Travis has set the new workunit credit to be within the range of 4-4.2. We heard all you guys and raised it to the majority vote.
____________
Dave Przybylo
MilkyWay@home Developer
Department of Computer Science
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Well done, thank you Dave and Travis. :-)
____________
Member of BOINC@Heidelberg and ATA!

My BOINCstats

Wow, that was quite a fast reply! THX a lot, Travis and Dave! :-)
____________
Lovely greetings, Cori

So,... U brought the Claimed credit down so U bring the Granted credit down, special! And as I remember the general vote was 4, not 3.25 thx! Gone again!!

EDIT: BTW.. I hear D.A. likes it when you PUCKER UP real big!
____________
A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory

On the frontpage it says 4. :-)
____________
Lovely greetings, Cori

I just completed some and received 4.06 credits per WU.

Thanks guys!!!

____________

Calm Chaos Forum...Join Calm Chaos Now

Imho, its too much...

2.17 was more than average on my hosts

Just my 2 cents...
____________


My NEW BOINC-Site

Why people joined BOINC Synergy...

Crunch fair!

On the frontpage it says 4. :-)

Imho, its too much...

2.17 was more than average on my hosts

Just my 2 cents...

Imho, its too much...

2.17 was more than average on my hosts

Just my 2 cents...

You were outvoted 50 to 1 !

I also like to say Thank's to Dave and Travis for the fast response. I've got 4.06 for my first WU after increase the credits.

Imho, its too much...

2.17 was more than average on my hosts

Just my 2 cents...

You were outvoted 50 to 1 !

Travis did some workunits at 3.xx then when i told him the majority vote he did the rest 4.xx. From now on they will be slightly greater than 4.

4.06 fits perfectly and is attractive for fast modern hosts, too, I think.

It seems that the wu's time have gone up another min for me (from 650 to 730 secs), one ran for 1020 secs. Are these supposed to run any longer?
____________
Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?
If it makes sense, DON'T do it.

4.06.... I can live with that!! Thank you gentleman!
____________
A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory

Thanks for listening guys! Much better response here than I ever got at SETI. And it is really appreciated.

Reasonable, balanced & fair IMO.
Not the highest, not the lowest. Falls into a good range.

More importantly, I like the collaboration and communication between Project staff and members.
This project has GREAT potential!

Keep up the wicked-cool work!

Cheers!
____________

Help!! Why am I still getting only 2.17 credits on all my machines??

Help!! Why am I still getting only 2.17 credits on all my machines??

The new credits are showing as 4.06 per W/U (300seconds) on my quads.

This makes around 195 cr per hour on each quad box.

MW now one of the highest per hour along with ABC (198 per hour) that I am currently crunching.

The new credits are showing as 4.06 per W/U (300seconds) on my quads.

This makes around 195 cr per hour on each quad box.

MW now one of the highest per hour along with ABC (198 per hour) that I am currently crunching.

The new credits are showing as 4.06 per W/U (300seconds) on my quads.

This makes around 195 cr per hour on each quad box.

MW now one of the highest per hour along with ABC (198 per hour) that I am currently crunching.

faster response than i expected. the credit raise is a bit lower then i expected but dont get me wrong im happy with it. i'm going to stick with the project and start adding more machines.:)

haha don't tell us we're the highest please. we don't want our management getting ideas of lowering it again.

wow, amazingly fast response, well done guys, good to see somegood interaction from projet team and users. I just increased my resource share

Nice one‼ Thanks :-)

Way too much-

Sad that the credit sharks have taken over the voice here, look on the sign up dates from the biggest complainers and wonder: they all came after the Application improvement made in early march.

After ive forced myself reading through that first, now locked credit discussion thread (If I wouldnt had to run 2 long mysql backups right now, i probably would have never going through all that stupidity in that thread.
) - Im shocked on what kind of people the high credits have attracted now, some even use abusive language to get what they want.


/signing off

Way too much-

Sad that the credit sharks have taken over the voice here, look on the sign up dates from the biggest complainers and wonder: they all came after the Application improvement made in early march.

After ive forced myself reading through that first, now locked credit discussion thread (If I wouldnt had to run 2 long mysql backups right now, i probably would have never going through all that stupidity in that thread.
) - Im shocked on what kind of people the high credits have attracted now, some even use abusive language to get what they want.


/signing off

Imho, its too much...

2.17 was more than average on my hosts

Just my 2 cents...

You were outvoted 50 to 1 !

most people agree that the granted credit is way too high for the project by a factor of 3.

Please feel free to keep complaining about credit on the forums and we'll eventually get it right. :)

Granting more credits lets crunchers be happier, which means the works of the project crunched more, which lets the project team be happier.
It's simply a win-win game.

thanks,
suguruhirahara
____________

At the moment RS and Cosmo are much higher than that....

