Welcome to MilkyWay@home

Credit lowering

Message boards : Number crunching : Credit lowering
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile banditwolf
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Nov 07
Posts: 2425
Credit: 524,164
RAC: 0
Message 31775 - Posted: 30 Sep 2009, 20:59:44 UTC - in response to Message 31773.  

By utilising CPs latest ap, you are getting MORE credit than you were before.

Not with the sse2 app, only ~8-9% faster. Good but doesn't compensate.
Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?
If it makes sense, DON'T do it.
ID: 31775 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Bruce
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Apr 08
Posts: 1415
Credit: 2,716,428
RAC: 0
Message 31776 - Posted: 30 Sep 2009, 22:23:21 UTC - in response to Message 31775.  
Last modified: 30 Sep 2009, 22:33:28 UTC

By utilising CPs latest ap, you are getting MORE credit than you were before.

Not with the sse2 app, only ~8-9% faster. Good but doesn't compensate.

I agree, I installed opp app on both my machines and watched my rac drop like a rock on these machines. One went from aprox 1200 to 950, the other went from 2800 to 2200, not exactly a plus??These are CPU machines. My rac has gone up but thats because I bought an i7 also CPU on MW. MY GPU's are at collatz where they get a LOT more than they would at MW. Cuda nVidia cards.
ID: 31776 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile The Gas Giant
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Dec 07
Posts: 1947
Credit: 240,884,648
RAC: 0
Message 31785 - Posted: 1 Oct 2009, 1:23:41 UTC

Fair enough. I wasn't thinking about cpu's. My bad. But it is still more than what you'd get on SETI with a lunatics opt ap.....
ID: 31785 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Brian Silvers

Send message
Joined: 21 Aug 08
Posts: 625
Credit: 558,425
RAC: 0
Message 31792 - Posted: 1 Oct 2009, 2:52:33 UTC - in response to Message 31775.  

By utilising CPs latest ap, you are getting MORE credit than you were before.

Not with the sse2 app, only ~8-9% faster. Good but doesn't compensate.


Agreed...

my Pentium 4

Before the reduction the daily credit amounts were around 950-1150/day... Now it is 700-850/day...


ID: 31792 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile KWSN Checklist
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Aug 08
Posts: 253
Credit: 275,593,872
RAC: 0
Message 31926 - Posted: 3 Oct 2009, 19:27:29 UTC - in response to Message 30910.  

After a Google search of "how to determine CPU flop count", some time doing research and testing, this was not a consistent way to judge computer performance. With such a wide variance in calculating FLOPS to award credit for work preformed, a slower computer could get more credit than a faster computer. So the best way would be to make all work units the same size, calculate the flops for the work unit and award credit for this calculation. No matter how fast, or slow, the computation was, credit would be the same. This is the best and most fair solution. I think this is being done by some project already. My two cents worth.

    ID: 31926 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
    boosted

    Send message
    Joined: 4 Feb 08
    Posts: 116
    Credit: 17,263,566
    RAC: 0
    Message 31927 - Posted: 3 Oct 2009, 19:50:57 UTC - in response to Message 31926.  

    After a Google search of "how to determine CPU flop count", some time doing research and testing, this was not a consistent way to judge computer performance. With such a wide variance in calculating FLOPS to award credit for work preformed, a slower computer could get more credit than a faster computer. So the best way would be to make all work units the same size, calculate the flops for the work unit and award credit for this calculation. No matter how fast, or slow, the computation was, credit would be the same. This is the best and most fair solution. I think this is being done by some project already. My two cents worth.

    That's exactly what I think too.
    The projects set a standard credit per standard app running time.
    They then calculate the credits per unit length.
    The units carry a standardized credit allotment per unit done. Time in calculation is meaningless. Credit is based on work unit lengths.
    ID: 31927 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
    Profile Beyond
    Avatar

    Send message
    Joined: 15 Jul 08
    Posts: 383
    Credit: 729,293,740
    RAC: 0
    Message 31929 - Posted: 3 Oct 2009, 20:32:13 UTC
    Last modified: 3 Oct 2009, 20:33:42 UTC

    For a scholarly discussion of credits for GPU projects and for those who haven't seen it previously:

    http://www.gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=776&nowrap=true#7556

    Makes a lot of sense to me.
    ID: 31929 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
    Profile The Gas Giant
    Avatar

