Having approximately the same credits per hour for a particular host across projects is what is SUPPOSED to happen in BOINC. If people are tired of hearing about this, then please ask the project administrators to get the calculation right rather than being proud of running off people that keep making that claim.

Projects that generate grossly too high credit claims should be removed from the cross project stats sites as this is just a way of stupidly inflating your cross project credit scores.

The long tasks really should be granting about 50 CS per task. Granting more is anti-social of the project administrators. The project administrators should look at what other projects are granting per hour for a particular host and attempt to match that here.
____________


BOINC WIKI

Care for some cheese with that?

Your selection of projects should match your level of comfort and organization.

For most of us it's "run it and gun it".

Voltron

Having approximately the same credits per hour for a particular host across projects is what is SUPPOSED to happen in BOINC. If people are tired of hearing about this, then please ask the project administrators to get the calculation right rather than being proud of running off people that keep making that claim.

Projects that generate grossly too high credit claims should be removed from the cross project stats sites as this is just a way of stupidly inflating your cross project credit scores.

The long tasks really should be granting about 50 CS per task. Granting more is anti-social of the project administrators. The project administrators should look at what other projects are granting per hour for a particular host and attempt to match that here.

Please keep personalities out of it.

The design of BOINC was to have approximate cross project parity in credits. Any project that is grossly out of line intentionally is intentionally breaking a design goal of BOINC, and has been a goal of BOINC since the very beginning.

The best method for credit granting is FLOPS counting. However, that is not possible in some cases.

Second best is fixed, but this only works if the tasks are all pretty much the same length.

Third best is to have 2 computers do the same task as this prevents cheating on both the science and on credits. Single tasks per WU only works if there is a quick validation from the answer back to the original question. And in most projects, getting quickly from the answer back to the question is not possible, so 2 tasks is a requirement to make certain the science is done. Then to prevent credit cheating (which is trivial in the single task / WU case and in the case where the project uses the average instead of dropping the high request) drop the high of the two (and if there are three or more, drop the low), average the rest.

What doesn't work well is fixed credits where the tasks vary greatly in length, nor does automatically granting the credit request of a single task unverified against another task.
____________


BOINC WIKI

Lets not forget that Seti started the 3rd party optimized app which is inherently unfair to the average user as he has to be aware of,capable of, and d/l said app.....that way they can say a few thousand users run the standard app and we can help the "informed" users inflate their credits thus getting BIG crunchers to stay with Seti and not look elsewhere.....what a way to run a business eh JM Vll?

If BOINC admin is really serious about cleaning up this mess then they will stop Seti from allowing 3rd party apps and take them internal to allow all users to benefit. 1st clean up your mess closer to home before attacking other projects credit awards.Otherwise your points become meaningless....

Here everyone has a chance to be optimized based on their architecture/OS and controlled by the project....much fairer and scientifically sound....but of course the facts and my rant may be ringing your ears by now so I will desist at the moment as I have said what is needed on this subject and hope by now you get my point.
____________

Please keep personalities out of it.

Please keep personalities out of it.

Only if you stop threatening projects with xml stat manipulation or non-inclusion :)

I am aware (as well as you should be) that this is being done at the highest levels of BOINC to various project administrations.

Come back and talk cross project parity when that situation with Seti is fair....I and others might listen then ;)

So far you have chose not to reply about this situation and that tells all.

I agree for once John....the original post needs to be deleted as non relevant.
____________

The stock applications at S@H are currently much better optimized than they were, and even the best optimized applications do not grant at 2 to one, but if I recall, only around 1.3 to one at the moment. Trust me on this. S@H and BOINC are being re-worked to make it much easier for projects to have optimized applicatons delivered to clients.

That still leaves some projects that are way out of line in granting credits.
____________


BOINC WIKI

What I got was asses calling people that talk about cross party parity whiners.

If I were a moderator, much of this thread would go as flames.

The stock applications at S@H are currently much better optimized than they were, and even the best optimized applications do not grant at 2 to one, but if I recall, only around 1.3 to one at the moment. Trust me on this. S@H and BOINC are being re-worked to make it much easier for projects to have optimized applicatons delivered to clients.

That still leaves some projects that are way out of line in granting credits.

Having approximately the same credits per hour for a particular host across projects is what is SUPPOSED to happen in BOINC. If people are tired of hearing about this, then please ask the project administrators to get the calculation right rather than being proud of running off people that keep making that claim.

Projects that generate grossly too high credit claims should be removed from the cross project stats sites as this is just a way of stupidly inflating your cross project credit scores.

The long tasks really should be granting about 50 CS per task. Granting more is anti-social of the project administrators. The project administrators should look at what other projects are granting per hour for a particular host and attempt to match that here.

Participants who continually badger projects on this subject aka "Credit Police" should be deleted from the cross project stats IMHO.

Any stats sites that attempt to modify xml stats will be boycotted and thus loose their user base and advertising revenue thus nullifying this superior Boinc/Seti attitude that they are in contol...."Its the users stupid" to paraphrase which have control sorry ;) I will 'volunteer to lead the boycott'...now banish me.

Its nice to know that someone thinks they can regulate 50,80,100 projects this way ;)

If I am not mistaken doesn't the Milkyway Project use optimized apps? Thereby conforming to the side rule governing such apps? Thereby conforming to the prescribed Gestapo credit for the original un-optimized app?

Seti opened the credit Pandora's box with their allowed use and abuse of optimized applications....and now they attempt this strong arm approach again to squash it because it detracts from their user base?

Oh gosh darn I just realized Seti just changed their credit awards and philosophy ...guess this means all the good little projeckts must fall in line to das furor....or else!


Yes you do detect bitterness on my behalf based on years of cross project parity shenanigans....,political at best .....controlling at worst.

Yes JMVII they should evaluate against Cosmology as Milkyway is way too low in comparasin, and Milkyway has said optimized apps exonerating it.Please post this over there as I am ready fer ya ;)

They send one minion after another don't they? At least this one didn't try to hijack a thread.

What I got was asses calling people that talk about cross party parity whiners.

If I were a moderator, much of this thread would go as flames.

Yes John lets not discuss the facts ...just call me an ass or a whiner

I agree for once John....the original post needs to be deleted as non relevant.

Hmm. Boycotted by a project with merely 5K members and only 3K active? Hardly much of a threat.

Hmm. Boycotted by a project with merely 5K members and only 3K active? Hardly much of a threat.

Must have you flustered John as I would expect a better response than that!

Are all participants of Cosmology only connected to 1 project? Do you think team members would not support unfair treatment? Force away......you will never achieve anything near submission going into project boards arguing this same point....The rally cry may sound at such dismissive behaviour! You think the usership here will listen with those kind of inflammatory comments?

We and Cosmology have now been dismissed by Boinc as hardly much of a threat....ok I am done ...I refuse to respond to this type of Geastapoism.

Jeff is right, John, and you know it. That focus on political correctness (PC) rather than science is why I (and others) left SETI a year ago. (My SETI share is now below 0.03%). This was at the time significant optimizations were incorporated into the standard apps, as you and Jeff mentioned. This resulted in more science being done - more results. At work, I get paid for the work I do (the results I produce), not my effort. But your PC bias rejected what the rest of us were saying, with SETI insisting that the PC thing was to reward effort rather than scientific contribution. So SETI degraded the reward scale and we left, because BOINC is a free enterprise community.

I'm chagrined to see, a year later, that you are still peddling the propaganda that effort is all that matters. It's just plain irrational to maintain that two identical machines producing unequal outputs should nevertheless be looked at as doing the same work! Give it up, John!! The Free World doesn't pay much for effort!

There are two principle criteria I look for in a project. First and foremost is its scientific worth (based subjectively, of course, on the sciences I value most). Secondly is how much the project wants my participation. SETI surely wins on the first, but a year ago failed miserably on the second.

Lastly, John, concerning "personalities", I would remind you that there are two ways to have the tallest building in town. One is to tear the others down. Please stop going around trying to tear down the competition. You wouldn't have this "problem" if you hadn't started this mess in the first place by manipulating SETI's own recognition scale to reward effort rather than results. Fix the moat in your own eye first.

Oh yeah. And it's not a good idea to threaten other BOINC projects. BOINC is not the only distributed computing paradigm around, and if your "principal designer" becomes an enforcer, you could see BOINC unravel real fast.
____________
--Bill

Hmm. Boycotted by a project with merely 5K members and only 3K active? Hardly much of a threat.

Must have you flustered John as I would expect a better response than that!

Are all participants of Cosmology only connected to 1 project? Do you think team members would not support unfair treatment? Force away......you will never achieve anything near submission going into project boards arguing this same point....The rally cry may sound at such dismissive behaviour! You think the usership here will listen with those kind of inflammatory comments?

We and Cosmology have now been dismissed by Boinc as hardly much of a threat....ok I am done ...I refuse to respond to this type of Geastapoism.

You never answered as to why SETI needs to have a private club of optimized...the crux of my arguement?

Jeff is right, John, and you know it. That focus on political correctness (PC) rather than science is why I (and others) left SETI a year ago. (My SETI share is now below 0.03%). This was at the time significant optimizations were incorporated into the standard apps, as you and Jeff mentioned. This resulted in more science being done - more results. At work, I get paid for the work I do (the results I produce), not my effort. But your PC bias rejected what the rest of us were saying, with SETI insisting that the PC thing was to reward effort rather than scientific contribution. So SETI degraded the reward scale and we left, because BOINC is a free enterprise community.

I'm chagrined to see, a year later, that you are still peddling the propaganda that effort is all that matters. It's just plain irrational to maintain that two identical machines producing unequal outputs should nevertheless be looked at as doing the same work! Give it up, John!! The Free World doesn't pay much for effort!

There are two principle criteria I look for in a project. First and foremost is its scientific worth (based subjectively, of course, on the sciences I value most). Secondly is how much the project wants my participation. SETI surely wins on the first, but a year ago failed miserably on the second.

Lastly, John, concerning "personalities", I would remind you that there are two ways to have the tallest building in town. One is to tear the others down. Please stop going around trying to tear down the competition. You wouldn't have this "problem" if you hadn't started this mess in the first place by manipulating SETI's own recognition scale to reward effort rather than results. Fix the moat in your own eye first.

Oh yeah. And it's not a good idea to threaten other BOINC projects. BOINC is not the only distributed computing paradigm around, and if your "principal designer" becomes an enforcer, you could see BOINC unravel real fast.

Hmm. Boycotted by a project with merely 5K members and only 3K active? Hardly much of a threat.

Must have you flustered John as I would expect a better response than that!

Are all participants of Cosmology only connected to 1 project? Do you think team members would not support unfair treatment? Force away......you will never achieve anything near submission going into project boards arguing this same point....The rally cry may sound at such dismissive behaviour! You think the usership here will listen with those kind of inflammatory comments?

We and Cosmology have now been dismissed by Boinc as hardly much of a threat....ok I am done ...I refuse to respond to this type of Geastapoism.

You never answered as to why SETI needs to have a private club of optimized...the crux of my arguement?

BOINC is not well designed to distribute optimized applications to different clients of the same basic CPU and OS. It was made barely possible when the CPU optimizations were reported back. Work is in progress for the BOINC client and server to make this relatively easy, and S@H is, I believe waiting for that. The anonymous client was implemented long before the detection code was implemented in the client to distinguish which FPU extensions were implemented. The anonymous client was implemented so that people could develop applications for hardware that the project could not devote the manpower to implement the application for (i.e. OS2). It has been used for this. Some users also figured out that the same mechanism could be used to implement optimized applications. S@H has implemented some of the optimizations that have been developed into the stock client. Others have not been incorporated. There was an enormous debate about credits granted to optimized apps, and another when S@H incorporated some optimization and cut the credit grant to keep the credits / hour on hosts with stock applications about the same.

Basically what has happened has been that better hardware gets more credit per hour (the optimized applications count as "better hardware"). However, when the stock application gets optimized that does not count as "better hardware" for everyone and the credit grant was reduced to match the increased performance. I expect that when (may be later as Astropulse is absorbing much of the programming time) optimized apps per FPU extension start being used the credit request will be reduced again to reflect the reduced FLOPS count and to keep the average credits per hour about the same.