Hail to chief travis!

I kept MW running on full speed, this makes it just more fun!
____________

look on the sign up dates from the biggest complainers

/signing off

Thank you Dave and Travis,

I've got some new wu granted with 4.06,
which is in my opinion a fair amount in the middle.

Though the science and not credits should be the important target for crunching, it's a additional motivation (which sometimes is needed too, e.g. thinking of the electric bill ;)) so in my opinion a fair amount of credits should be given!

on the other hand ..
everytime there will be some people complaining about too little or to much credits granted, while it's depending on the machine the app's run and how good it's fitting and optimized on this.
It may be, a application running on an old Sempron gets more credits in relation to the cpu-velocity as on a new Xeon, - with different Project application contrawise.

At other projects I am doing 3x the ((scientific)) work for 10k..

At other projects I am doing 3x the ((scientific)) work for 10k..

Really? How on earth do you know that? How do you compare work done "determining the evolution of the Milkyway galaxy", to work done looking for a cure for aids? How can you say that one does more or less scientific work?

I believe that you can only compare the amount of work done *within* a project. And with these new, faster/optimized apps, we are doing *more* scientific work at MilkyWay per second. It seems to me that is something you should be applauding, not running from.

At other projects I am doing 3x the ((scientific)) work for 10k..

Really? How on earth do you know that? How do you compare work done "determining the evolution of the Milkyway galaxy", to work done looking for a cure for aids? How can you say that one does more or less scientific work?

I believe that you can only compare the amount of work done *within* a project. And with these new, faster/optimized apps, we are doing *more* scientific work at MilkyWay per second. It seems to me that is something you should be applauding, not running from.

Just wanted to make a point, that there are even people willing to help without credits above average (there are also a few projects I would support without any credits) - contrary to the people who posted "Byebye" right after the granted credits had been decreased. Thats poor.

Just wanted to make a point, that there are even people willing to help without credits above average (there are also a few projects I would support without any credits) - contrary to the people who posted "Byebye" right after the granted credits had been decreased. Thats poor.

No that is not poor. That is free choice. You have the right to support whatever project you want according to your own wishes and desires. We have that right as well. If I do not like the way a project is being run I have the right to say bye and move my crunchers to another project. They are, after all, my crunchers. I prefer to have a dialog with the project admins first, but that is by my choice. Those who posted bye and left were also exercising their right to do so. I do not think any less of them for doing so and are appalled that you do.

Just wanted to make a point, that there are even people willing to help without credits above average (there are also a few projects I would support without any credits) - contrary to the people who posted "Byebye" right after the granted credits had been decreased. Thats poor.

No that is not poor. That is free choice. You have the right to support whatever project you want according to your own wishes and desires. We have that right as well. If I do not like the way a project is being run I have the right to say bye and move my crunchers to another project. They are, after all, my crunchers. I prefer to have a dialog with the project admins first, but that is by my choice. Those who posted bye and left were also exercising their right to do so. I do not think any less of them for doing so and are appalled that you do.

You're right Sarge! Its simply MY opinion that such BEHAVIOUR is poor.

Better?

Now I'm really off... ;)

Best, Shai!

Just wanted to make a point, that there are even people willing to help without credits above average (there are also a few projects I would support without any credits) - contrary to the people who posted "Byebye" right after the granted credits had been decreased. Thats poor.

No that is not poor. That is free choice. You have the right to support whatever project you want according to your own wishes and desires. We have that right as well. If I do not like the way a project is being run I have the right to say bye and move my crunchers to another project. They are, after all, my crunchers. I prefer to have a dialog with the project admins first, but that is by my choice. Those who posted bye and left were also exercising their right to do so. I do not think any less of them for doing so and are appalled that you do.

You're right Sarge! Its simply MY opinion that such BEHAVIOUR is poor.

Better?

Now I'm really off... ;)

Best, Shai!

Well look @ the Bright Side of it SG, now you'll be able to devote more of your time Crusading @ some of the other Projects that in your Opinion give out to much Credit ... :)

Imho, its too much...

2.17 was more than average on my hosts

Just my 2 cents...

You were outvoted 50 to 1 !

Thats life... I can live with that. :)

Who am I to complain about people that are complaining about too little credits here. Just because my calculator keeps telling me that Milkyway is granting 50% more credits than ABC or Cosmo (with 4 cr. per wu), I do know nonetheless that it is the project admins decision how much credits are granted. If I dont like the decision, i have to go somewhere else. If I dont believe the guys that say that Milkyway isnt granting more than the other high credit projects (which can be easily checked), its still MY problem. If I think that those people are talking rubbish who are saying that increasing the credits again saved this project, exactly: Still MY problem...

most people agree that the granted credit is way too high for the project by a factor of 3.

