Welcome to MilkyWay@home

Cruncher's MW Concerns


Advanced search

Message boards : Number crunching : Cruncher's MW Concerns
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · Next

AuthorMessage
ProfileZiffen63

Send message
Joined: 26 Mar 09
Posts: 7
Credit: 677,027
RAC: 96
500 thousand credit badge10 year member badge
Message 33831 - Posted: 27 Nov 2009, 15:39:09 UTC
Last modified: 27 Nov 2009, 15:40:29 UTC

Where have the team stats disappeared to!?
ID: 33831 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
BarryAZ

Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 08
Posts: 519
Credit: 282,956,075
RAC: 3,397
200 million credit badge10 year member badgeextraordinary contributions badge
Message 33832 - Posted: 27 Nov 2009, 16:39:01 UTC - in response to Message 33831.  

I noticed that as well -- perhaps something has gone amiss in the MW database in the last 24 hours...

Where have the team stats disappeared to!?


ID: 33832 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
ProfileSorceress
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 08
Posts: 22
Credit: 63,967
RAC: 0
10 thousand credit badge10 year member badge
Message 33834 - Posted: 27 Nov 2009, 17:43:47 UTC - in response to Message 33829.  

The projects I mentioned pay better for ME. Your reply to Sailor's post, validates my point. With GPU/CPUs performances all over the map, everybody's facts will be different.



Personally I don't see how anybody could complain about the crediting on this project. Cut it half... still be more than any other project.


My original post was to address the above statement. Nothing else. It has nothing to do with GPUs,CPUs, percentages, power supplies, etc. I simply pointed out that I am complaining about the credit system on this project. MW has set the requirements for GPU computing outside the parameters of my card. Just like Einstein. Fine. But I dont like it. So Collatz and Seti Beta pay me more.

This project has always been whacky and caters to those with high end machines. But dont go making generalization about the rest of us. That don't always apply. I rest my case
ID: 33834 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Skip Da Shu

Send message
Joined: 11 Apr 08
Posts: 65
Credit: 35,654,867
RAC: 2,120
30 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 33853 - Posted: 27 Nov 2009, 20:25:16 UTC - in response to Message 33834.  

The projects I mentioned pay better for ME. Your reply to Sailor's post, validates my point. With GPU/CPUs performances all over the map, everybody's facts will be different.

Personally I don't see how anybody could complain about the crediting on this project. Cut it half... still be more than any other project.

My original post was to address the above statement. Nothing else. It has nothing to do with GPUs,CPUs, percentages, power supplies, etc. I simply pointed out that I am complaining about the credit system on this project. MW has set the requirements for GPU computing outside the parameters of my card. Just like Einstein. Fine. But I dont like it. So Collatz and Seti Beta pay me more.

Your statements assumes everyone else in the world is just like YOU. Ridiculous, yes?

So you are comparing GPU on collatz/gpugrid to cpu on MW?

I think it's you that's gone down 'ridiculous alley' my friend. The point is that, like someone else said oranges to oranges... or even oranges to tangerines, MW is the top payor.
ID: 33853 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
ProfileKevint
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Nov 07
Posts: 285
Credit: 1,076,786,368
RAC: 0
1 billion credit badge10 year member badge
Message 33945 - Posted: 29 Nov 2009, 16:43:11 UTC
Last modified: 29 Nov 2009, 16:46:35 UTC

MW is still a CPU project.

The project has not come out with a ATI/CAL app that I know of.
They have come out with a CUDA app, and from what I remember, it is near baseline with the other CUDA projects.. I.e. GPUGrid.

Being such, the ATI app is optimized.

Run the baseline benchmarks for comparisons.

Stock CPU app vs Stock CPU app. Any third party optimizations(unless adopted by the project at large) remain outside the baseline credit comparison charts.

Given that, MW is not the highest paying project. That ribbon currently goes to Aqua or Primgrid/64 bit apps


But again, any cross project parity is a myth, a dream for DA, and a nigtmare for project admins. And a socialists focus.

Free societies determine the amount of pay/credit given, not the king.
.
ID: 33945 · 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 33951 - Posted: 29 Nov 2009, 17:40:05 UTC - in response to Message 33945.  
Last modified: 29 Nov 2009, 17:40:52 UTC

Stock CPU app vs Stock CPU app. Any third party optimizations(unless adopted by the project at large) remain outside the baseline credit comparison charts.

Given that, MW is not the highest paying project. That ribbon currently goes to Aqua or Primgrid/64 bit apps


None of us are going to crunch stock CPU MW since there is an MW op app that gives far more credits.

Which is faster, stock CPU Aqua or optimized CPU MW ?