BTW, did you know that about 1% of the time the optimized applications at S@H fail to generate the correct result and therefore get no credit granted? This is one reason that not all of the optimizations were incorporated into the stock client. Another is, of course, that the BOINC client was not reporting the FPU extensions and therefore the server could not send a specifically optimized client.

I'll simply speak my piece since I've never mentioned it on MW.

Do I think that MW and Cosmology grant pretty silly high credits. Yeah, but I don't administer the projects, so I can't do anything about it other than "vote with my feet" and leave. Am I going to do that? No, because I just don't give a damn about these stupid "credits" anymore.

I'm a meteorologist, so I compute for Climate Prediction. I know they grant relatively low credit. I don't care. I do it because I value the science.
I'm an amateur astronomer, so I compute for Einstein, Cosmology and Milky Way. One grants a bit above average and the other two grant silly high amounts. I don't care. I do it because I value the science.
An Einstein user developed an app to really speed it up by using SSE. I installed it right away SO I COULD DO THE SCIENCE FASTER.
The bulk of my own research in the last 4 years has been devoted to Near Earth Objects, so I'll compute for Orbit once they're up and fully going. I don't care what they give in credit. I value the science.
I still compute a bit for SETI. Well, I don't strongly believe in it, but it's what brought me to BOINC and I guess I've always felt that you "dance with the gal that brung ya", so I probably always will give them a bit.

I care about my ranking within a project because it gives me a feeling of how much I'm contributing to the particular project, but cross project?!? Who could possibly give a hoot when you're trying to compare yourself to collections of users under a single name and clusters and dedicated science grid computers, etc. I don't give a fiddlers fart about some guy churning out massive amounts for Rosetta or QMC or ABC or anything else. If he/she/they support that science then let 'em go to town on it.

In some mythical perfect world, all the apps would be hand coded to take advantage of every little tweak in every processor architecture and everyone would sit down over a nice coffee and agree on the international exchange rate for my cpu operations and everyone would be even, but that's so freakin' unlikely that it's laughable.

I just wish everyone would shut up about credits, whether high, low or perfect. Jeez, just count workunits or hours or angels on the heads of the pins of my processor or something... I DON'T CARE. Just tell me how my computers are helping your science and I'm happy.
____________

Sorry, I do NOT believe that either you or Jeff is correct, and I certainly do not know that you are correct. If that were the case, there would not be a discussion.

Certainly, you can pick based on scientific value. What you are saying is that you are selecting based on how many credits per hour you are granted (how much the project values you). Having projects grant whatever they feel like is a way to have an inflationary race:

Project 1 needs more participants so it raises the credits granted.
Now project 2 does the same.
Now back to project 1...

I do not see this as a good scenario, but apparently you do.

This issue aside but still on topic....I personally feel BOINC should be concentrating on calculating how to get all its contributers tax deductions for charitable contributions based on avg cost per type and % of time Boinc is allowed running..... instead of concentrating on credit which starts becoming as meaningless and non rewarding as the current paradigm,of which I am still prepared to fight a battle over from a principle of real fairness.
____________

Jeez, just count workunits

I agree for once John....the original post needs to be deleted as non relevant.

It is really hard for the first thread to be irrelevant to the topic of the thread.

Credits Calculations vs. Credit (CPID) Problems? I wish as much effort would go into getting the Credits straight as in the Granting of Credits/cross project parity.

My Credits http://boincstats.com/stats/boinc_user_graph.php?pr=bo&id=b65b36154e3a49f636a3148d4e0b3c83 have been seesawing back and forth since Nov 06. Actually, I'm not into this for Credits, but it would be nice to look at once in a while to see how my efforts compared to others. So as it stands for me, it doesn't matter if I get 1 or 1000 Credits/Hour because it doesn't show in any stats that use CPIDs for their stats.

Since I only have 2 cents I don't want to spend it all here. :D Patience is a Virtue.
____________

Jeez, just count workunits

That is how my "credit system" of BOINC would look like - I loved that as old SETI Classic did show that in the account.
Regardless from what a machine can crunch in time, it would show how much real work you have done for a project, because of regular credit changings you cannot estimate that nearly...

But I guess even with that system some people would find reasons to moan about. ;-)

Hmm. Boycotted by a project with merely 5K members and only 3K active? Hardly much of a threat.

Must have you flustered John as I would expect a better response than that!

Are all participants of Cosmology only connected to 1 project? Do you think team members would not support unfair treatment? Force away......you will never achieve anything near submission going into project boards arguing this same point....The rally cry may sound at such dismissive behaviour! You think the usership here will listen with those kind of inflammatory comments?

We and Cosmology have now been dismissed by Boinc as hardly much of a threat....ok I am done ...I refuse to respond to this type of Geastapoism.

You never answered as to why SETI needs to have a private club of optimized...the crux of my arguement?

BOINC is not well designed to distribute optimized applications to different clients of the same basic CPU and OS. It was made barely possible when the CPU optimizations were reported back. Work is in progress for the BOINC client and server to make this relatively easy, and S@H is, I believe waiting for that. The anonymous client was implemented long before the detection code was implemented in the client to distinguish which FPU extensions were implemented. The anonymous client was implemented so that people could develop applications for hardware that the project could not devote the manpower to implement the application for (i.e. OS2). It has been used for this. Some users also figured out that the same mechanism could be used to implement optimized applications. S@H has implemented some of the optimizations that have been developed into the stock client. Others have not been incorporated. There was an enormous debate about credits granted to optimized apps, and another when S@H incorporated some optimization and cut the credit grant to keep the credits / hour on hosts with stock applications about the same.

Basically what has happened has been that better hardware gets more credit per hour (the optimized applications count as "better hardware"). However, when the stock application gets optimized that does not count as "better hardware" for everyone and the credit grant was reduced to match the increased performance. I expect that when (may be later as Astropulse is absorbing much of the programming time) optimized apps per FPU extension start being used the credit request will be reduced again to reflect the reduced FLOPS count and to keep the average credits per hour about the same.

BTW, did you know that about 1% of the time the optimized applications at S@H fail to generate the correct result and therefore get no credit granted? This is one reason that not all of the optimizations were incorporated into the stock client. Another is, of course, that the BOINC client was not reporting the FPU extensions and therefore the server could not send a specifically optimized client.

John thank you for that answer but my question still has not been answered in that for example Einstein had a 3rd party app come about the same reasons as you describe as the project did not have the ability to do so....but they incorporated it into an app everyone receives....why can't the 3rd party be eliminated ,have the project incorporate all it sees fit into what is sent out as an app and credit those individuals who contributed to the code ?

Politics and control questions have not been answered...why the continued private club as I call it?

Another question not answered...Why no postings (et al harrasement) of the lowest undergranting projects like LHC? Why go after the 'ridiculous high' and not the low if not political?

Another scenario...a project has 1gb memory requirements....tad high for most hosts....should not that project be allowed to compensate at a higher credit level due to the ensuing computation errors at unexpected times? How much is enough....how much is too much? This is why it won't work, projects with super long or tough tasks to complete will never have a chance!

I see no allowance for this in the 'enforcement agenda'

I predict another platform will come along to compete with Boinc if all this comes to pass.

Sorry, I do NOT believe that either you or Jeff is correct, and I certainly do not know that you are correct. If that were the case, there would not be a discussion.

Certainly, you can pick based on scientific value. What you are saying is that you are selecting based on how many credits per hour you are granted (how much the project values you). Having projects grant whatever they feel like is a way to have an inflationary race:

Project 1 needs more participants so it raises the credits granted.
Now project 2 does the same.
Now back to project 1...

I do not see this as a good scenario, but apparently you do.

John, John. Still the same old sophistry. Last year you ignored the key issue (wrongfully recognizing effort rather than achievement) and you are still ignoring it. And you are also still peddling an imaginary problem (so-called "credit inflation") that has not happened and never will (as nicely understandable from Thunder's posting). If "credit inflation" were a real issue, all those below-average projects would be starving. They're not. So please call off your self-appointed PC credit police. You've harmed SETI. Isn't that enough? Leave the other projects alone!

Jeez, just count workunits

That is how my "credit system" of BOINC would look like - I loved that as old SETI Classic did show that in the account.
Regardless from what a machine can crunch in time, it would show how much real work you have done for a project, because of regular credit changings you cannot estimate that nearly...

But I guess even with that system some people would find reasons to moan about. ;-)

Credits Calculations vs. Credit (CPID) Problems? I wish as much effort would go into getting the Credits straight as in the Granting of Credits/cross project parity.

My Credits http://boincstats.com/stats/boinc_user_graph.php?pr=bo&id=b65b36154e3a49f636a3148d4e0b3c83 have been seesawing back and forth since Nov 06. Actually, I'm not into this for Credits, but it would be nice to look at once in a while to see how my efforts compared to others. So as it stands for me, it doesn't matter if I get 1 or 1000 Credits/Hour because it doesn't show in any stats that use CPIDs for their stats.

Since I only have 2 cents I don't want to spend it all here. :D Patience is a Virtue.

So far, super long projects don't come much longer than CPDN, while they always could use more volunteers, they don't seem to be hurting too badly.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH


Just stop already............You don't like the credits given here...

Go somewhere else!

John, John. Still the same old sophistry. Last year you ignored the key issue (wrongfully recognizing effort rather than achievement) and you are still ignoring it. And you are also still peddling an imaginary problem (so-called "credit inflation") that has not happened and never will (as nicely understandable from Thunder's posting). If "credit inflation" were a real issue, all those below-average projects would be starving. They're not. So please call off your self-appointed PC credit police. You've harmed SETI. Isn't that enough? Leave the other projects alone!

Your claim that being paid for results instead of effort is what every gets is just plain wrong.

I and everyone I know gets paid for effort. I get paid twice a month, and the amount of the check does not vary depending on the number of lines of code that I got written. A couple of examples why (at least in my industry) pay for meeting a performance goal is an extremely bad idea. Occasionally, I can use a tool that writes 10,000 lines of code in 5 minutes. At the other extreme, sometimes the research takes so much time that two of us spent 6 months figuring out how to write 50 lines of code because of the lack of documentation on the system we were trying to work around. Just try codifying that as other than pay for effort please. Another example is from "Dilbert" where the PHB tells the programmers that pay is going to be based on the number of bugs fixed - Wally states "I am going to go write me a mini-van." Another example of why in some cases pay for results is not a great idea.

Another example comes from the summer I spent working construction. My pay was hourly for that job. One of the tasks for the landscaping crew was to dig holes in particular places. On that particular jobsite most of the holes were filled with a fairly soft rock (but still rock) that could be broken up slowly with a pickax or a digging bar. However, that took about an hour for a hole one foot on a side and a foot and a half deep. On the few occasions where the company rented a jackhammer for other reasons and there was some time left before it was returned, the landscaping crew got to use it. This changed the time from an hour to about 5 minutes for the same hole. However, my pay stayed the saem. Again pay based on effort.

The only two classes of people that I can think of whose pay is based almost exclusively on results are Piecework workers and Salesmen on commission. Everyone else has much of their pay based on effort.

Admittedly raises are based on overall effectiveness - but that is similar to having better hardware.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH


Just stop already............You don't like the credits given here...

Go somewhere else!

You don't get credits for what's rattling around in your head, pinging your sense of fairness, or offending your grand sense of the order of things.

I believe they are granted for what you have plugged into the wall.

Credits Calculations vs. Credit (CPID) Problems? I wish as much effort would go into getting the Credits straight as in the Granting of Credits/cross project parity.

My Credits http://boincstats.com/stats/boinc_user_graph.php?pr=bo&id=b65b36154e3a49f636a3148d4e0b3c83 have been seesawing back and forth since Nov 06. Actually, I'm not into this for Credits, but it would be nice to look at once in a while to see how my efforts compared to others. So as it stands for me, it doesn't matter if I get 1 or 1000 Credits/Hour because it doesn't show in any stats that use CPIDs for their stats.

Since I only have 2 cents I don't want to spend it all here. :D Patience is a Virtue.

You have two different CPIDs. The solution: Attach one machine to ALL projects you have done work for. Cycle through the projects with update giving at least three complete successful cycles.

Second solution. The BOINC client and server have (very recently, not released yet) been modified to incorporate an extra time stamp on the CPID. This will eventually fix the problem automatically.