Now you're saying that most people were wrong...

Please feel free to keep complaining about credit on the forums and we'll eventually get it right. :)

;) thats what i'm doing...

Well, thanks to 6.5 cr., I was able to reach my personal project milestone of 10k in no time. Funny that the last wu I needed to reach 10k was one with "only" 2.17 cr.

At other projects I am doing 3x the ((scientific)) work for 10k.

Well, now I can focus on other projects again, like WCG atm, where I can do exactly that...

Please feel free to keep complaining about credit on the forums and we'll eventually get it right. :)

Imho, its too much...

2.17 was more than average on my hosts

Just my 2 cents...

You were outvoted 50 to 1 !

Thats life... I can live with that. :)

Who am I to complain about people that are complaining about too little credits here. Just because my calculator keeps telling me that Milkyway is granting 50% more credits than ABC or Cosmo (with 4 cr. per wu), I do know nonetheless that it is the project admins decision how much credits are granted. If I dont like the decision, i have to go somewhere else. If I dont believe the guys that say that Milkyway isnt granting more than the other high credit projects (which can be easily checked), its still MY problem. If I think that those people are talking rubbish who are saying that increasing the credits again saved this project, exactly: Still MY problem...

most people agree that the granted credit is way too high for the project by a factor of 3.

Now you're saying that most people were wrong...

Please feel free to keep complaining about credit on the forums and we'll eventually get it right. :)

;) thats what i'm doing...

Well, thanks to 6.5 cr., I was able to reach my personal project milestone of 10k in no time. Funny that the last wu I needed to reach 10k was one with "only" 2.17 cr.

At other projects I am doing 3x the ((scientific)) work for 10k.

Well, now I can focus on other projects again, like WCG atm, where I can do exactly that...

Now wait, I am confused. If the pay is too high, you can always set your prefs to 1..

But first - you state "Thats life... I can live with that. :)

Who am I to complain about people that are complaining about too little credits here."

Then you say - "thats what i'm doing..." in response to the statement -

Please feel free to keep complaining about credit on the forums and we'll eventually get it right. :)

Will you figure it out ? you are making even me dizzy..

There should be a BOINC server option that lets the participant choose the amount of credit he should get.

100% of the project default
75% of the project default
50% or the project default
1-1 1 credit = 1 WU (so they can at least see how many WU's they have crunched)

and for the halo heads

.001% or just 0000 - since credit is not a big issue to them - they can select the 000 option and feel at home.

Travis has set the new workunit credit to be within the range of 4-4.2. We heard all you guys and raised it to the majority vote.

Travis has set the new workunit credit to be within the range of 4-4.2. We heard all you guys and raised it to the majority vote.

I am out:( to love credit for me.

Now wait, I am confused...

Sorry, DP again. Thanx to my slow 54kbit connection.

Cruncher, thx for hiding the last DP and for hiding this one as well! :)

I just want the system ops to grant 6.0 and tell the rest of the world tough thats the way it will be then everyone will come here. Besides its there project not DA's or anyone else.. The political dodo must go..Maybe 6.0 is unfair humm who cares as long as the work gets done..

I just want the system ops to grant 6.0 and tell the rest of the world tough thats the way it will be then everyone will come here. Besides its there project not DA's or anyone else.. The political dodo must go..Maybe 6.0 is unfair humm who cares as long as the work gets done..

I just want the system ops to grant 6.0 and tell the rest of the world tough thats the way it will be then everyone will come here. Besides its there project not DA's or anyone else.. The political dodo must go..Maybe 6.0 is unfair humm who cares as long as the work gets done..

Well, for the case that you haven't read the last happenings here: you are too late with that, nobody will hear you.
A poll with suggestions is already over.
And besides that the majority claimed for 4 nobody did vote for more than 4.5 anymore.
There was nothing political going on with this, it was a community decision. :-)
So I cannot understand the people here who are crying: "It's D.A.'s fault!"

I just want the system ops to grant 6.0 and tell the rest of the world tough thats the way it will be then everyone will come here. Besides its there project not DA's or anyone else.. The political dodo must go..Maybe 6.0 is unfair humm who cares as long as the work gets done..

Well, for the case that you haven't read the last happenings here: you are too late with that, nobody will hear you.
A poll with suggestions is already over.
And besides that the majority claimed for 4 nobody did vote for more than 4.5 anymore.
There was nothing political going on with this, it was a community decision. :-)
So I cannot understand the people here who are crying: "It's D.A.'s fault!"

