Welcome to MilkyWay@home

credit table 2.0


Advanced search

Message boards : Number crunching : credit table 2.0
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
boosted

Send message
Joined: 4 Feb 08
Posts: 116
Credit: 17,263,566
RAC: 0
10 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 32811 - Posted: 27 Oct 2009, 0:15:43 UTC
Last modified: 27 Oct 2009, 0:25:04 UTC

These are the rules...

If you want to argue stay out.
If you want to debate come in.


If you are going to make a claim, have something to back it up, or at the very least use realistic examples.

To be VERY clear, this discussion pertains to THIS PROJECT AND THIS PROJECT ONLY. This project or its participants does not care about what other projects do, or how they are set up. You bring in other projects as examples you lose. capiche?

Now on with the debate...

Brian... I am going to attempt to see where you are coming from and where you (or myself) are going astray, but you must agree to do the same, otherwise we are both wasting time. If we do not acknowledge the others points, especially valid ones nothing is learned.


This is your exact example (just using my wording and numbers) I am also removing credit completely from this example, understood?

If computer A) does 275,124 work units in a particular time frame(the actual amount is hamudgen, or meaningless).
If computer B) does 275,124 work units in half the time.

Which computer did more work?

Just because it took longer for one computer to reach the same amount of completed units it means it did more work?

This was and is my entire point. A point that you continuously ignored.
All things considered equal a fast computer will do more work than a slower one. Is this correct?

This was why I went through and did the work units per day/month/year comparison. I totally ignored and removed the credit argument from that equation, you kept trying to put it back in using cobblestones and comparing percentages of whatever in your replies.

I brought in hard numbers. Using easy to see and realistic examples and numbers.

You did not refute a single portion of any of it with anything. You threw up statement after statement using all these other things that are meaningless to what is being discussed. Attempting to bring in all these other projects and what they are doing. Who cares what they are doing, they are not running THIS project.
We are discussing THIS project and THIS project only.
This project set its own credit system using the same equations that many other projects use. So the basis for the credit granting is valid.

I also showed that CPU tasks are indeed paid higher than GPU tasks. You agreed with this, yet you still said that we had no right to complain because we were getting so much credit anyway. At least that was your very clear implication.

THAT again was one of my points. If the project were to treat ALL work units equally the GPU people would actually be getting MUCH MORE credit than they actually are right now. And again as I said before, they are now debating on lowering the credit granted per work unit done again.

I am breaking this down to the most basic form. Work units and the amount of work units that are or can be done by any particular system.

I am not focusing in on any one particular thing that you have said, I am being very fair, very open and supporting my statements with evidence... or at the very least realistic examples.
ID: 32811 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Profilebanditwolf
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Nov 07
Posts: 2425
Credit: 524,164
RAC: 0
500 thousand credit badge10 year member badge
Message 32812 - Posted: 27 Oct 2009, 0:24:21 UTC - in response to Message 32811.  

If computer A) does 275,124 work units in a particular time frame(the actual amount is hamudgen, or meaningless).
If computer B) does 275,124 work units in half the time.

Which computer did more work?

Just because it took longer for one computer to reach the same amount of completed units it means it did more work?

This was and is my entire point. A point that you continuously ignored.
All things considered equal a fast computer will do more work than a slower one. Is this correct?

I agree with this. It will happen with tech becoming faster, more can be done faster. If a gpu takes less steps than a cpu does, I would understand if the credit was altered accordingly, still the same credit/work done.

I can't wait until I do get new computer with a gpu so I can zip through the credits too. :p
Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?
If it makes sense, DON'T do it.
ID: 32812 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
boosted

Send message
Joined: 4 Feb 08
Posts: 116
Credit: 17,263,566
RAC: 0
10 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 32814 - Posted: 27 Oct 2009, 0:35:03 UTC - in response to Message 32812.  
Last modified: 27 Oct 2009, 0:36:03 UTC

We can do this one step at a time.
Tackle one issue at a time.
Come to a consensus on it, then move to another.

Obviously the first one I brought up is pure work unit completion comparisons. Time is somewhat of a non issue. Just sheer number completion.

We can tackle credit comparisons, and credit amounts later.
ID: 32814 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Brian Silvers

Send message
Joined: 21 Aug 08
Posts: 625
Credit: 558,425
RAC: 0
500 thousand credit badge10 year member badge
Message 32815 - Posted: 27 Oct 2009, 1:35:29 UTC - in response to Message 32811.  
Last modified: 27 Oct 2009, 1:40:01 UTC

If computer A) does 275,124 work units in a particular time frame(the actual amount is hamudgen, or meaningless).
If computer B) does 275,124 work units in half the time.