Credits Calculations vs. Credit (CPID) Problems? I wish as much effort would go into getting the Credits straight as in the Granting of Credits/cross project parity.

My Credits http://boincstats.com/stats/boinc_user_graph.php?pr=bo&id=b65b36154e3a49f636a3148d4e0b3c83 have been seesawing back and forth since Nov 06. Actually, I'm not into this for Credits, but it would be nice to look at once in a while to see how my efforts compared to others. So as it stands for me, it doesn't matter if I get 1 or 1000 Credits/Hour because it doesn't show in any stats that use CPIDs for their stats.

Since I only have 2 cents I don't want to spend it all here. :D Patience is a Virtue.

You have two different CPIDs. The solution: Attach one machine to ALL projects you have done work for. Cycle through the projects with update giving at least three complete successful cycles.

Second solution. The BOINC client and server have (very recently, not released yet) been modified to incorporate an extra time stamp on the CPID. This will eventually fix the problem automatically.

Hi JM7,

Kinda close. I have 4 CPIDs which have been there since November 2006. I have 16 Hosts attached to 70+ projects (not getting work on all of them). The problem with the CPIDs is in the hosts. Some hosts, actually, have 4 project CPIDs in it. Each time a different host connects to a server it changes the project CPID. If my 4 CPIDs are checked, some of the projects are listed in 2 or more CPIDs (depending on the time of updates) and they switch back and forth.

A fix for my host is what is needed (If I knew how to change all my Projects CPIDs in my hosts to one, I would do it). I know when I look at the Project CPIDs it has a Hash and in most hosts there are 3 to 4 different hash codes.

Theses are the 4 Projects CPIDs in Host PC-13:

HASH(0xe8b240)
HASH(0xe9bb30)
HASH(0xe9bb40)
HASH(0xe8b320)

and here's PC13client_state.xml:

http://www.xgrubberskickass.com/Misc/PC13client_state.xml

All host are like this. The only difference is CPIDs for each project are different from PC-13s

I did a ticket at dev which a fix was projected in 6.2.x and it looks like we're going into 6.3.x shortly. Sure could use a Sync for host CPIDs for the peojects

Hehe, 19 months of this so I guess there's no hurry.

Bill

Edited: Note: Email Hashes are the same.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH


Just stop already............You don't like the credits given here...

Go somewhere else!

There are only two things that are required to get the CPIDs to match. The email addresses must be the same (INCLUDING case). And there must be a path from server to client to server that covers all of the projects. This path must include the project with the OLDEST join date on every client or things come apart.

That criteria has been meet, plus Paswword, URL, Country, Zipcode, Team and etc. are the same for all projects. All old projects are and have been attached. The only ones I can't keep attached are the one that BAM retired and keep detaching on Sync with BAM.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH


Just stop already............You don't like the credits given here...

Go somewhere else!

Since this is a problem affecting the entirety of BOINC, NO.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH


Just stop already............You don't like the credits given here...

Go somewhere else!

Since this is a problem affecting the entirety of BOINC, NO.

There are only two things that are required to get the CPIDs to match. The email addresses must be the same (INCLUDING case). And there must be a path from server to client to server that covers all of the projects. This path must include the project with the OLDEST join date on every client or things come apart.

Ahhh, yes...

I just spent an hour scratching my head trying to remember this caveat to the second criteria required for getting CPID to sync reliably as it stands. :-)

As the Commander Powell once said, "... You forget so many things..." . :-D

Alinator

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH


Just stop already............You don't like the credits given here...

Go somewhere else!

Since this is a problem affecting the entirety of BOINC, NO.

Easy fix... go do folding@home only 1 project, no cross project problems there!

Leave the rest of us in peace.

PS: Take the sauger with you..

One of the arguments below is directly against the original design intent. If computers double in speed they should double in credit earned per unit time.

The original design was 1 CS was what a reference computer could accomplish in a unit time. If my computer could do 4 times as much I should be able to see 4 CS in the same unit time. If I speed up the computer with hardware or improved software I should see higher earnings.

Had Dr. Anderson listened to those of us that pointed out problems back in BOINC Beta we would not be here now with this problem.

I suppose I should not be surprised that when the choices are to be made, BOINC developers tend to want to implement the worst possible of the choices available...
____________

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH


Just stop already............You don't like the credits given here...

Go somewhere else!

Since this is a problem affecting the entirety of BOINC, NO.

Easy fix... go do folding@home only 1 project, no cross project problems there!

Leave the rest of us in peace.

PS: Take the sauger with you..

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH


Just stop already............You don't like the credits given here...

Go somewhere else!

Since this is a problem affecting the entirety of BOINC, NO.

Easy fix... go do folding@home only 1 project, no cross project problems there!

Leave the rest of us in peace.

PS: Take the sauger with you..

Since you don't seem to like the way the BOINC is supposed to work, I can say the same to you. Go someplace where there is not the problem and leave those of who LIKE the way that BOINC is SUPPOSED TO WORK alone.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH


Just stop already............You don't like the credits given here...

Go somewhere else!

Since this is a problem affecting the entirety of BOINC, NO.

Easy fix... go do folding@home only 1 project, no cross project problems there!

Leave the rest of us in peace.

PS: Take the sauger with you..

Since you don't seem to like the way the BOINC is supposed to work, I can say the same to you. Go someplace where there is not the problem and leave those of who LIKE the way that BOINC is SUPPOSED TO WORK alone.

Thats a terrible analogy John lets try these instead:

Its like saying if my car is running fine but my mechanic(you) keeps caliing me and harassing me every day telling me there is something wrong with it and bring it in to get repaired....I will ignore him or tell him leave me alone until the car has a problem or breaks but the mechanic threatens to come steal my car and fix it if I won't....or lets say my car manufacturer (Boinc) has a recall they send me a letter telling me my widget is malfuctioning...but the car runs great and I see no problems....the manufacturer then threatens to reposses the car and fix it even though the problem is not dangerous or a safety problem if I won't bring it in....but because they (Boinc) manufactured it ,they feel they have the right to do anything they see fit with it even though I now own it!

The majority here and at other projects are happy....nothings broken.....so they say leave us alone ...like I told my mechanic and manufacturer,they are telling you.

My suggestion is start your new credit levels 10 times higher than they are and then go harass projects that are too low...including here....that at least makes some sense :)

Better yet why doesn't Boinc hold a DC conference inviting Folding,Grid Republic,etc to decide on a standardized DC credit before they arbitaraly just set their own? hmmmm that may be a better analogy to what you are attempting to do, spreading your ill will everywhere.

Interesting that a year or two ago when Seti had bloated credit and was the highest in Boinc you never saw these guys running around trying to get everyone else adjust the credit...just now hmmmm....smacks of hypocrisy

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH


Just stop already............You don't like the credits given here...

Go somewhere else!

Since this is a problem affecting the entirety of BOINC, NO.

Easy fix... go do folding@home only 1 project, no cross project problems there!

Leave the rest of us in peace.

PS: Take the sauger with you..

Since you don't seem to like the way the BOINC is supposed to work, I can say the same to you. Go someplace where there is not the problem and leave those of who LIKE the way that BOINC is SUPPOSED TO WORK alone.

No, it is just reversing the side on a stupid argument that I am tired of getting. BOINC is SUPPOSED to work such that a particular host gets the same credit per hour no matter which project it is working on. People that say stop complaining about something that is not correct are in the wrong.

I wonder what you want QCN Alpha to do... they don't give out any credits. ;-)
____________
Jord.

The BOINC FAQ Service.

OK By Gosh I think I got it. Give 1 credit per CPU second for all projects.

leave those of who LIKE the way that BOINC is SUPPOSED TO WORK alone.

OK By Gosh I think I got it. Give 1 credit per CPU second for all projects.

It might be a good idea to drop cross-project stats, using the sum of Boinc credits, all together. Some alternative could be worked out, like DC-Vault, where a ranking is made across projects, using the position of a team (or individual) in each project. Could be fine-tuned by adding weights for projects with few or many participants.

If a scheme like that were used by the stats sites, each project would be completely free to use whatever credit calculation best suits them.

Just a suggestion. Don't flame me (too much :p ) pretty pleazzz.
____________

BOINC.BE: For Belgians who love the smell of glowing red cpu's in the morning
Tutta55's Lair

Also, I think there is something funny with the RS project's server code. If RS was the oldest project, it still won't sinc up properly sometimes. Add to that, RS being currently down...

I'm a bit Off Topic here, but didn't feel like starting a new thread. Lazy, just lazy.
What is up with this box?
Seems to be calculating a bit funny.

What the deuce?

GenuineIntel x86 Family 6 Model 7 Stepping 3 498MHz
With a RAC of 2,644.47? Hmm.

Have to get me one of those! :D :D

O.k. resuming topic ;)

A fancy graph.
The credit granted here really has not deviated much since the longer w/u's, or in the last six months for that matter.
Why this argument all of the sudden? To many quads on the block now? MINT!!!!!

Also, I think there is something funny with the RS project's server code. If RS was the oldest project, it still won't sinc up properly sometimes. Add to that, RS being currently down...

Hmmm...

Well, that might be due to RS having the secondary objective of porting BOINC to php.

OTOH, I haven't had any trouble with my CPID sync'ing up because of RS (or any other project for that matter). Although it did seem to take longer than usual after joining. IIRC, it took about a week or ten days to sync to my 'permanent' CPID instead of the usual couple of days after the first task completed and went through a stat xml cycle.

I hadn't thought about what the effect would be if RS was the oldest project or what would happen if the oldest project wasn't available though.

Of course, I don't have that many hosts or run anywhere near the number of projects available today. The one thing which is true is SAH is my oldest project and all my hosts are attached to it. The other thing which is true is there are still some basic operational areas in BOINC which are kind of shaky and can definitely rear their ugly head given the right set of conditions (like the primary topic in this thread, for example). ;-)

@ KAMCOBILL: Based on your last post (about the CPID problem anyway), this would seem to indicate a BAM problem rather than BOINC per se. I never ran any of the 'retired' projects. However, I used to run Predictor but it remains linked to my CPID even though I haven't crunched a task for them in ages, and have gone months without even doing an update on any of the hosts which are still attached to it.

Alinator

I'm not sure what happen in Nov 2006 besides one of my hosts crashed and then the problem bagan. All my old projects had there CPIDs stolen away in this transition. :D What I can't figure is how can a host have different CPIDs (4 in most of them) and control/change the Project CPIDs when they connect. I thought the Projects Servers controled the hosts. The one good thing is I got down from 10 CPIDs to 4. I even detached from BAM to see if CPID Problem would clear up but it didn't

When BAM retires a project they detach all the hosts from the project and it keeps detaching them for an eternity. An example is ABC@Home Beta. It only has work as needed (Nov 2007 was last WU I finished) & it wasn't reachable for a while so I guess that is why they retired it. I attach to it ever once in a while to see if it up and as soon as my host syncs BAM it detached. If It does give out any work, I'll have to Detach from BAM to run it.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH


Just stop already............You don't like the credits given here...

Go somewhere else!

Since this is a problem affecting the entirety of BOINC, NO.

Easy fix... go do folding@home only 1 project, no cross project problems there!

Leave the rest of us in peace.

PS: Take the sauger with you..

Since you don't seem to like the way the BOINC is supposed to work, I can say the same to you. Go someplace where there is not the problem and leave those of who LIKE the way that BOINC is SUPPOSED TO WORK alone.

Supposed to work according to you and your handful of credit police.
I think its fine the way it is. And seeing as its still the same 10 people complaining, I don't see the point in arguing with the very vocal minority.
So that is my last response you you.

Just go away...

OK By Gosh I think I got it. Give 1 credit per CPU second for all projects.

Also, I think there is something funny with the RS project's server code. If RS was the oldest project, it still won't sinc up properly sometimes. Add to that, RS being currently down...

Hmmm...

Well, that might be due to RS having the secondary objective of porting BOINC to php.

OTOH, I haven't had any trouble with my CPID sync'ing up because of RS (or any other project for that matter). Although it did seem to take longer than usual after joining. IIRC, it took about a week or ten days to sync to my 'permanent' CPID instead of the usual couple of days after the first task completed and went through a stat xml cycle.

I hadn't thought about what the effect would be if RS was the oldest project or what would happen if the oldest project wasn't available though.