ID: 33951 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
ProfileKevint
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Nov 07
Posts: 285
Credit: 1,076,786,368
RAC: 0
1 billion credit badge10 year member badge
Message 33956 - Posted: 29 Nov 2009, 19:12:38 UTC - in response to Message 33951.  
Last modified: 29 Nov 2009, 19:14:13 UTC

Stock CPU app vs Stock CPU app. Any third party optimizations(unless adopted by the project at large) remain outside the baseline credit comparison charts.

Given that, MW is not the highest paying project. That ribbon currently goes to Aqua or Primgrid/64 bit apps


None of us are going to crunch stock CPU MW since there is an MW op app that gives far more credits.

Which is faster, stock CPU Aqua or optimized CPU MW ?



Absolutely does not matter, baseline benchmarks should be based on baseline apps. And credit "should" be based on this benchmark. If you truly want some stupid lame cross project parity reached.

Stock Aqua, against Stock MW.. Aqua would be higher paying.

Does not matter if people use the stock app here or not, the stock app is the one distributed by the project, and credit should be based solely on the stock app.

And you might be surprised how many do crunch with just the stock app. In most cases, these would be the people that don't visit the message boards. They just attach and let it run. I have several friends that crunch just that way, and yes, they are using the stock-non optimized app.
So your comment of "None of us" is a just a little bit short sighted. IMO.


And the biggest thing you are mistaken about, the optimized app does not "gives far more credits" it just runs the same WU's faster. It does not give more credit per WU.
.
ID: 33956 · 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 33958 - Posted: 29 Nov 2009, 19:51:05 UTC

I am sure there is a lot of users who don't know/trust or want to bother with the opti apps.
Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?
If it makes sense, DON'T do it.
ID: 33958 · 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 33961 - Posted: 29 Nov 2009, 20:10:31 UTC - in response to Message 33956.  
Last modified: 29 Nov 2009, 20:10:56 UTC

Stock CPU app vs Stock CPU app. Any third party optimizations(unless adopted by the project at large) remain outside the baseline credit comparison charts.

Given that, MW is not the highest paying project. That ribbon currently goes to Aqua or Primgrid/64 bit apps


None of us are going to crunch stock CPU MW since there is an MW op app that gives far more credits.

Which is faster, stock CPU Aqua or optimized CPU MW ?



Absolutely does not matter, baseline benchmarks should be based on baseline apps. And credit "should" be based on this benchmark. If you truly want some stupid lame cross project parity reached.

Stock Aqua, against Stock MW.. Aqua would be higher paying.

Does not matter if people use the stock app here or not, the stock app is the one distributed by the project, and credit should be based solely on the stock app.

And you might be surprised how many do crunch with just the stock app. In most cases, these would be the people that don't visit the message boards. They just attach and let it run. I have several friends that crunch just that way, and yes, they are using the stock-non optimized app.
So your comment of "None of us" is a just a little bit short sighted. IMO.


And the biggest thing you are mistaken about, the optimized app does not "gives far more credits" it just runs the same WU's faster. It does not give more credit per WU.

I wasn't asking about benchmarks or what you prefer to compare to what. Which is going to give more credits. Optimized CPU MW or CPU AQUA?

Given that, MW is not the highest paying project. That ribbon currently goes to Aqua or Primgrid/64 bit apps


Does crunching MW CPU with op apps give me more credits than AQUA, yes or no?

Does MW op app CPU in fact have the ribbon, not AQUA?

ID: 33961 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Skip Da Shu

Send message
Joined: 11 Apr 08
Posts: 65
Credit: 35,654,867
RAC: 2,120
30 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 33962 - Posted: 29 Nov 2009, 20:35:14 UTC - in response to Message 33945.  

MW is still a CPU project.

The project has not come out with a ATI/CAL app that I know of.
They have come out with a CUDA app, and from what I remember, it is near baseline with the other CUDA projects.. I.e. GPUGrid.

Being such, the ATI app is optimized.

Run the baseline benchmarks for comparisons.

Stock CPU app vs Stock CPU app. Any third party optimizations(unless adopted by the project at large) remain outside the baseline credit comparison charts.

Given that, MW is not the highest paying project. That ribbon currently goes to Aqua or Primgrid/64 bit apps


Good point, if you cut out the app that is producing XX% (insert unknown but suspected high number) of the credits on the project you are quite right.


But again, any cross project parity is a myth, a dream for DA, and a nigtmare for project admins. And a socialists focus.

Free societies determine the amount of pay/credit given, not the king.


