be roughly double the credit claimed...

Bill & Patsy
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 27 Jul 08
Posts: 25
Credit: 1,045,640
RAC: 0
Message 8166 - Posted: 20 Apr 2009, 21:59:43 UTC

Ben & Anshul,

Will the correction be retroactive for all these WUs, or should we stop crunching and go somewhere else until the credit issue is fixed?

I think a lot of us would like to know.

Thanks.
____________
--Bill

Anshul Kanakia
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Send message
Joined: 30 Sep 08
Posts: 70
Credit: 164,860
RAC: 0
Message 8167 - Posted: 21 Apr 2009, 1:45:33 UTC

We updated the Work unit template a couple of hours after shifting over to CAMB 2.16 so there are obviously going to be some WUs floating around which are worth only 140 credits. The next batch should grant you either 200 or 300 credits (Yes, I increased the credits by another 100) for each successfully crunched WU. Now, what I have seen over the last couple of months is that we have been granting 140 credits for WUs that claim only 70-110 credit so having to crunch these new ones for just a little while for 300 credit should not hurt you at all.
In the mean time I will discuss with Scott about granting people more credit retroactively and then let you know.

Brian Silvers
Send message
Joined: 11 Dec 07
Posts: 420
Credit: 270,580
RAC: 0
Message 8168 - Posted: 21 Apr 2009, 2:08:19 UTC - in response to Message 8167.

Now, what I have seen over the last couple of months is that we have been granting 140 credits for WUs that claim only 70-110 credit so having to crunch these new ones for just a little while for 300 credit should not hurt you at all.
In the mean time I will discuss with Scott about granting people more credit retroactively and then let you know.


While you're discussing that with Scott, you might also wish to discuss with Ben whether or not your project qualifies as "beta" any longer. If you are going to match up credits with projects that are in production, then your project should also be listed as in production, not in beta.

I know criticism may seem harsh, but this project has been and may still be a mess. I don't know, because I'm not participating until some stability has been proven. What's very interesting about that is that even with me not participating, I still haven't lost much ground in the rankings. This means that a lot of people are sitting it out...participating in other projects due to the turmoil here...
____________

pluk
Send message
Joined: 15 Nov 07
Posts: 22
Credit: 243,170
RAC: 0
Message 8171 - Posted: 21 Apr 2009, 8:25:48 UTC - in response to Message 8167.

... Now, what I have seen over the last couple of months is that we have been granting 140 credits for WUs that claim only 70-110 credit so having to crunch these new ones for just a little while for 300 credit should not hurt you at all.


... if not for the fact that claiming 70 and receiving 140 is the state of affairs that we've come to accept as normal ...

Now, I must admit that I'm just not too well-informed with the workings of the boinc credit-business, but because every project seems to handle if differently anyway, I have always assumed that the amount of credit that your client would claim for work done was also strictly a project's application affair and not so much one of your boinc-client as a whole.

And since for C@h, the granted credit was always a fixed 140 regardless of the amount of cpu-time that was spent on a wu, I've always assumed that apparently for this project's application, the claimed credit simply beared no relation to the actual piece of work done and apparently was an irrelevant figure.

Profile Cori
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 May 07
Posts: 52
Credit: 34,836
RAC: 0
Message 8173 - Posted: 21 Apr 2009, 14:05:37 UTC - in response to Message 8160.

If you do go with a flat rate, something in the range of 400-450 is about right for the current tasks as I have seen them these last couple months.


Paul has it about right, 400 would be the minumum I think would be acceptable.

I agree on that! :-)
Even with using the x64-app (under Win XP) I needed ~17 hours to crunch these WUs, so 200 creds is really low.

____________
Lovely greetings, Cori

pluk
Send message
Joined: 15 Nov 07
Posts: 22
Credit: 243,170
RAC: 0
Message 8179 - Posted: 21 Apr 2009, 16:58:18 UTC

I'm inclined to say that something is wrong... After another 26+ hours (cpu-time) of crunching on its second 2.16 wu, this one was also awarded with a mere 140 credits. It was downloaded an hour and a half after the previous one so can hardly be part of that initial batch that wasn't yet adjusted for a 200 reward, can it?

Profile Paul D. Buck
Send message
Joined: 20 Apr 08
Posts: 11
Credit: 1,240,290
RAC: 0
Message 8183 - Posted: 21 Apr 2009, 21:22:43 UTC

Like the loss of participants SaH has finally noticed, "fair pay" seems to be a tough concept for most projects. With the problems in the project overpayment is comensation for problems of this year. Telling me that you plan to underpay the new guys because you overpaid me in the past is faulty logic.

And, the over payments of the past have already been eaten up by the underpayments of the present. When I am filing claims from 200-500 (as noted), payment should be over that. I don't have access to the database but a simple query can tell you what the average claim has been and you can go from there.

Like others, I am sitting on the side lines at the moment feeling cheated. Perhaps what you are doing *IS* fair, perhaps not... hard to tell when the history disappears ... what I do know is the last 40-50 tasks have run for very long times with some running normal times. If the tasks are laden with such variance perhaps flat rates are no longer appropriate.

On the other hand, ABC uses a sliding scale to handle just this situation.

Seriously guys, the psychology is that if I claim 200 any you pay me 199 I got cheated. The fact that the credit system sucks is the projects fault because none of you guys stood up and demanded that Dr. Anderson FIX IT ... now you reap what you did not sew ... weeds ... rocks and approbation ... hate and discontent ...

Anshul Kanakia
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Send message
Joined: 30 Sep 08
Posts: 70
Credit: 164,860
RAC: 0
Message 8185 - Posted: 22 Apr 2009, 0:54:29 UTC

Some good news...
I shouldn't really post this here because this piece of news has nothing to do with CAMB 2.16 WUs but I felt this thread was in need of some good, solid, uplifting news.
Everyone that has WUs lying around in their task list which errored out while downloading weeks ago will get 120 credits per every such WU. I know I have around 20 or so myself.

Some ok news...
I am looking at a few solutions to dynamically allocate credit for WUs instead of having credit set at a flat rate. As Paul mentioned earlier, there are some WUs that are not as work intensive as others while some that take (from Pluk) longer than average time.
With my system:
GenuineIntel Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz [x86 Family 6 Model 15 Stepping 11] (4 processors)
the credit claimed for new WUs has been between 290-330 and I can understand that this is not a good estimate for everyone. On the other hand, between Ben's Grad students, Scott and I we have a fairly good number of trusted CPUs so here is what I have decided to do for now. This thread seems to indicate very strongly that our users avg out credit at 400 per WU. I will take the avg claimed credit from all my trusted machines (there are around 10) = N credits.
Finally I will avg the two, so thats = (N + 400)/2 and set that to be the credit granted for CAMB 2.16 WUs till I have figured out a good way to dynamically allocate credit. I hope this keeps everyone happy for now.

Finally, I would like to mention that both Scott and my finals are going to start in 2 weeks so we will not be as active on the project. I will also be gone for 2 weeks between May 17th and June 1st. I will try to stay on the forums at that time but will not be doing any project development till I get back.

1 · 2 · 3 · Next

Message boards : Wish list : More Credit Needed