Of course, I don't have that many hosts or run anywhere near the number of projects available today. The one thing which is true is SAH is my oldest project and all my hosts are attached to it. The other thing which is true is there are still some basic operational areas in BOINC which are kind of shaky and can definitely rear their ugly head given the right set of conditions (like the primary topic in this thread, for example). ;-)

@ KAMCOBILL: Based on your last post (about the CPID problem anyway), this would seem to indicate a BAM problem rather than BOINC per se. I never ran any of the 'retired' projects. However, I used to run Predictor but it remains linked to my CPID even though I haven't crunched a task for them in ages, and have gone months without even doing an update on any of the hosts which are still attached to it.

Alinator

I'm not sure what happen in Nov 2006 besides one of my hosts crashed and then the problem bagan. All my old projects had there CPIDs stolen away in this transition. :D What I can't figure is how can a host have different CPIDs (4 in most of them) and control/change the Project CPIDs when they connect. I thought the Projects Servers controled the hosts. The one good thing is I got down from 10 CPIDs to 4. I even detached from BAM to see if CPID Problem would clear up but it didn't

When BAM retires a project they detach all the hosts from the project and it keeps detaching them for an eternity. An example is ABC@Home Beta. It only has work as needed (Nov 2007 was last WU I finished) & it wasn't reachable for a while so I guess that is why they retired it. I attach to it ever once in a while to see if it up and as soon as my host syncs BAM it detached. If It does give out any work, I'll have to Detach from BAM to run it.

No, it is just reversing the side on a stupid argument that I am tired of getting. BOINC is SUPPOSED to work such that a particular host gets the same credit per hour no matter which project it is working on. People that say stop complaining about something that is not correct are in the wrong.

No, it is just reversing the side on a stupid argument that I am tired of getting. BOINC is SUPPOSED to work such that a particular host gets the same credit per hour no matter which project it is working on. People that say stop complaining about something that is not correct are in the wrong.

No John. Jeff and the many others are right.

You keep repeating and repeating that there is "the problem". Yet you have not proved it. You haven’t even tried to refute many of the explanations that have been presented here. You just repeat your mantra, or you invoke the “authority” of the founders. That’s not an argument. That’s sophistry.

Ever hear the phrase: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”? Words for an engineer to live by.

If there are no untoward consequences of something, there is no problem, no matter how many times you keep saying there is. Saying it over and over again doesn’t make it so.

We have shown you that the only thing you've described as a possible consequence - credits inflation - isn't happening. Numerous posters here have given various good reasons why it’s not happening, which you have failed to rebut.

No untoward consequences equals no problem. So face it. Since there are no untoward consequences, THERE IS NO PROBLEM! It’s not rational to go around obsessing about an imaginary “problem” that has no untoward consequences.

Nothing needs to be fixed. No harm of any consequence is being done. You haven't proved otherwise.

There is no credits problem.

So stop saying there is. And leave people alone. Go find something to fix that’s actually causing harm.

[/quote]
No John. Jeff and the many others are right.

You keep repeating and repeating that there is "the problem". Yet you have not proved it. You haven’t even tried to refute many of the explanations that have been presented here. You just repeat your mantra, or you invoke the “authority” of the founders. That’s not an argument. That’s sophistry.

Ever hear the phrase: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”? Words for an engineer to live by.

If there are no untoward consequences of something, there is no problem, no matter how many times you keep saying there is. Saying it over and over again doesn’t make it so.

We have shown you that the only thing you've described as a possible consequence - credits inflation - isn't happening. Numerous posters here have given various good reasons why it’s not happening, which you have failed to rebut.

No untoward consequences equals no problem. So face it. Since there are no untoward consequences, THERE IS NO PROBLEM! It’s not rational to go around obsessing about an imaginary “problem” that has no untoward consequences.

Nothing needs to be fixed. No harm of any consequence is being done. You haven't proved otherwise.

There is no credits problem.

So stop saying there is. And leave people alone. Go find something to fix that’s actually causing harm.[/quote]

This is what happens when you "take the bait". Drop this loser and find a better way to waste our time.

Voltron

John,

Since this subject has been so hotly debated for so long, I doubt you would have recieved a reasonable response here no matter how you phrased your inital post, but it doesn't help that you made a completely outlandish claim concerning appropriate credit for MW tasks.

You stated, "The long tasks really should be granting about 50 CS per task."

If you really believe that, then you understand that you're stating that MilkyWay should grant approximately 30% the amount of credit per unit of time vs SETI. (I'm assuming that MW is currently granting at a rate of 1.64 v SETI which seems to be a good average of the cross project comparisons that I could find) A 260 cs (long) task here would therefore grant around 159 on your hallowed SETI. (But should only grant "about 50" here)

Seems either quite spiteful or quite ignorant to tell the system administrators here that they're being "anti-social" if they don't value their project at 1/3rd the value of SETI.

I wanted to make sure that this comparison made some sense, so I looked at the computer I'm working from now and discovered that an Einstein task that takes me around 9 hours grants me ~240 cs. A MilkyWay task that takes 8 hours grants me 260. So that 260 cs task here would grant me 213 at Einstein.

Just so I'm clear, let me confirm. In your way of thinking it's 3 times more valuable to look for signals from extraterrestrials than it is to map the structure of our galaxy and over 4 times more important to look for gravity waves than to map the structure of our galaxy, yes?
____________

John,

Since this subject has been so hotly debated for so long, I doubt you would have recieved a reasonable response here no matter how you phrased your inital post, but it doesn't help that you made a completely outlandish claim concerning appropriate credit for MW tasks.

You stated, "The long tasks really should be granting about 50 CS per task."

If you really believe that, then you understand that you're stating that MilkyWay should grant approximately 30% the amount of credit per unit of time vs SETI. (I'm assuming that MW is currently granting at a rate of 1.64 v SETI which seems to be a good average of the cross project comparisons that I could find) A 260 cs (long) task here would therefore grant around 159 on your hallowed SETI. (But should only grant "about 50" here)

Seems either quite spiteful or quite ignorant to tell the system administrators here that they're being "anti-social" if they don't value their project at 1/3rd the value of SETI.

I wanted to make sure that this comparison made some sense, so I looked at the computer I'm working from now and discovered that an Einstein task that takes me around 9 hours grants me ~240 cs. A MilkyWay task that takes 8 hours grants me 260. So that 260 cs task here would grant me 213 at Einstein.

Just so I'm clear, let me confirm. In your way of thinking it's 3 times more valuable to look for signals from extraterrestrials than it is to map the structure of our galaxy and over 4 times more important to look for gravity waves than to map the structure of our galaxy, yes?

Trust me on this.

OK By Gosh I think I got it. Give 1 credit per CPU second for all projects.

So my 200 MHz is worth the same a a Core 2 3GHZ? This does not seem very bright.

I'm not sure what happen in Nov 2006 besides one of my hosts crashed and then the problem bagan. All my old projects had there CPIDs stolen away in this transition. :D What I can't figure is how can a host have different CPIDs (4 in most of them) and control/change the Project CPIDs when they connect. I thought the Projects Servers controled the hosts. The one good thing is I got down from 10 CPIDs to 4. I even detached from BAM to see if CPID Problem would clear up but it didn't

When BAM retires a project they detach all the hosts from the project and it keeps detaching them for an eternity. An example is ABC@Home Beta. It only has work as needed (Nov 2007 was last WU I finished) & it wasn't reachable for a while so I guess that is why they retired it. I attach to it ever once in a while to see if it up and as soon as my host syncs BAM it detached. If It does give out any work, I'll have to Detach from BAM to run it.

Hmmm...

Now that is interesting. I seem to remember loosing a couple of host CPID's on BOINCStats around then, but everything resync'ed on the same Account CPID.

The only side effect was a couple of hosts lost their graphical data for everything from before the event.

Let me check my logs and get back to you on this.

Alinator

No John. Jeff and the many others are right.

You keep repeating and repeating that there is "the problem". Yet you have not proved it. You haven’t even tried to refute many of the explanations that have been presented here. You just repeat your mantra, or you invoke the “authority” of the founders. That’s not an argument. That’s sophistry.

<snip>

So stop saying there is. And leave people alone. Go find something to fix that’s actually causing harm.

This is getting seriously funny John

The fact that projects grant credit at seriously different rates is a problem in the perceived fairness of the system.

The stock applications at S@H are currently much better optimized than they were, and even the best optimized applications do not grant at 2 to one, but if I recall, only around 1.3 to one at the moment. Trust me on this. S@H and BOINC are being re-worked to make it much easier for projects to have optimized applicatons delivered to clients

Trust me on this.

I'm not sure what happen in Nov 2006 besides one of my hosts crashed and then the problem bagan. All my old projects had there CPIDs stolen away in this transition. :D What I can't figure is how can a host have different CPIDs (4 in most of them) and control/change the Project CPIDs when they connect. I thought the Projects Servers controled the hosts. The one good thing is I got down from 10 CPIDs to 4. I even detached from BAM to see if CPID Problem would clear up but it didn't

When BAM retires a project they detach all the hosts from the project and it keeps detaching them for an eternity. An example is ABC@Home Beta. It only has work as needed (Nov 2007 was last WU I finished) & it wasn't reachable for a while so I guess that is why they retired it. I attach to it ever once in a while to see if it up and as soon as my host syncs BAM it detached. If It does give out any work, I'll have to Detach from BAM to run it.

I had the same Problem for about 2 Years myself, my Stats would jump up & down at the Stat's Sites



Hmmm...

Now that is interesting. I seem to remember loosing a couple of host CPID's on BOINCStats around then, but everything resync'ed on the same Account CPID.

The only side effect was a couple of hosts lost their graphical data for everything from before the event.

Let me check my logs and get back to you on this.

Alinator

I tried everything to solve the problem. Including begging the Dev (which is a low priorty issue). I would like to see if they could straighten out the problem, but I think I going to detach 15 hosts from all the projects, delete/clear out all BOINC. Then go into one node and change all the CPID to my main one (or suspose to be my main one) then run it until I get all the projects to Sync with my host. Then put the others back online again.

@ KAMCOBILL:

Hmmm...

I looked over my logs and the event I had was about the time your problem started.

However, I don't use BAM or any other account manager, and my logbook noted that the most likely cause for mine was that Willy was experiencing some growth problems at the time and having some DB difficulties as a result.

So since I have no experience trying to get a CPID to sync up in your situation, I can't really say whether your next attempt strategy is good, bad, or futile! :-(

All I can say is it sounds like a plan, good luck, and I hope it works for you this time! ;-)

Alinator

No John. Jeff and the many others are right.

You keep repeating and repeating that there is "the problem". Yet you have not proved it. You haven’t even tried to refute many of the explanations that have been presented here. You just repeat your mantra, or you invoke the “authority” of the founders. That’s not an argument. That’s sophistry.

Ever hear the phrase: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”? Words for an engineer to live by.

If there are no untoward consequences of something, there is no problem, no matter how many times you keep saying there is. Saying it over and over again doesn’t make it so.

We have shown you that the only thing you've described as a possible consequence - credits inflation - isn't happening. Numerous posters here have given various good reasons why it’s not happening, which you have failed to rebut.

No untoward consequences equals no problem. So face it. Since there are no untoward consequences, THERE IS NO PROBLEM! It’s not rational to go around obsessing about an imaginary “problem” that has no untoward consequences.

Nothing needs to be fixed. No harm of any consequence is being done. You haven't proved otherwise.

There is no credits problem.

So stop saying there is. And leave people alone. Go find something to fix that’s actually causing harm.

This is what happens when you "take the bait". Drop this loser and find a better way to waste our time.

Voltron

Thanks, Voltron. You're right. I did take the bait. I shouldn't have given him a target. Obviously he hasn't considered our posts; certainly not mine, and certainly not the one you quoted above. Why anybody would feel so threatened because of a few differences in worthless credits, that clearly isn't impacting BOINC in any significant way, is a mystery.

So yes, he's either out just to stir up a fight, or he's in denial and cannot be reasoned with.

Thanks for the good advice.