Which computer did more work?

Just because it took longer for one computer to reach the same amount of completed units it means it did more work?

This was and is my entire point. A point that you continuously ignored.
All things considered equal a fast computer will do more work than a slower one. Is this correct?


This is my final post on this subject. I wasn't going to post anything at all, but it is clear that you have some major misunderstandings about the BOINC credit system and how it works, and what the Cross Project Parity fanatics look at to justify their views.

In the scenario above, both computers did the same amount of work. They both did 275,124 work units.

BOINC-wide standings though are not based on total number of work units. With SETI Classic, they were. With BOINC, they are not. It does not matter if you don't want to talk about other projects, as the people who will be bringing this to you won't respect your wishes. If the CPP crowd knew that the basis for the charts that they use to compare projects was distorted as badly as it is, they'd be all up in Travis's email demanding further cuts.

What you are not understanding is that each change that has happened across the many years, across any of the projects, impacts the net worth of a work unit that was processed during a different credit granting era/scheme/epoch.

I stated that I found it to be impossible that your system here has done more work in what amounts to be 7-8 days (it was 2.5x for 21 days) than what my systems had done in 4 years on other projects. Regardless of whether you want to talk about other projects, again, David Anderson isn't going to respect your "because I said it's not allowed to be talked about" decree.

What happens each time that a project lowers credit per unit time is that new users have to do more work to attain the same total credit as users who processed under the older, higher credit rate. This potentially sets up a situation where older users not only have a "head start" over newer users, the newer users have a handicap.

If you know accounting terms, the way things have happened with David Anderson at the helm mandating these reductions, is the Net Future Value of work is always less than the Net Present Value. Also true with that is the Net Present Value is less than the Net Past Value (if such a thing existed). It is a continually deflationary cycle. That is what has happened, whether you want to talk about it without restrictions or not.

The prime example I gave was Cosmology. My average credit/time there is barely above the BOINC benchmark * time method. I get 420 credits for 22-28 hours of work sometimes. Cross Project Parity fanatics got ahold of that project. We were told that the "excessive credits of the past make up for the low credits now" (in a nutshell).


This was why I went through and did the work units per day/month/year comparison. I totally ignored and removed the credit argument from that equation, you kept trying to put it back in using cobblestones and comparing percentages of whatever in your replies.


...because that's the way that the BOINC credit and ranking system really works. It is pointless to talk about workunits done when the ranking system doesn't rank people on workunits done. It ranks people on credits obtained. As I said, the credit trend is continually deflationary, not static. The cut that hit anyone still using app version 0.19 here was pure deflation. They are still doing the same work with the same application, just getting less for it.

Again, you cannot just ignore the pieces that you want to ignore and talk about the pieces that you want to talk about. David Anderson isn't going to honor that...and it would behoove you to try to figure out a real counter-argument to what he and the CPP fanatics will say rather than just "well I don't want to talk about that".


I am not focusing in on any one particular thing that you have said, I am being very fair, very open and supporting my statements with evidence... or at the very least realistic examples.


The problem is, the realistic examples that I've brought in, you just call bunk as you don't want to talk about it. David Anderson, John McLeod VII, and a host of other people are not going to have one bit of respect for "I don't want to talk about that". They are the ones that will make the decision and implement it. Telling them "you can't talk about that" is just going to get you laughed at by them and ignored.

Adios...
ID: 32815 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
boosted

Send message
Joined: 4 Feb 08
Posts: 116
Credit: 17,263,566
RAC: 0
10 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 32824 - Posted: 27 Oct 2009, 14:53:46 UTC - in response to Message 32815.  

If computer A) does 275,124 work units in a particular time frame(the actual amount is hamudgen, or meaningless).
If computer B) does 275,124 work units in half the time.

Which computer did more work?

Just because it took longer for one computer to reach the same amount of completed units it means it did more work?

This was and is my entire point. A point that you continuously ignored.
All things considered equal a fast computer will do more work than a slower one. Is this correct?


This is my final post on this subject. I wasn't going to post anything at all, but it is clear that you have some major misunderstandings about the BOINC credit system and how it works, and what the Cross Project Parity fanatics look at to justify their views.

In the scenario above, both computers did the same amount of work. They both did 275,124 work units.