    Send message
    Joined: 24 Dec 07
    Posts: 1947
    Credit: 240,884,648
    RAC: 0
    Message 31932 - Posted: 3 Oct 2009, 23:15:15 UTC

    The hard part is, some projects are not able to make their wu's the same size due to them either finishing early as they've hit a predetermined cut off, or just due to the fact different wu starting parameters give different wu lengths.
    ID: 31932 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
    Cluster Physik

    Send message
    Joined: 26 Jul 08
    Posts: 627
    Credit: 94,940,203
    RAC: 0
    Message 31933 - Posted: 4 Oct 2009, 0:27:21 UTC - in response to Message 31926.  
    Last modified: 4 Oct 2009, 0:28:00 UTC

    After a Google search of "how to determine CPU flop count", some time doing research and testing, this was not a consistent way to judge computer performance. With such a wide variance in calculating FLOPS to award credit for work preformed, a slower computer could get more credit than a faster computer. So the best way would be to make all work units the same size, calculate the flops for the work unit and award credit for this calculation. No matter how fast, or slow, the computation was, credit would be the same. This is the best and most fair solution. I think this is being done by some project already. My two cents worth.

    If you would have followed the discussions here in the last months you would know that exactly what you propose is done here at Milkyway. I think you confuse it with the benchmark based approach.

    Actually there are now three projects using the same approach, SETI, GPUGrid and Milkyway. All three projects have counted the amount of necessary operations for a given WU type (determined on server side as it is knows before how much effort is needed to calculate a WU) and this sets the "worth" of a WU. It doesn't matter on which device that WU is calculated, on a fast or a slow CPU or a GPU, it will give the same amount of credit, independently if it needs only a minute on a GPU or two hours on a CPU.

    So you are a bit too late with your two cents ;)
    ID: 31933 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
    Odd-Rod

    Send message
    Joined: 7 Sep 07
    Posts: 444
    Credit: 5,712,523
    RAC: 4
    Message 31938 - Posted: 4 Oct 2009, 6:27:43 UTC - in response to Message 31933.  

    it will give the same amount of credit, independently if it needs only a minute on a GPU or two hours on a CPU.


    Or nearly two days on my dear old PII 400MHz laptop! :D

    (About 1 day 19 hours for a credit rate of around 1.2 credits per hour!)
    ID: 31938 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
    Profile verstapp
    Avatar

    Send message
    Joined: 26 Jan 09
    Posts: 589
    Credit: 497,834,261
    RAC: 0
    Message 31952 - Posted: 4 Oct 2009, 11:24:00 UTC

    Perhaps time to upgrade the PII? :)
    Cheers,

    PeterV

    .
    ID: 31952 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
    Profile TomaszPawel
    Avatar

    Send message
    Joined: 9 Nov 08
    Posts: 41
    Credit: 92,786,635
    RAC: 0
    Message 32380 - Posted: 15 Oct 2009, 10:05:37 UTC - in response to Message 31952.  

    ID: 32380 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
    Profile krahulik

    Send message
    Joined: 7 Nov 08
    Posts: 14
    Credit: 180,768,799
    RAC: 0
    Message 32383 - Posted: 15 Oct 2009, 11:02:17 UTC - in response to Message 32380.  

    Hmmmm...
    Very interesting results.... http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/results.php?hostid=107881&offset=0&show_names=0&state=3

    You are right. "Very interesting" times for two RV 670...
    ID: 32383 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
    Cluster Physik

    Send message
    Joined: 26 Jul 08
    Posts: 627
    Credit: 94,940,203
    RAC: 0
    Message 32392 - Posted: 15 Oct 2009, 15:47:48 UTC - in response to Message 32383.  
    Last modified: 15 Oct 2009, 15:48:22 UTC

    Hmmmm...
    Very interesting results.... http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/results.php?hostid=107881&offset=0&show_names=0&state=3

    You are right. "Very interesting" times for two RV 670...

    He is running a script that alters the WUs after downloading. He reduces the number of iterations calculated in the WUs resulting in a massive speedup. And I can prove it. I will notify Travis/Anthony of this cheater. In my opinion this guy should be banned.
    ID: 32392 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
    Profile Beyond
    Avatar

    Send message
    Joined: 15 Jul 08
    Posts: 383
    Credit: 729,293,740
    RAC: 0
    Message 32394 - Posted: 15 Oct 2009, 17:15:28 UTC - in response to Message 32392.  