I'm not sure what happen in Nov 2006 besides one of my hosts crashed and then the problem bagan. All my old projects had there CPIDs stolen away in this transition. :D What I can't figure is how can a host have different CPIDs (4 in most of them) and control/change the Project CPIDs when they connect. I thought the Projects Servers controled the hosts. The one good thing is I got down from 10 CPIDs to 4. I even detached from BAM to see if CPID Problem would clear up but it didn't

When BAM retires a project they detach all the hosts from the project and it keeps detaching them for an eternity. An example is ABC@Home Beta. It only has work as needed (Nov 2007 was last WU I finished) & it wasn't reachable for a while so I guess that is why they retired it. I attach to it ever once in a while to see if it up and as soon as my host syncs BAM it detached. If It does give out any work, I'll have to Detach from BAM to run it.

I had the same Problem for about 2 Years myself, my Stats would jump up & down at the Stat's Sites



Hmmm...

Now that is interesting. I seem to remember loosing a couple of host CPID's on BOINCStats around then, but everything resync'ed on the same Account CPID.

The only side effect was a couple of hosts lost their graphical data for everything from before the event.

Let me check my logs and get back to you on this.

Alinator

I tried everything to solve the problem. Including begging the Dev (which is a low priorty issue). I would like to see if they could straighten out the problem, but I think I going to detach 15 hosts from all the projects, delete/clear out all BOINC. Then go into one node and change all the CPID to my main one (or suspose to be my main one) then run it until I get all the projects to Sync with my host. Then put the others back online again.

I had the same problem for about 2 Years myself, my Stats would jump up & down at the Stat's Sites because the Projects I ran would fail to keep the same CPID across them. I tried everything from editing the .xml files to trying some suggestions JMV gave me which didn't work either.

What I finally discovered was that 1 Project was the key to keeping the same CPID at all the other Projects, that Project for me was Pirates@Home. As soon as I attached Pirates@Home to all my Computers the CPID straightened itself out across the Projects and to this day I don't need to have Pirates Attached anymore but do keep it attached to 1 Box just for old times sake ... :)

So maybe thats what you need to do, find the Key Project, it's more than likely 1 of the first Projects you ever ran as Pirates was for me, it's something to think about and look for anyway ... Good Luck

This is getting seriously funny John

The fact that projects grant credit at seriously different rates is a problem in the perceived fairness of the system.

Seti grants 30% more credit to the same machine only based on whether it has an optimized app or not that the project refuses to deliver to all its users as 20 other projects do!...unfair! Solaris and osx my foot, these are mainstream hosts that get optimized.

By your own ommision,although you felt the need to edit your little factoid out but I quoted you! ;)

The stock applications at S@H are currently much better optimized than they were, and even the best optimized applications do not grant at 2 to one, but if I recall, only around 1.3 to one at the moment. Trust me on this. S@H and BOINC are being re-worked to make it much easier for projects to have optimized applicatons delivered to clients

30% more credit and you have the gall to intimidate other projects and participants.

Trust me on this.

I THINK NOT!

If Seti wants the rest of BOINC to change then it needs to change its own culture 1st to start leveling the playing field.

This is getting seriously funny John

The fact that projects grant credit at seriously different rates is a problem in the perceived fairness of the system.

Seti grants 30% more credit to the same machine only based on whether it has an optimized app or not that the project refuses to deliver to all its users as 20 other projects do!...unfair! Solaris and osx my foot, these are mainstream hosts that get optimized.

By your own ommision,although you felt the need to edit your little factoid out but I quoted you! ;)

The stock applications at S@H are currently much better optimized than they were, and even the best optimized applications do not grant at 2 to one, but if I recall, only around 1.3 to one at the moment. Trust me on this. S@H and BOINC are being re-worked to make it much easier for projects to have optimized applicatons delivered to clients

30% more credit and you have the gall to intimidate other projects and participants.

Trust me on this.

I THINK NOT!

If Seti wants the rest of BOINC to change then it needs to change its own culture 1st to start leveling the playing field.

I am sorry that I really don't understand your insinuation. S@H grants the same credit for a single task to all that crunched that task. Some computers go through tasks more quickly. Some people have better computers. That still has no bearing at all on cross project parity.

This is getting seriously funny John

The fact that projects grant credit at seriously different rates is a problem in the perceived fairness of the system.

Seti grants 30% more credit to the same machine only based on whether it has an optimized app or not that the project refuses to deliver to all its users as 20 other projects do!...unfair! Solaris and osx my foot, these are mainstream hosts that get optimized.

By your own ommision,although you felt the need to edit your little factoid out but I quoted you! ;)

The stock applications at S@H are currently much better optimized than they were, and even the best optimized applications do not grant at 2 to one, but if I recall, only around 1.3 to one at the moment. Trust me on this. S@H and BOINC are being re-worked to make it much easier for projects to have optimized applicatons delivered to clients

30% more credit and you have the gall to intimidate other projects and participants.

Trust me on this.

I THINK NOT!

If Seti wants the rest of BOINC to change then it needs to change its own culture 1st to start leveling the playing field.

I am sorry that I really don't understand your insinuation. S@H grants the same credit for a single task to all that crunched that task. Some computers go through tasks more quickly. Some people have better computers. That still has no bearing at all on cross project parity.

You certaily are dense John...If I have 2 identical computers and optimize 1 that runs 30% faster than the other 1, are you not showing favoritism rather than leveling the playing field making available to ALL rather than to just the big crunchers that you wish to keep because Seti will have the highest credit!Other projects optimize so all get the benefit....now I have said this at least 5 TIMES in this thread and you have yet to acknowledge this as being an issue! I am joining Bill & Voltron and am done feeding the troll!

John,

Since this subject has been so hotly debated for so long, I doubt you would have recieved a reasonable response here no matter how you phrased your inital post, but it doesn't help that you made a completely outlandish claim concerning appropriate credit for MW tasks.

You stated, "The long tasks really should be granting about 50 CS per task."

If you really believe that, then you understand that you're stating that MilkyWay should grant approximately 30% the amount of credit per unit of time vs SETI. (I'm assuming that MW is currently granting at a rate of 1.64 v SETI which seems to be a good average of the cross project comparisons that I could find) A 260 cs (long) task here would therefore grant around 159 on your hallowed SETI. (But should only grant "about 50" here)

Seems either quite spiteful or quite ignorant to tell the system administrators here that they're being "anti-social" if they don't value their project at 1/3rd the value of SETI.

I wanted to make sure that this comparison made some sense, so I looked at the computer I'm working from now and discovered that an Einstein task that takes me around 9 hours grants me ~240 cs. A MilkyWay task that takes 8 hours grants me 260. So that 260 cs task here would grant me 213 at Einstein.

Just so I'm clear, let me confirm. In your way of thinking it's 3 times more valuable to look for signals from extraterrestrials than it is to map the structure of our galaxy and over 4 times more important to look for gravity waves than to map the structure of our galaxy, yes?

John,

Since this subject has been so hotly debated for so long, I doubt you would have recieved a reasonable response here no matter how you phrased your inital post, but it doesn't help that you made a completely outlandish claim concerning appropriate credit for MW tasks.

You stated, "The long tasks really should be granting about 50 CS per task."

If you really believe that, then you understand that you're stating that MilkyWay should grant approximately 30% the amount of credit per unit of time vs SETI. (I'm assuming that MW is currently granting at a rate of 1.64 v SETI which seems to be a good average of the cross project comparisons that I could find) A 260 cs (long) task here would therefore grant around 159 on your hallowed SETI. (But should only grant "about 50" here)

Seems either quite spiteful or quite ignorant to tell the system administrators here that they're being "anti-social" if they don't value their project at 1/3rd the value of SETI.

I wanted to make sure that this comparison made some sense, so I looked at the computer I'm working from now and discovered that an Einstein task that takes me around 9 hours grants me ~240 cs. A MilkyWay task that takes 8 hours grants me 260. So that 260 cs task here would grant me 213 at Einstein.

Just so I'm clear, let me confirm. In your way of thinking it's 3 times more valuable to look for signals from extraterrestrials than it is to map the structure of our galaxy and over 4 times more important to look for gravity waves than to map the structure of our galaxy, yes?

This is getting seriously funny John

The fact that projects grant credit at seriously different rates is a problem in the perceived fairness of the system.

Seti grants 30% more credit to the same machine only based on whether it has an optimized app or not that the project refuses to deliver to all its users as 20 other projects do!...unfair! Solaris and osx my foot, these are mainstream hosts that get optimized.

By your own ommision,although you felt the need to edit your little factoid out but I quoted you! ;)

The stock applications at S@H are currently much better optimized than they were, and even the best optimized applications do not grant at 2 to one, but if I recall, only around 1.3 to one at the moment. Trust me on this. S@H and BOINC are being re-worked to make it much easier for projects to have optimized applicatons delivered to clients

30% more credit and you have the gall to intimidate other projects and participants.

Trust me on this.

I THINK NOT!

If Seti wants the rest of BOINC to change then it needs to change its own culture 1st to start leveling the playing field.

I am sorry that I really don't understand your insinuation. S@H grants the same credit for a single task to all that crunched that task. Some computers go through tasks more quickly. Some people have better computers. That still has no bearing at all on cross project parity.

You certaily are dense John...If I have 2 identical computers and optimize 1 that runs 30% faster than the other 1, are you not showing favoritism rather than leveling the playing field making available to ALL rather than to just the big crunchers that you wish to keep because Seti will have the highest credit!Other projects optimize so all get the benefit....now I have said this at least 5 TIMES in this thread and you have yet to acknowledge this as being an issue! I am joining Bill & Voltron and am done feeding the troll!

See This thread for an example of either unfair (he is not releasing the code to all)

you know what ? life isn't fair at all and the World is full of things you can not have.

or inflationary (If it gets released and the credits here are NOT reduced).

that's not going to happen... could you now go away please and stalk some other people on other boards ? I think we all here would appreciate that.
Thank you.

See This thread for an example of either unfair (he is not releasing the code to all) or inflationary (If it gets released and the credits here are NOT reduced).

See This thread for an example of either unfair (he is not releasing the code to all) or inflationary (If it gets released and the credits here are NOT reduced).

Good GOD man, will you please just shut up and go away?!?! I would have enjoyed having a discussion with Crunch3r about potential gains in the science of this project, but you have to stick your annoying, asinine nose into the conversation and make it all about your pet peeve of CREDIT!

Guess what? It's not the Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Credit , but that seems to be all you care about.

The worst part is that you ignore any information that doesn't fit your self-serving lunacy, practically nothing that you type is even accurate, but like sooooo many others have mentioned you believe that anything repeated enough becomes the truth. "he is not releasing the code to all"? Did you even read the post or only the bits that agree with your twisted little viewpoint? He shared it with the freakin' project developers!!

I can thank you for one thing only. I had actually been limiting my resource share on these projects that I also felt were giving too much credit, but all it took was 2 days of your whining drivel and I'm just going to set an equal share at all the projects where I want to support the science. You're a developer for SETI, right? That's enough to convince me to drop it. I never particularly cared what credit they ever "gave" me and I know my contribution was growing ever smaller, but if "voting with my feet" is the only power I have, then I plan to exercise it.

[edit]Adding to what others have said... don't bother replying, because I'm done feeding you as well. That's definitely the last post I'll make acknowledging your existance as well[/edit]

John,

Since this subject has been so hotly debated for so long, I doubt you would have recieved a reasonable response here no matter how you phrased your inital post, but it doesn't help that you made a completely outlandish claim concerning appropriate credit for MW tasks.

You stated, "The long tasks really should be granting about 50 CS per task."

If you really believe that, then you understand that you're stating that MilkyWay should grant approximately 30% the amount of credit per unit of time vs SETI. (I'm assuming that MW is currently granting at a rate of 1.64 v SETI which seems to be a good average of the cross project comparisons that I could find) A 260 cs (long) task here would therefore grant around 159 on your hallowed SETI. (But should only grant "about 50" here)

Seems either quite spiteful or quite ignorant to tell the system administrators here that they're being "anti-social" if they don't value their project at 1/3rd the value of SETI.

I wanted to make sure that this comparison made some sense, so I looked at the computer I'm working from now and discovered that an Einstein task that takes me around 9 hours grants me ~240 cs. A MilkyWay task that takes 8 hours grants me 260. So that 260 cs task here would grant me 213 at Einstein.

Just so I'm clear, let me confirm. In your way of thinking it's 3 times more valuable to look for signals from extraterrestrials than it is to map the structure of our galaxy and over 4 times more important to look for gravity waves than to map the structure of our galaxy, yes?