BOINC-wide standings though are not based on total number of work units. With SETI Classic, they were. With BOINC, they are not. It does not matter if you don't want to talk about other projects, as the people who will be bringing this to you won't respect your wishes. If the CPP crowd knew that the basis for the charts that they use to compare projects was distorted as badly as it is, they'd be all up in Travis's email demanding further cuts.

What you are not understanding is that each change that has happened across the many years, across any of the projects, impacts the net worth of a work unit that was processed during a different credit granting era/scheme/epoch.

I stated that I found it to be impossible that your system here has done more work in what amounts to be 7-8 days (it was 2.5x for 21 days) than what my systems had done in 4 years on other projects. Regardless of whether you want to talk about other projects, again, David Anderson isn't going to respect your "because I said it's not allowed to be talked about" decree.

What happens each time that a project lowers credit per unit time is that new users have to do more work to attain the same total credit as users who processed under the older, higher credit rate. This potentially sets up a situation where older users not only have a "head start" over newer users, the newer users have a handicap.

If you know accounting terms, the way things have happened with David Anderson at the helm mandating these reductions, is the Net Future Value of work is always less than the Net Present Value. Also true with that is the Net Present Value is less than the Net Past Value (if such a thing existed). It is a continually deflationary cycle. That is what has happened, whether you want to talk about it without restrictions or not.

The prime example I gave was Cosmology. My average credit/time there is barely above the BOINC benchmark * time method. I get 420 credits for 22-28 hours of work sometimes. Cross Project Parity fanatics got ahold of that project. We were told that the "excessive credits of the past make up for the low credits now" (in a nutshell).


This was why I went through and did the work units per day/month/year comparison. I totally ignored and removed the credit argument from that equation, you kept trying to put it back in using cobblestones and comparing percentages of whatever in your replies.


...because that's the way that the BOINC credit and ranking system really works. It is pointless to talk about workunits done when the ranking system doesn't rank people on workunits done. It ranks people on credits obtained. As I said, the credit trend is continually deflationary, not static. The cut that hit anyone still using app version 0.19 here was pure deflation. They are still doing the same work with the same application, just getting less for it.

Again, you cannot just ignore the pieces that you want to ignore and talk about the pieces that you want to talk about. David Anderson isn't going to honor that...and it would behoove you to try to figure out a real counter-argument to what he and the CPP fanatics will say rather than just "well I don't want to talk about that".


I am not focusing in on any one particular thing that you have said, I am being very fair, very open and supporting my statements with evidence... or at the very least realistic examples.


The problem is, the realistic examples that I've brought in, you just call bunk as you don't want to talk about it. David Anderson, John McLeod VII, and a host of other people are not going to have one bit of respect for "I don't want to talk about that". They are the ones that will make the decision and implement it. Telling them "you can't talk about that" is just going to get you laughed at by them and ignored.

Adios...

then you fail.
You want to argue not learn.
You simply do not want to go over what I am trying to explain, you want to talk about everything but that. Anything that could possibly show that no matter what you are right and everyone else is wrong.

Point A)
The simple fact is this...
If system A) can do 100 work units a day.
If system B) can do 1000 work units a day.
If System C) can do 3000 work units a day.
which system is going to get more work done?
The is the fundamental premise that you ignore.

Point B)
Credit is based on work unit completion.
If a system can do 100 times the work in the same period compared to another system, whom is going to get more credit?

You want to argue this...
Computer A) has 200,000 credits for completing 20,000 work units.
Computer B) has 200,000 credits for completing 18,000 work units.

However computer B) did those units in 1/5 of the time. Duh I am not stupid, computer A) did more work. However the time differential is in computer B)'s favor and it will surpass the amount of work done by computer A) in a fraction of the time. Also gaining more credit than A) in the process.
This is what you so carefully ignore. While computer B) may have got more credit per work unit, computer B) WILL complete more of them.

You are not going to tell me that my system that does 1,080,000 work units (GPU alone) a year has 'done less work' than your system that does 4320 (single core) work units a year then bitch and complain that my system has more credit, and has "done less work". The facts are simple and absolutely do not add up no matter how you want to slice the credit pie. It is a sheer numbers game, a game that you will always lose no matter how many time you try to adapt the rules.

Get over it, get used to it, game over.

You are full of it, it has been proven and since you do not care to actually debate or even attempt to put any understanding into this I can call you what you are... and what everyone else thinks you are. A whiny complaining little...