    He is running a script that alters the WUs after downloading. He reduces the number of iterations calculated in the WUs resulting in a massive speedup. And I can prove it. I will notify Travis/Anthony of this cheater. In my opinion this guy should be banned.

    Maybe there could be a validator check to make sure the number of iterations is correct (320?).
    ID: 32394 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
    Profile TomaszPawel
    Avatar

    Send message
    Joined: 9 Nov 08
    Posts: 41
    Credit: 92,786,635
    RAC: 0
    Message 32396 - Posted: 15 Oct 2009, 17:39:12 UTC - in response to Message 32392.  
    Last modified: 15 Oct 2009, 17:42:36 UTC

    Hmmmm...
    Very interesting results.... http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/results.php?hostid=107881&offset=0&show_names=0&state=3

    You are right. "Very interesting" times for two RV 670...

    He is running a script that alters the WUs after downloading. He reduces the number of iterations calculated in the WUs resulting in a massive speedup. And I can prove it. I will notify Travis/Anthony of this cheater. In my opinion this guy should be banned.


    If it is real cheat, he should not only be banned but also it is necessary to get his all points back
    A proud member of the Polish National Team

    COME VISIT US at Polish National Team FORUM

    ID: 32396 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
    Cluster Physik

    Send message
    Joined: 26 Jul 08
    Posts: 627
    Credit: 94,940,203
    RAC: 0
    Message 32397 - Posted: 15 Oct 2009, 18:01:44 UTC - in response to Message 32394.  

    He is running a script that alters the WUs after downloading. He reduces the number of iterations calculated in the WUs resulting in a massive speedup. And I can prove it. I will notify Travis/Anthony of this cheater. In my opinion this guy should be banned.

    Maybe there could be a validator check to make sure the number of iterations is correct (320?).

    He changed more than this single value. He cuts the computational effort for a WU to about 1/36 of the required one.

    There are several ways to make such cheating harder with the validator of course an important part of it. But I'm not in the position to decide about the measures to take.
    ID: 32397 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
    Cluster Physik

    Send message
    Joined: 26 Jul 08
    Posts: 627
    Credit: 94,940,203
    RAC: 0
    Message 32398 - Posted: 15 Oct 2009, 18:11:48 UTC - in response to Message 32396.  

    Hmmmm...
    Very interesting results.... http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/results.php?hostid=107881&offset=0&show_names=0&state=3

    You are right. "Very interesting" times for two RV 670...

    He is running a script that alters the WUs after downloading. He reduces the number of iterations calculated in the WUs resulting in a massive speedup. And I can prove it. I will notify Travis/Anthony of this cheater. In my opinion this guy should be banned.

    If it is real cheat, he should not only be banned but also it is necessary to get his all points back

    I agree. And I think it is proven that he cheats (for a few days already) with full intent and also compromises the results in that course. He "earned" more than 160,000 credits just in the last 6 hours with this cheat. At this rate, he would need about 4 days to arrive at the RAC for the affected machine. That are at least about 2.5 million credits he got through cheating. But in my opinion it wouldn't be enough to remove just the 2.5 million credits. I totally agree with you in that.
    ID: 32398 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
    Profile TomaszPawel
    Avatar

    Send message
    Joined: 9 Nov 08
    Posts: 41
    Credit: 92,786,635
    RAC: 0
    Message 32399 - Posted: 15 Oct 2009, 18:15:49 UTC - in response to Message 32398.  
    Last modified: 15 Oct 2009, 18:17:11 UTC

    WTF, i don't know what is going on....

    See this..... :(
    http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/results.php?hostid=71433&offset=0&show_names=0&state=3

    Maby BOINC is not reporting correct times.... or maby not....
    A proud member of the Polish National Team

    COME VISIT US at Polish National Team FORUM

    ID: 32399 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
    Cluster Physik

    Send message
    Joined: 26 Jul 08
    Posts: 627
    Credit: 94,940,203
    RAC: 0
    Message 32401 - Posted: 15 Oct 2009, 19:13:24 UTC - in response to Message 32399.  

    WTF, i don't know what is going on....

    See this..... :(
    http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/results.php?hostid=71433&offset=0&show_names=0&state=3

    Maby BOINC is not reporting correct times.... or maby not....

    That are just the CPU times. It's all okay with them.
    ID: 32401 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
    Previous · 1 . . . 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · Next

    Message boards : Number crunching : Credit lowering

    ©2024 Astroinformatics Group