I already replied to this and admitted an error in calculation or input. Why are you bringing it up again?

John,

Since this subject has been so hotly debated for so long, I doubt you would have recieved a reasonable response here no matter how you phrased your inital post, but it doesn't help that you made a completely outlandish claim concerning appropriate credit for MW tasks.

You stated, "The long tasks really should be granting about 50 CS per task."

If you really believe that, then you understand that you're stating that MilkyWay should grant approximately 30% the amount of credit per unit of time vs SETI. (I'm assuming that MW is currently granting at a rate of 1.64 v SETI which seems to be a good average of the cross project comparisons that I could find) A 260 cs (long) task here would therefore grant around 159 on your hallowed SETI. (But should only grant "about 50" here)

Seems either quite spiteful or quite ignorant to tell the system administrators here that they're being "anti-social" if they don't value their project at 1/3rd the value of SETI.

I wanted to make sure that this comparison made some sense, so I looked at the computer I'm working from now and discovered that an Einstein task that takes me around 9 hours grants me ~240 cs. A MilkyWay task that takes 8 hours grants me 260. So that 260 cs task here would grant me 213 at Einstein.

Just so I'm clear, let me confirm. In your way of thinking it's 3 times more valuable to look for signals from extraterrestrials than it is to map the structure of our galaxy and over 4 times more important to look for gravity waves than to map the structure of our galaxy, yes?

I already replied to this and admitted an error in calculation or input. Why are you bringing it up again?

http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/forum_thread.php?id=368&nowrap=true#4367

If you don't like the credit here, there are other projects that would enjoy your computer time. Stop the complaining about credit. The amount of credit assigned was voted upon by the users just after the project started up. He got rid of the highs and the lows and settled upon one about in the middle. The current credits are a reflection of that. Stop the crying and crunch along.

If you don't like the credit here, there are other projects that would enjoy your computer time. Stop the complaining about credit. The amount of credit assigned was voted upon by the users just after the project started up. He got rid of the highs and the lows and settled upon one about in the middle. The current credits are a reflection of that. Stop the crying and crunch along.

I've stayed out of this till now, but I will comment on a few things here (and whenever I say 'you' here I mean John):

like sooooo many others have mentioned you believe that anything repeated enough becomes the truth. "he is not releasing the code to all"? Did you even read the post or only the bits that agree with your twisted little viewpoint? He shared it with the freakin' project developers!!

The worst part is that you ignore any information that doesn't fit your self-serving lunacy

You're a developer for SETI, right? That's enough to convince me to drop it. I never particularly cared what credit they ever "gave" me and I know my contribution was growing ever smaller, but if "voting with my feet" is the only power I have, then I plan to exercise it.

[edit]Adding to what others have said... don't bother replying, because I'm done feeding you as well. That's definitely the last post I'll make acknowledging your existance as well[/edit]

Down to name calling. Pathetic.

If you don't like the credit here, there are other projects that would enjoy your computer time. Stop the complaining about credit. The amount of credit assigned was voted upon by the users just after the project started up. He got rid of the highs and the lows and settled upon one about in the middle. The current credits are a reflection of that. Stop the crying and crunch along.

If you don't like the way BOINC is supposed to work, you can go do some non-BOINC project. Same argument reversed.

If you don't like the credit here, there are other projects that would enjoy your computer time. Stop the complaining about credit. The amount of credit assigned was voted upon by the users just after the project started up. He got rid of the highs and the lows and settled upon one about in the middle. The current credits are a reflection of that. Stop the crying and crunch along.

If you don't like the way BOINC is supposed to work, you can go do some non-BOINC project. Same argument reversed.

Oh for Pete's Sake, this is all getting so real Boring & Passe, John your starting to sound like a little kid out on the Playground with some of your childish responses. I always thought better of you & respected you, but after seeing your in action the last few days & reading your childish "na na na na na same back you" replies that respect has slipped downwards quite a few notch's.

You've had your say about the Credit's here so why don't you take it up with the Dev's of the Project Privately because you can argue about it in the Forum until everybody's blue in the face but in the end the Dev's of the Project are the only ones that can do anything about it if they choose to do so.

Your continually na na na na na replies do nothing but keep the Participants stirred up, but then thats probably what you want isn't it. By doing that you can get back up on your Soap Opera Box & spew more na na na na na's back at the Participants.

I've stayed out of this till now, but I will comment on a few things here (and whenever I say 'you' here I mean John):

like sooooo many others have mentioned you believe that anything repeated enough becomes the truth. "he is not releasing the code to all"? Did you even read the post or only the bits that agree with your twisted little viewpoint? He shared it with the freakin' project developers!!

The worst part is that you ignore any information that doesn't fit your self-serving lunacy

Here you've chosen to ignore a direct question. As insulting as the way the question is asked may be, the question still has merit.

You're a developer for SETI, right? That's enough to convince me to drop it. I never particularly cared what credit they ever "gave" me and I know my contribution was growing ever smaller, but if "voting with my feet" is the only power I have, then I plan to exercise it.

Wow, if SETI was a company and you worked for me, and I heard something like this, I would take disciplinary action against you.

[edit]Adding to what others have said... don't bother replying, because I'm done feeding you as well. That's definitely the last post I'll make acknowledging your existance as well[/edit]

Down to name calling. Pathetic.

'Pathetic' is also name calling. And you've used it as a way to ignore the issues in the posting. Unfortunately many people rise to the bait instead of trying to be rational about it, which is what I have attempted here - don't know how well I've succeeded.

Good luck with trying to get everybody to like Boinc the way is supposed to be.

Just a last thought I suddenly had. Why should SETI be the standard by which other projects are judged? That's not an attack, it's a genuine question.
Ok, I'm off to work now, will look for responses this evening. (I'm GMT+2)

Rod

One of the basic premises of BOINC is that all research is of equal value in the system. Therefore, the payout should be the same on average for across projects. I did not make this up, it is part of the original BOINC design discussion.

There are a few reasons that SETI is considered the standard for the moment. SETI is the first BOINC project. SETI is also just about the middle of the pack for credit allocation. SETI also uses FLOPS counting which is the most reliable method for determining credit with their stock application.

I'm not sure what happen in Nov 2006 besides one of my hosts crashed and then the problem bagan. All my old projects had there CPIDs stolen away in this transition. :D What I can't figure is how can a host have different CPIDs (4 in most of them) and control/change the Project CPIDs when they connect. I thought the Projects Servers controled the hosts. The one good thing is I got down from 10 CPIDs to 4. I even detached from BAM to see if CPID Problem would clear up but it didn't

When BAM retires a project they detach all the hosts from the project and it keeps detaching them for an eternity. An example is ABC@Home Beta. It only has work as needed (Nov 2007 was last WU I finished) & it wasn't reachable for a while so I guess that is why they retired it. I attach to it ever once in a while to see if it up and as soon as my host syncs BAM it detached. If It does give out any work, I'll have to Detach from BAM to run it.

Hmmm...

Now that is interesting. I seem to remember loosing a couple of host CPID's on BOINCStats around then, but everything resync'ed on the same Account CPID.

The only side effect was a couple of hosts lost their graphical data for everything from before the event.

Let me check my logs and get back to you on this.

Alinator

I tried everything to solve the problem. Including begging the Dev (which is a low priorty issue). I would like to see if they could straighten out the problem, but I think I going to detach 15 hosts from all the projects, delete/clear out all BOINC. Then go into one node and change all the CPID to my main one (or suspose to be my main one) then run it until I get all the projects to Sync with my host. Then put the others back online again.

Well, I've readed this long enough, I finally have to say something to it the once and only time...

I would love to take it up with the project developers, however, they seem to be unreachable.

There are a few reasons that SETI is considered the standard for the moment. SETI is the first BOINC project. SETI is also just about the middle of the pack for credit allocation. SETI also uses FLOPS counting which is the most reliable method for determining credit with their stock application.

troll'in, troll'in, troll'in....

keep them baits a float'in....

get them members go'in....

I have never seen a post by one of the credit police that a project is giving out too little credit ....
Guess it only works one way ... down, down, down
Boinc and Dr. A know all please comply, or we will hunt you ... down, down, down
Omg your project is giving out .000001 more than Seti, you must go ... down, down, down

If you really need to spend your time fixing Boinc why do you not get the ^75% of the projects that do not get close to the credit police's 1.000000 standard score to comply. Here's a whole list of projects too choose from:

http://boinc.netsoft-online.com/e107_plugins/boinc/get_cpcs.php

Oh yea all projects must give out credit that is equal to or less than Seti.

I keep forgetting that Dr. A and Seti are the all knowing gods of Boinc.

Q. Why are we not all on our knees, and shaking at the mere posting of the credit police?

A. If the credit police can get the other projects to stop giving out less than average credit, then they would have an argument.
Since they work it only one way they have no credibility.

Your too high... you must go ... down, down, down
Your too low ... much better, do not step on the all wise and knowing seti's toes

LMAO

There was an OR clause that is missing from the first quote. The rest of the statement is missing. Sometimes a partial statement taken out of context is much more inflammatory than the whole statement.

No, I am not a developer for SETI. I have done a bit of development on the BOINC platrform.

There are a few reasons that SETI is considered the standard for the moment. SETI is the first BOINC project. SETI is also just about the middle of the pack for credit allocation. SETI also uses FLOPS counting which is the most reliable method for determining credit with their stock application.

No, I am not a developer for SETI. I have done a bit of development on the BOINC platrform.

Ok, I was wrong here and apologize for reacting on someone else's post without confirming facts.

No, I am not a developer for SETI. I have done a bit of development on the BOINC platrform.

Ok, I was wrong here and apologize for reacting on someone else's post without confirming facts.

I just based that on the fact that this is how his message board profile reads at SETI:

John McLeod VII
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester

<shrug> I guess they're wrong then.

No, I am not a developer for SETI. I have done a bit of development on the BOINC platrform.

Ok, I was wrong here and apologize for reacting on someone else's post without confirming facts.

I just based that on the fact that this is how his message board profile reads at SETI:

John McLeod VII
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester

<shrug> I guess they're wrong then.

No, I am not a developer for SETI. I have done a bit of development on the BOINC platrform.

Ok, I was wrong here and apologize for reacting on someone else's post without confirming facts.

I just based that on the fact that this is how his message board profile reads at SETI:

John McLeod VII
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester

<shrug> I guess they're wrong then.

I'll take a wild stab @ why JMV has the Developers Title @ SETI. He has been with the BOINC SETI Project since its Inception as have a lot of people including myself. But he also has had a lot of input into the Development of the BOINC Clients & many BOINC Projects. So even though he isn't a Developer Per Se the the Title may have been bestowed upon him much like a Honorary Title for the big help he has been to the Development of the BOINC Projects & Client.

I may be all wet on that but thats how I view it anyway ... :) ... I've known John for close to 6 years and have had casual post with him on different matters. Thats why it's kinda perplexing to me to see him act this way, usually he's above the Fray of this sort of stuff.

Maybe from his being around all the raving Lunatics over in the SETI Project Forums some of that Lunacy has rubbed off on him ... ;)

There was an OR clause that is missing from the first quote. The rest of the statement is missing. Sometimes a partial statement taken out of context is much more inflammatory than the whole statement.

In trying to format the quotes I think I got things a bit messed up - I was trying to get it done before going off to work. The parts quoted were meant to point out how you pay so much attention to the way things are said, that you do not address what's actually being said. And this response was another example of that. Specifically then: He asked if you had read the post (all other wording removed) - you did not answer that question.

No, I am not a developer for SETI. I have done a bit of development on the BOINC platrform.

Ok, I was wrong here and apologize for reacting on someone else's post without confirming facts.

There are a few reasons that SETI is considered the standard for the moment. SETI is the first BOINC project. SETI is also just about the middle of the pack for credit allocation. SETI also uses FLOPS counting which is the most reliable method for determining credit with their stock application.

Thanks for that explaination. Despite my postings 'against' you, I actually would like to see a reliable and fair method for credit calculation.

John, you could achieve a lot more in this quest if you could also address the issues or questions that are posted, and not just the personal remarks.

To those who get insulting - you would also achieve a lot more if you didn't.