ID: 32824 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
boosted

Send message
Joined: 4 Feb 08
Posts: 116
Credit: 17,263,566
RAC: 0
10 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 32827 - Posted: 27 Oct 2009, 18:46:32 UTC

this can go ahead and be locked now.
ID: 32827 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Thamir Ghaslan

Send message
Joined: 31 Mar 08
Posts: 61
Credit: 18,325,284
RAC: 0
10 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 32828 - Posted: 27 Oct 2009, 19:06:38 UTC - in response to Message 32827.  

i'm a forum observer, an ex project participant, as i've found collatz much more inviting, from active project admins and never ending work feeds.

road runner, the fastest computer on earth, is primarily made up of cell, the stuff that runs play station 3, and as far as i'm concerned, its a GPU!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Roadrunner

i know my contribution is pointless to the admins here, but just food for thought!

ID: 32828 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Chris S
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Sep 08
Posts: 1387
Credit: 186,726,858
RAC: 0
100 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 32830 - Posted: 27 Oct 2009, 19:34:43 UTC

You are full of it, it has been proven and since you do not care to actually debate or even attempt to put any understanding into this I can call you what you are... and what everyone else thinks you are. A whiny complaining little...


OK Admins, enough is enough. Childish name calling is not suitable for an adult conversation. I agree this thread shoud be locked.
Don't drink water, that's the stuff that rusts pipes
ID: 32830 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Brian Silvers

Send message
Joined: 21 Aug 08
Posts: 625
Credit: 558,425
RAC: 0
500 thousand credit badge10 year member badge
Message 32836 - Posted: 28 Oct 2009, 0:55:57 UTC - in response to Message 32830.  

You are full of it, it has been proven and since you do not care to actually debate or even attempt to put any understanding into this I can call you what you are... and what everyone else thinks you are. A whiny complaining little...


OK Admins, enough is enough. Childish name calling is not suitable for an adult conversation. I agree this thread shoud be locked.


It's ok. I am going to reply to him one more time, and the thread does not have to be locked unless he lobs more insults, something which I am not doing to him...

Actually, I have two posts, one reply to him, one to the thread in general.
ID: 32836 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Brian Silvers

Send message
Joined: 21 Aug 08
Posts: 625
Credit: 558,425
RAC: 0
500 thousand credit badge10 year member badge
Message 32837 - Posted: 28 Oct 2009, 0:56:31 UTC
Last modified: 28 Oct 2009, 1:53:59 UTC

7 iterations of 4000 tasks that award declining amounts of credit in Project A. Each task takes 15 seconds for a total runtime of 1000 minutes for each iteration ("day").

4000 * 30 = 120000
4000 * 26 = 104000
4000 * 23 = 92000
4000 * 21 = 84000
4000 * 20 = 80000
4000 * 19 = 76000
4000 * 18 = 72000

120000 + 104000 + 92000 + 84000 + 80000 + 76000 + 72000 = 628000

628000 credits for 28000 tasks completed. Average credit per task = 22.42857


7 iterations of 3000 tasks that award a fixed amount of credit initially 1/3rd larger than in the first example in Project B. Each task takes 5 seconds for a total runtime of 250 minutes for each iteration ("day").

3000 * 40 * 7 = 840000

840000 credits for 21000 tasks completed. Average credit per task = 40.00000


The built-in deflationary value of credit awarded over time with regards to BOINC-wide leader standings, which include all projects, whether or not one wants to talk about other projects, causes an inability to state with absolute certainty that a system with 840000 credits actually has done more work than a system with 628000 credits, but yet the BOINC-wide leader boards unanimously indicate that the system with 840000 credits has a higher numerical ranking amongst systems than the system that has 628000 credits.

The unknown / undefined value that determines which system should be ranked higher than the other is the total number of operations performed. A higher number of operations by the second system would justify it being ranked higher in the standings.

  • If the first system performed 1 million operations and the second system performed 1 million operations, then they should be ranked the same.
  • If the first system performed 1 million operations and the second system performed 2 million operations, then the second system should be ranked higher.
  • If the first system peformed 100 thousand operations and the second system performed 1 million operations, then the second system should be ranked higher.
  • If the first system performed 1 million operations and the second system performed 300 thousand operations, then the first system should be ranked higher.



You will note that the time component never enters the equation.

In that last example, if the second system had run for the same 1000 minutes, it would've done 4 times as much, and thus would've performed 1.2 million operations. However, the unrealized potential for work performed cannot be factored in. To do so would be equivalent of asking your employer to pay you for 40 hours when you only worked for 10. Payment for work is done upon the completion of the work, with the exception of CPDN which has its' own justifiable reason for a pay-as-you-go process due to the extreme length of their tasks. The "future potential" of a system does not earn it credits, nor should it, as that would merely lead to more people trying coerce projects into giving them credit without the slightest intention of doing the work.