Well said DoctorNow....and DA is out of it ...whats he gonna do control the stats sites?...if more projects adopted this procedure it might be the fairest way to a total Boinc credit soloution. :)

I just want the system ops to grant 6.0 and tell the rest of the world tough thats the way it will be then everyone will come here. Besides its there project not DA's or anyone else.. The political dodo must go..Maybe 6.0 is unfair humm who cares as long as the work gets done..

Well, for the case that you haven't read the last happenings here: you are too late with that, nobody will hear you.
A poll with suggestions is already over.
And besides that the majority claimed for 4 nobody did vote for more than 4.5 anymore.
There was nothing political going on with this, it was a community decision. :-)
So I cannot understand the people here who are crying: "It's D.A.'s fault!"

Well said DoctorNow....and DA is out of it ...whats he gonna do control the stats sites?...if more projects adopted this procedure it might be the fairest way to a total Boinc credit soloution. :)

Oh I heard and can read very well and I saw the poll but it is still up to the admins of the project and your sarcasm has been noted.. Thank you so much, I needed that..I feel much better now how about you?

Oh I heard and can read very well and I saw the poll but it is still up to the admins of the project and your sarcasm has been noted.. Thank you so much, I needed that..I feel much better now how about you?

What I can't believe is that the poll was my idea, but opened by ChertseyAI faster than I could see. :-D

What I can't believe is that the poll was my idea, but opened by ChertseyAI faster than I could see. :-D

Hey, I did gave you 11 minutes and 25 seconds to start the poll ;-)

That's long enough to pick up 6.5, er no, 2.17, no, wrong again ... 4.06 credits from this project :-D

Al.

p.s. It Al with an L. AI would be artificial intelligence. I have little enough real intelligence, let alone artificial :-D

In my opinion, 4.02 credits is probably just a wee bit higher than it needs to be.

That, and increased client/server stability are why I came back. Don't change a thing! :o)

P.S. I would not have come back JUST for the points. Stability is the main thing.

Stability is the main thing.

Don't know about anyone else but I'm seeing a couple 2.17s creeping into my granted credits here and there lately. Has anyone else seen this?
____________
A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory

Don't know about anyone else but I'm seeing a couple 2.17s creeping into my granted credits here and there lately. Has anyone else seen this?

It will be work units that didn't make the deadline(for one reason or other) being resent, shouldn't last for long

It will be work units that didn't make the deadline(for one reason or other) being resent, shouldn't last for long

I thought a quick return was very important to the genetic algorithm.

Seems a bit daft to resend them when they've been stale for a week!

Al.

It's a redundancy check. Each workunit gets produced twice to make sure the results agree. If there is processor error or someone is using a modified app version that doesn't produce the same results, the workunit gets trashed.

It's a redundancy check. Each workunit gets produced twice to make sure the results agree. If there is processor error or someone is using a modified app version that doesn't produce the same results, the workunit gets trashed.

Why don’t you use the usual BOINC validation system for that, issuing two tasks per WU instead of a pair of single-task WUs? Too much work for the server?

Why don’t you use the usual BOINC validation system for that, issuing two tasks per WU instead of a pair of single-task WUs? Too much work for the server?

One result for sure would be then number of WU's crunched in a day would be ~50% less since each WU has to be run twice. Personally it doesn't make a difference to the crunchers but I don't know if that makes a difference to the project managers.
____________
CLICK TO HELP BUILD

One result for sure would be then number of WU's crunched in a day would be ~50% less since each WU has to be run twice. Personally it doesn't make a difference to the crunchers but I don't know if that makes a difference to the project managers.

One result for sure would be then number of WU's crunched in a day would be ~50% less since each WU has to be run twice. Personally it doesn't make a difference to the crunchers but I don't know if that makes a difference to the project managers.

I'm not positive which way it's done since I've only skimmed the Validator code to see how the credit is awarded. It very well could be done in pairs. I only know it's been modified but the only thing i saw changed was that the credit isn't variable, it's fixed.

It's a redundancy check. Each workunit gets produced twice to make sure the results agree. If there is processor error or someone is using a modified app version that doesn't produce the same results, the workunit gets trashed.

It's a redundancy check. Each workunit gets produced twice to make sure the results agree. If there is processor error or someone is using a modified app version that doesn't produce the same results, the workunit gets trashed.

But that's at odds with the "20 workunit limit" sticky: http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/forum_thread.php?id=250

To quote (selectively) from Travis:

by the time you finish crunching them, the population has moved so far away from where those points were generated that the work you've done on them is basically useless

So resending a workunit a week later is pointless. What if it doesn't agree with the first validated result? How does the genetically spawned 'tree' get pruned of erroneous parameters; By then it will be tens/hundreds of generations evolved away from the first result.

Not looking to start an argument, just curious :)

Al.

we don't use any redudancy at all. there are enough different parameter sets out there that a single erronenous one that slips through the cracks really wont cause much of a problem at all.