Rod

The principal designer of BOINC has come up with an idea that would ENFORCE cross project parity, but would also cause long term DEFLATION in credit grants. I would really hate for him to get tired of the cross project credit parity debates and actually implement his idea. The problem is that a CPU that is granted 100 CS / day NOW would be granted about 50 CS / day 18 months from now when CPU speeds double - this is not my idea of how to fix the problem, but I believe that the cross project parity problem will be fixed somehow. I would much rather have a political solution that involves telling projects that are way out of line with credit grants than a draconian measure that keeps reducing credit grants into the future.

The principal designer of BOINC has come up with an idea that would ENFORCE cross project parity, but would also cause long term DEFLATION in credit grants. I would really hate for him to get tired of the cross project credit parity debates and actually implement his idea. The problem is that a CPU that is granted 100 CS / day NOW would be granted about 50 CS / day 18 months from now when CPU speeds double - this is not my idea of how to fix the problem, but I believe that the cross project parity problem will be fixed somehow. I would much rather have a political solution that involves telling projects that are way out of line with credit grants than a draconian measure that keeps reducing credit grants into the future.

Well that is one way to do it, but isn't the more correct way to have those new faster processors get 200 CS/day and keep the current processor getting 100 CS /day? In any case there is nothing else that is fair. Unless he wants to grant CS based on the number of KWH that the machine uses!

Now for people who re-compile the app to run faster than stock on their machine, what to do is another issue. They do less work so they should get less credit per work unit.

Gary

The principal designer of BOINC has come up with an idea that would ENFORCE cross project parity, but would also cause long term DEFLATION in credit grants. I would really hate for him to get tired of the cross project credit parity debates and actually implement his idea. The problem is that a CPU that is granted 100 CS / day NOW would be granted about 50 CS / day 18 months from now when CPU speeds double - this is not my idea of how to fix the problem, but I believe that the cross project parity problem will be fixed somehow. I would much rather have a political solution that involves telling projects that are way out of line with credit grants than a draconian measure that keeps reducing credit grants into the future.

Well that is one way to do it, but isn't the more correct way to have those new faster processors get 200 CS/day and keep the current processor getting 100 CS /day? In any case there is nothing else that is fair. Unless he wants to grant CS based on the number of KWH that the machine uses!

Now for people who re-compile the app to run faster than stock on their machine, what to do is another issue. They do less work so they should get less credit per work unit.

Gary

I did not say it was a particularly good way. As a mater of fact I argued against it when it came up.

Could one of the Admins delete this thread before it takes down the server?

Voltron

The principal designer of BOINC has come up with an idea that would ENFORCE cross project parity, but would also cause long term DEFLATION in credit grants. I would really hate for him to get tired of the cross project credit parity debates and actually implement his idea. The problem is that a CPU that is granted 100 CS / day NOW would be granted about 50 CS / day 18 months from now when CPU speeds double - this is not my idea of how to fix the problem, but I believe that the cross project parity problem will be fixed somehow. I would much rather have a political solution that involves telling projects that are way out of line with credit grants than a draconian measure that keeps reducing credit grants into the future.

Well that is one way to do it, but isn't the more correct way to have those new faster processors get 200 CS/day and keep the current processor getting 100 CS /day? In any case there is nothing else that is fair. Unless he wants to grant CS based on the number of KWH that the machine uses!

Now for people who re-compile the app to run faster than stock on their machine, what to do is another issue. They do less work so they should get less credit per work unit.

Gary

I did not say it was a particularly good way. As a mater of fact I argued against it when it came up.

Well you better argue harder John because if thats implemented I think you would see a mass Exodus to the DC Projects were there each Project give whatever it chooses ... :)

The design of BOINC was to have approximate cross project parity in credits. Any project that is grossly out of line intentionally is intentionally breaking a design goal of BOINC, and has been a goal of BOINC since the very beginning.

2.1 Goals of BOINC
BOINC’s general goal is to advance the public resource
computing paradigm: to encourage the creation of
many projects, and to encourage a large fraction of the
world’s computer owners to participate in one or more
projects. Specific goals include:
Reduce the barriers of entry to public-resource computing.
BOINC allows a research scientist with moderate
computer skills to create and operate a large public-resource
computing project with about a week of initial work and an
hour per week of maintenance. The server for a BOINCbased
project can consist of a single machine configured
with common open-source software (Linux, Apache, PHP,
MySQL, Python).
Share resources among autonomous projects.
BOINC-based projects are autonomous. Projects are not
centrally authorized or registered. Each project operates
its own servers and stands completely on its own. Nevertheless,
PC owners can seamlessly participate in multiple
projects, and can assign to each project a ”resource share”
determining how scarce resource (such as CPU and disk
space) are divided among projects. If most participants
register with multiple projects, then overall resource utilization
is improved: while one project is closed for repairs,
other projects temporarily inherit its computing power. On
a particular computer, the CPU might work for one project
while the network is transferring files for another.
Support diverse applications. BOINC accommodates
a wide range of applications; it provides flexible and scalable
mechanism for distributing data, and its scheduling algorithms
intelligently match requirements with resources.
Existing applications in common languages (C, C++, FORTRAN)
can run as BOINC applications with little or no
modification. An application can consist of several files
(e.g. multiple programs and a coordinating script). New
versions of applications can be deployed with no participant
involvement.
Reward participants. Public-resource computing
projects must provide ”incentives” in order to attract and
retain participants. The primary incentive for many participants
is credit: a numeric measure of how much computation
they have contributed. BOINC provides a creditaccounting
system that reflects usage of multiple resource
types (CPU, network, disk), is common across multiple
projects, and is highly resistant to ”cheating” (attempts to
gain undeserved credit). BOINC also makes it easy for
projects to add visualization graphics to their applications,
which can provide screensaver graphics.

Credt....ohhh yes Credit.

I see the argument continuously that BOINC Credits have no real value. However these credits do have an intrinsic value. A participant's mere possession of credit in relation to other participants creates that intrinsic value. This feeling of value provides participants information of how much one has contributed towards "real" science.

So yes, one can argue that this value of credit should be equal among the projects.

I would even be willing to concede to the notion of cross-project parity.

However when DA and the self-appointed "credit police" continuously attack the projects that "pay" more credit than the norm and blatently ignore those projects that grant less credit, it is impossible to give any credibility to this crusade.

Case in point: When DA approached QMC and practically threatened them that if they did not reduce their credits they would be adjusted via the stat sites. QMC quickly did what they were told. Did DA approach any projects that grant sub-par credits, like Spinhenge@home? Well I'm still waiting on that one.

It is quite possible that the BOINC Community would adopt the cross-project parity campaign with open arms if all projects were treated equally. Until then participants, like myself, that have and continue to be alienated (no pun intended) by DA and the "credit police" will continue to be vocally opposed to the notion....

The design of BOINC was to have approximate cross project parity in credits. Any project that is grossly out of line intentionally is intentionally breaking a design goal of BOINC, and has been a goal of BOINC since the very beginning.

Interesting. Perhaps you should read "BOINC: A System for Public-Resource Computing and Storage" by Dr. Anderson written in 2004. Particularly section 2.1. You can find it here...http://boinc.berkeley.edu/grid_paper_04.pdf

This is going to be long, so I apologize.

2.1 Goals of BOINC
BOINC’s general goal is to advance the public resource
computing paradigm: to encourage the creation of
many projects, and to encourage a large fraction of the
world’s computer owners to participate in one or more
projects. Specific goals include:
Reduce the barriers of entry to public-resource computing.
BOINC allows a research scientist with moderate
computer skills to create and operate a large public-resource
computing project with about a week of initial work and an
hour per week of maintenance. The server for a BOINCbased
project can consist of a single machine configured
with common open-source software (Linux, Apache, PHP,
MySQL, Python).
Share resources among autonomous projects.
BOINC-based projects are autonomous. Projects are not
centrally authorized or registered. Each project operates
its own servers and stands completely on its own. Nevertheless,
PC owners can seamlessly participate in multiple
projects, and can assign to each project a ”resource share”
determining how scarce resource (such as CPU and disk
space) are divided among projects. If most participants
register with multiple projects, then overall resource utilization
is improved: while one project is closed for repairs,
other projects temporarily inherit its computing power. On
a particular computer, the CPU might work for one project
while the network is transferring files for another.
Support diverse applications. BOINC accommodates
a wide range of applications; it provides flexible and scalable
mechanism for distributing data, and its scheduling algorithms
intelligently match requirements with resources.
Existing applications in common languages (C, C++, FORTRAN)
can run as BOINC applications with little or no
modification. An application can consist of several files
(e.g. multiple programs and a coordinating script). New
versions of applications can be deployed with no participant
involvement.
Reward participants. Public-resource computing
projects must provide ”incentives” in order to attract and
retain participants. The primary incentive for many participants
is credit: a numeric measure of how much computation
they have contributed. BOINC provides a creditaccounting
system that reflects usage of multiple resource
types (CPU, network, disk), is common across multiple
projects, and is highly resistant to ”cheating” (attempts to
gain undeserved credit). BOINC also makes it easy for
projects to add visualization graphics to their applications,
which can provide screensaver graphics.

Maybe it is in secret code, but I do not see "cross project parity in credits" as a goal of BOINC.

When it is all said and done, when my bones have turned to dust, it will matter not how much credit I was granted. It will matter to me that I have made some contribution to the scientific community. (I know...I'll be dead and no one will care what matters to me). Fate did not deal me the "Brilliant Scientist" card, but BOINC gives me the opportunity to contribute something. And that something is better than nothing. All I ask for is some credits. Credits that do not cost anything.

The last part of section 2.1 above talks about incentive and credit being the primary one. If all credit were to be equal then the only incentive left (as mentioned) is visual graphics. We are not children who are easily amused by shiny, pretty objects (okay...maybe a little.) This leaves the scientific value of a project. This can be measured in many ways but is completely subjective and is based on the perceptions of the volunteer. Feedback can be one of the ways of measuring value. "Show me what we have done." I can think of several projects that fall short in that aspect. Don't worry, I'm sure someone will come along and point them out to you.

I do not post often. And I pretty much avoid this nonsense. But I can take only so much. Why does the credit mean so much to you? I'm a Credit Whore and I don't go around to the low paying projects and raise a stink, but I still participate. Why do you want us to get less? Why don't you spend your time on something that really needs saving like the environment and leave the credit system alone.

Reward participants. Public-resource computing
projects must provide ”incentives” in order to attract and
retain participants. The primary incentive for many participants
is credit: a numeric measure of how much computation
they have contributed. BOINC provides a creditaccounting
system that reflects usage of multiple resource
types (CPU, network, disk), is common across multiple
projects, and is highly resistant to ”cheating” (attempts to
gain undeserved credit). BOINC also makes it easy for
projects to add visualization graphics to their applications,
which can provide screensaver graphics.

Credt....ohhh yes Credit.

I see the argument continuously that BOINC Credits have no real value. However these credits do have an intrinsic value. A participant's mere possession of credit in relation to other participants creates that intrinsic value. This feeling of value provides participants information of how much one has contributed towards "real" science.

So yes, one can argue that this value of credit should be equal among the projects.

I would even be willing to concede to the notion of cross-project parity.

However when DA and the self-appointed "credit police" continuously attack the projects that "pay" more credit than the norm and blatently ignore those projects that grant less credit, it is impossible to give any credibility to this crusade.

Case in point: When DA approached QMC and practically threatened them that if they did not reduce their credits they would be adjusted via the stat sites. QMC quickly did what they were told. Did DA approach any projects that grant sub-par credits, like Spinhenge@home? Well I'm still waiting on that one.

It is quite possible that the BOINC Community would adopt the cross-project parity campaign with open arms if all projects were treated equally. Until then participants, like myself, that have and continue to be alienated (no pun intended) by DA and the "credit police" will continue to be vocally opposed to the notion....

and is highly resistant to ”cheating” (attempts to
gain undeserved credit)

It is in this section at the bottom.

Reward participants. Public-resource computing
projects must provide ”incentives” in order to attract and
retain participants. The primary incentive for many participants
is credit: a numeric measure of how much computation
they have contributed. BOINC provides a creditaccounting
system that reflects usage of multiple resource
types (CPU, network, disk), is common across multiple
projects, and is highly resistant to ”cheating” (attempts to
gain undeserved credit). BOINC also makes it easy for
projects to add visualization graphics to their applications,
which can provide screensaver graphics.