If at some point in time a technique to reduce the total number of operations needed to complete a task is implemented, if that technique can be shared across all architectures, the credit per operation should drop by the same ratio. This would keep the credit per each operation the same and would retain the ability to discern which systems should be ranked higher or lower than other systems.

ID: 32837 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Brian Silvers

Send message
Joined: 21 Aug 08
Posts: 625
Credit: 558,425
RAC: 0
500 thousand credit badge10 year member badge
Message 32841 - Posted: 28 Oct 2009, 1:19:32 UTC - in response to Message 32824.  
Last modified: 28 Oct 2009, 1:45:35 UTC

Important points from me that you seem to be missing are bolded and underlined.


You want to argue not learn.
You simply do not want to go over what I am trying to explain, you want to talk about everything but that. Anything that could possibly show that no matter what you are right and everyone else is wrong.


Actually, you have a misunderstanding of what I originally said, thus you're attempting to talk about things that I wasn't... Why should I talk about something that I wasn't trying to say? Why should I be belittled for not talking about something that I wasn't trying to say?


Point A)
The simple fact is this...
If system A) can do 100 work units a day.
If system B) can do 1000 work units a day.
If System C) can do 3000 work units a day.
which system is going to get more work done?
The is the fundamental premise that you ignore.


If you read my post that starts out with the 7 iterations of 4000 tasks...and truly try to understand it, what I've been trying to tell you is that over the course of 4 years I've had numerous deflations in the amount of credit I earn.

I was never talking about this project and this project only when I said that I find it impossible to believe that you have done more work in 7 days than mine have done in 4 years.

The BOINC-wide standings that you post in your SIGNATURE GRAPHIC is what I was talking about. You gained the same number of total credit, yes, CREDIT, from this project in 7 days than I have been able to obtain from two systems and 5 projects in 4 years.

Over time, the deflationary cycle reduced the total amount of credit that I was able to obtain. The BOINC-wide standings are credit-based, not workunit based, thus 1.3 million credits obtained by you may or may not be the same as 1.3 million credits obtained by me. The uncertainty is due to the lack of a standard and the continual deflation over time which I've experienced more of than your system has with this single one week timeframe.

Since I kept getting smaller amounts of credit for either the same or more complex work, the total amount of credit I have obtained is less than it would've been if the deflation hadn't happened.

This project's credit award is still higher than the historical high for any project that I have participated in. As such, your credit awards running the GPU application are higher than the projects I have participated in. Even if you do more of them, and that is not in dispute, the credit award for each one has a larger gap between each task that I completed for all of the other projects, with the gap being larger for more recent work and smaller for the oldest work due to the deflation involved.

My point is that it is much easier for you to overtake the total number of credits that I obtained by processing tasks here because you haven't had the deflation penalty and the fact that the tasks award more than the historical high of the other projects, and we won't even talk about the average historical reward of the other projects...

It does not matter to me if you want to talk about "workunits".

THAT IS NOT WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT!

...and like Will Smith said in "Men In Black", I'd appreciate it if you eased up off of my back about it...


However computer B) did those units in 1/5 of the time. Duh I am not stupid, computer A) did more work. However the time differential is in computer B)'s favor and it will surpass the amount of work done by computer A) in a fraction of the time. Also gaining more credit than A) in the process.
This is what you so carefully ignore. While computer B) may have got more credit per work unit, computer B) WILL complete more of them.


As I said in my other post, future potential is not justification for credit rewards.

This point you're trying to make though is being driven by your mistaken understanding of the original nature of what I said. If you do not believe that I'm telling you that you're mistakenly barking up the wrong proverbial tree, then there's nothing that can be said that will change your tone and demeanor...and thus we would need to agree to disagree...
ID: 32841 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
ProfileGalaxyIce
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 6 Apr 08
Posts: 2018
Credit: 100,142,856
RAC: 0
100 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 32844 - Posted: 28 Oct 2009, 2:13:50 UTC
Last modified: 28 Oct 2009, 2:17:10 UTC

I don't care for all this superfluous bolded and underlined shouting and screaming.

I do care for boosted's good, clear, and well put comments; well done.

ID: 32844 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive

Message boards : Number crunching : credit table 2.0

©2020 Astroinformatics Group