Note the words "is common across multiple projects". What does that mean other than the projects should have a common credit system?

Share resources among autonomous projects.
BOINC-based projects are autonomous. Projects are not
centrally authorized or registered. Each project operates
its own servers and stands completely on its own.

Credt....ohhh yes Credit.

I see the argument continuously that BOINC Credits have no real value. However these credits do have an intrinsic value. A participant's mere possession of credit in relation to other participants creates that intrinsic value. This feeling of value provides participants information of how much one has contributed towards "real" science.

So yes, one can argue that this value of credit should be equal among the projects.

I would even be willing to concede to the notion of cross-project parity.

However when DA and the self-appointed "credit police" continuously attack the projects that "pay" more credit than the norm and blatently ignore those projects that grant less credit, it is impossible to give any credibility to this crusade.

Case in point: When DA approached QMC and practically threatened them that if they did not reduce their credits they would be adjusted via the stat sites. QMC quickly did what they were told. Did DA approach any projects that grant sub-par credits, like Spinhenge@home? Well I'm still waiting on that one.

It is quite possible that the BOINC Community would adopt the cross-project parity campaign with open arms if all projects were treated equally. Until then participants, like myself, that have and continue to be alienated (no pun intended) by DA and the "credit police" will continue to be vocally opposed to the notion....

It bothers us. Any real solution has to include those projects as well.

Could one of the Admins delete this thread before it takes down the server?

Voltron

Credt....ohhh yes Credit.

I see the argument continuously that BOINC Credits have no real value. However these credits do have an intrinsic value. A participant's mere possession of credit in relation to other participants creates that intrinsic value. This feeling of value provides participants information of how much one has contributed towards "real" science.

So yes, one can argue that this value of credit should be equal among the projects.

I would even be willing to concede to the notion of cross-project parity.

However when DA and the self-appointed "credit police" continuously attack the projects that "pay" more credit than the norm and blatently ignore those projects that grant less credit, it is impossible to give any credibility to this crusade.

Case in point: When DA approached QMC and practically threatened them that if they did not reduce their credits they would be adjusted via the stat sites. QMC quickly did what they were told. Did DA approach any projects that grant sub-par credits, like Spinhenge@home? Well I'm still waiting on that one.

It is quite possible that the BOINC Community would adopt the cross-project parity campaign with open arms if all projects were treated equally. Until then participants, like myself, that have and continue to be alienated (no pun intended) by DA and the "credit police" will continue to be vocally opposed to the notion....

It bothers us. Any real solution has to include those projects as well.

Ok then...why haven't DA, yourself, or any other member of the "credit police" attack projects that are sub-par to the norm?

I have seen countless threads across BOINC projects from the CP screaming "FOUL" your credits are too high!! Not once, have I ever seen a thread from this same group crying "FOUL" your credits are too low!!

This is NOT Cross-project parity...and if your going to see any type of success ALL projects need to be adressed with the same passion.

For some reason the threads about low credit are not as contentious and do not last nearly as long. But these projects have not been forgotten and if there is a solution, they will be included.

Spare me...

OK, here it is in black and white.

For better or worse, SAH is the defacto standard for what a Cobblestone is worth in BOINC at the moment.

Therefore as a request to all projects:

If you are currently paying less than SAH on the CPP list today, please take steps to up it.

If you are paying more, then please take steps to adjust that down.

Personally, I strongly believe that SAH (and EAH) should up their pay rate for a number of reasons I'm not going to spell out now, but the aforementioned statements pretty well sum up my basic feelings on the matter right here, right now.

Alinator

Ok then...why haven't DA, yourself, or any other member of the "credit police" attack projects that are sub-par to the norm?

I have seen countless threads across BOINC projects from the CP screaming "FOUL" your credits are too high!! Not once, have I ever seen a thread from this same group crying "FOUL" your credits are too low!!

This is NOT Cross-project parity...and if your going to see any type of success ALL projects need to be adressed with the same passion.

I've seen a Post here & there at some Projects about the Credits being to low but never have I seen a whole Thread with the Heated Debate in it that the To Much Credit Threads seem to bring out.

First, I've had a lot of fun reading this thread. It has taken up a lot of my boring time at work.

Now for my 5 cents (inflation). Inflation is a fact of life. I can remember buying gas for my car for $.17 a gallon. Try that now. Not everybody gets paid the same for the amount of effort they provide. If you work at a burger place and make $6 an hour and I work at another one and make $7 an hour are you saying that my pay should be reduced? Have you never changed jobs for better pay? Are you saying that a Doctor and an EMT should be paid the same?

The bottom line is that life is not about everything being fair and equal. Most of us do not live in a communist society. We have the right to make decisions. I, along with many others, made the decision to leave SAH and Predictor because we didn't like what was going on. There are only 2 ways that I see that everything can be made equal. 1. wipe out all credit given across the board and give out no credit at all, which is not likely to happen. 2. Have a credit system incorperated into Boinc that does not allow the projects to set the credit given. Also not likely to happen.

I will continue to work the projects that I like without concern about the amount of credit given compared to other projects.
____________

First, I've had a lot of fun reading this thread. It has taken up a lot of my boring time at work.

Now for my 5 cents (inflation). Inflation is a fact of life. I can remember buying gas for my car for $.17 a gallon. Try that now. Not everybody gets paid the same for the amount of effort they provide. If you work at a burger place and make $6 an hour and I work at another one and make $7 an hour are you saying that my pay should be reduced? Have you never changed jobs for better pay? Are you saying that a Doctor and an EMT should be paid the same?

The bottom line is that life is not about everything being fair and equal. Most of us do not live in a communist society. We have the right to make decisions. I, along with many others, made the decision to leave SAH and Predictor because we didn't like what was going on. There are only 2 ways that I see that everything can be made equal. 1. wipe out all credit given across the board and give out no credit at all, which is not likely to happen. 2. Have a credit system incorperated into Boinc that does not allow the projects to set the credit given. Also not likely to happen.

I will continue to work the projects that I like without concern about the amount of credit given compared to other projects.

The only fair credit system that will work to make all project credits, reward for work & computers equal/fair is 1 CPU Second = 1 Credit (or any fixed credit per CPU Second). This will make all projects and computers equal if that the goal being seeked.

FAO John McLeod VII

The only fair credit system that will work to make all project credits, reward for work & computers equal/fair is 1 CPU Second = 1 Credit (or any fixed credit per CPU Second). This will make all projects and computers equal if that the goal being seeked.

The only fair credit system that will work to make all project credits, reward for work & computers equal/fair is 1 CPU Second = 1 Credit (or any fixed credit per CPU Second). This will make all projects and computers equal if that the goal being seeked.

I agree with P4 getting more credit for the WUs they run. That's what's fair about. A CPU second is a CPU second. The P4 runs 1 WU and the Quad will run 4 WUs. Same Credits for 8 Hours of work.

Just like in your example that get the same amount of credits. Parity. If someone runs their P4 24 hours a day and someone runs the quad 24 hours a day, It's should be the same. I have PII up to Quads running 24/7/365. In most cases the electric cost, time spent on each for maintenace and CPU seconds are the same.

Now, I have to say this as a non-bias cruncher. I'm not into it for the credits. It's is a nice tool to see how I compare to others though. I'm attached to 83 projects and they all get the same amout of resources, except for the single platforms that I don't run and the projects that won't give WU to host (e.g. lower memory, older OS version and etc. I've been attached to QCN Alpha Test Project since it went live which it's WUs aren't CPU intensive and don't give any credits.

Which brings about the only flaw in the system, maybe. How to credit it and DepSpid?

I would say that someone that is in it for the credits are going to run the higher credit giver projects and/or give more resources to them. Someone in it for the good of the world or hobby would run them all.

As for SAH, nothing against it, loosing a lot of CPU time from me by "WU cancelled by Server" Even on my Quads. That tells me that if your not fast enough or if your running other projects, we don't want you. Of course, that not the only one I get WUs cancelled on, there are a couple of others I get it.

Last but not least, It don't matter what the credit system is, if Users/Teams have the resources and use them they'll still be in the same position in the project that they are in. So I cannot see the Fuss. Think about it.

I agree with P4 getting more credit for the WUs they run. That's what's fair about. A CPU second is a CPU second. The P4 runs 1 WU and the Quad will run 4 WUs. Same Credits for 8 Hours of work.

I agree with P4 getting more credit for the WUs they run. That's what's fair about. A CPU second is a CPU second. The P4 runs 1 WU and the Quad will run 4 WUs. Same Credits for 8 Hours of work.

That's like saying 2 Sprinters should get the same Gold Medal even though 1 of the Sprinters who was older & slower only ran 1 Lap while the other younger & faster Sprinter ran 4 Laps of a Race.

In your View since they both spent the same amount of time on the Race Track then they both should receive the same Reward even though 1 ran 1 Lap & the other 4 Laps ... ???

I agree with P4 getting more credit for the WUs they run. That's what's fair about. A CPU second is a CPU second. The P4 runs 1 WU and the Quad will run 4 WUs. Same Credits for 8 Hours of work.

That's like saying 2 Sprinters should get the same Gold Medal even though 1 of the Sprinters who was older & slower only ran 1 Lap while the other younger & faster Sprinter ran 4 Laps of a Race.

In your View since they both spent the same amount of time on the Race Track then they both should receive the same Reward even though 1 ran 1 Lap & the other 4 Laps ... ???

It depends what the goal of the race is. I thought the goal was to do as much as you can do to the best of your ability. Not to be the first one finished or highest scorer. It's a team effort of all the BOINC Crunchers to make all the projects a success.

As I said I'm not credit oreiented but it seems all the Slow computer aren't wanted as much as the Fast ones.

It seems like the projects give high or low credits or just right credits don't have anything to do with type of computer or how fast they complete the task.

Hehe, we're in it together.

Soooo, if I spend 10hrs on a wu with a 266g p4 and my wingman comes along with a 3.0 Xeon quad and does that work in 2hrs, my 10hr of work should only get the same credit as the Xeon? That doesn't inspire regular people to crunch these projects with their home computers, which I believe churns out a lot (if not most) of the of the processing power of BOINC.
____________
A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory

Soooo, if I spend 10hrs on a wu with a 266g p4 and my wingman comes along with a 3.0 Xeon quad and does that work in 2hrs, my 10hr of work should only get the same credit as the Xeon?
That doesn't inspire regular people to crunch these projects with their home computers, which I believe churns out a lot (if not most) of the of the processing power of BOINC.

The stock applications at S@H are currently much better optimized than they were, and even the best optimized applications do not grant at 2 to one, but if I recall, only around 1.3 to one at the moment. Trust me on this. S@H and BOINC are being re-worked to make it much easier for projects to have optimized applicatons delivered to clients.

That still leaves some projects that are way out of line in granting credits.

Easy solution for cross project parity.
Let every official project app. grant slightly lower credit/hour in comparission to seti(official app.) and allow optimized 3th party app's for every Boinc project.

BTW.I remember the time when a famous business machines builder was accused for cheating and removed from the (seti classic) statslist b'cause they used an optimized app.

A litle off topic.
Personaly I don't give a dime about the credits b'cause they reflect nothing.
For about the same (+/- 200 different) cpu_time at seti I'll get 50, 54, 63, 75 or 84 credits (depending on the weather?)
or if I'm realy lucky and my wingman uses an old boinc client (4.xx) I'll get 20 ~ 30 credits

Example Seti (Boinc credit system)
Total credit 550,414 <======== represents what?
Recent average credit 181.42 <===== totaly meaningless if you have +/- 20k or more pending credits

It would be different if the creditsystem was 1 credit/min.

Example Seti (classic credit system)
SETI@home classic workunits 9,047 <==== it doesn't tell me if they where faulty or not,
SETI@home classic CPU time 57,200 hours <===== but here I can see how much time I've spent contributing to the greenhouse efect.

Warm CPU regards.

What your wanting is something for nothing,

What your arguing for is like saying you want as much Credit as IBM's Big Blue because you spend just as much time Processing as Big Blue does ... Good luck with that ... ;)

What your wanting is something for nothing,

Don't forget it's the projects that are getting something for nothing - a lot of CPU time. (The costs of running the servers, etc, is less than buying that much CPU power)

Regards
Rod