All hail the king... ;-)
- da shu @ HeliOS,
"A child's exposure to technology should never be predicated on an ability to afford it."
ID: 33962 · 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 33963 - Posted: 29 Nov 2009, 20:52:33 UTC - in response to Message 33962.  
Last modified: 29 Nov 2009, 20:54:09 UTC

Given that, MW is not the highest paying project. That ribbon currently goes to Aqua or Primgrid/64 bit apps


Good point, if you cut out the app that is producing XX% (insert unknown but suspected high number) of the credits on the project you are quite right.

Now we're getting somewhere. I can do A or B. One or the other.

If I do A = CPU AQUA, will I get more credits than B = CPU MW with optimised app ?

I can do A or B on my computer. Which gives me the more credits ?

ID: 33963 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
ProfileKevint
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Nov 07
Posts: 285
Credit: 1,076,786,368
RAC: 0
1 billion credit badge10 year member badge
Message 33973 - Posted: 29 Nov 2009, 23:11:25 UTC - in response to Message 33961.  



Does crunching MW CPU with op apps give me more credits than AQUA, yes or no?

Does MW op app CPU in fact have the ribbon, not AQUA?



Again, it absolutely does not matter.

For baseline comparisons, you can not compare a third party optimized app with a project vanilla non-optimized app. Not only is it non-scientific, it is just dumb.
In fact, what is even more dumb than that, is comparing credits of any project against any other project. Cross project parity is a socialists point of view.

(but if you must - yes Aqua-64 bit still grants higher credit per hour than MW/CPU-Opti app- don't believe me, test it for yourself)

And again, the MW opt app or even the GPU app for that matter does not give more credits than the production app, it only allows us to crunch the WU's faster, credit per WU is the same. Credits here are fixed.






.
ID: 33973 · 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 33974 - Posted: 30 Nov 2009, 0:10:24 UTC - in response to Message 33973.  



Does crunching MW CPU with op apps give me more credits than AQUA, yes or no?

Does MW op app CPU in fact have the ribbon, not AQUA?



Again, it absolutely does not matter.

For baseline comparisons, you can not compare a third party optimized app with a project vanilla non-optimized app. Not only is it non-scientific, it is just dumb.
In fact, what is even more dumb than that, is comparing credits of any project against any other project. Cross project parity is a socialists point of view.

(but if you must - yes Aqua-64 bit still grants higher credit per hour than MW/CPU-Opti app- don't believe me, test it for yourself)

And again, the MW opt app or even the GPU app for that matter does not give more credits than the production app, it only allows us to crunch the WU's faster, credit per WU is the same. Credits here are fixed.


OK, it absolutely DOES matter. It does matter if I get more credits per hour on MW 32 bit than on AQUA since credit PER HOUR is the measure I use to decide whether my computers are most efficiently used on MW or on AQUA.

It is not dumb for me to try and find out and it is not scientific for you to muddy this information with your nonsensical benchmarking which does not help me to decide which project to utilise my low end 32 bit worn out computers.



ID: 33974 · 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 33975 - Posted: 30 Nov 2009, 0:25:27 UTC - in response to Message 33973.  


In fact, what is even more dumb than that, is comparing credits of any project against any other project. Cross project parity is a socialists point of view.


As long as there is a BOINC-wide credit-based "Leaderboard" as is being done by the various statistical sites, then those primarily interested in being at the top / around the top of that leaderboard will gravitate towards projects that lend themselves towards that goal.

To illustrate:

If I were to make up a project tomorrow that had as its' goal to calculate the maximum number of times the words "I like credits" would fit on one side of a standard letter-size piece of paper, if I made each result award triple the amount per second as the next highest awarding per second, there will be a percentage of people who will process tasks for my project nearly exclusively, even though as a project it is pretty dumb and has no actual reward to society other than the inane "Trivial Pursuit" type of knowledge.

The general principle behind Cross-Project Parity is to prevent something like that, where leaderboard goals cause manipulation of the volunteers by the projects and of the projects by the volunteers.

The correct way to go about it however is NOT by having the projects be involved, nor by having BOINC (UCB) be involved, but by having statistical normalization done by the statistical sites (BOINCStats, BOINC Combined Credit, DCStats, etc, etc, etc...)

ID: 33975 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
ProfileKevint
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Nov 07
Posts: 285
Credit: 1,076,786,368
RAC: 0
1 billion credit badge10 year member badge
Message 33978 - Posted: 30 Nov 2009, 3:30:26 UTC - in response to Message 33974.  


OK, it absolutely DOES matter. It does matter if I get more credits per hour on MW 32 bit than on AQUA since credit PER HOUR is the measure I use to decide whether my computers are most efficiently used on MW or on AQUA.

It is not dumb for me to try and find out and it is not scientific for you to muddy this information with your nonsensical benchmarking which does not help me to decide which project to utilise my low end 32 bit worn out computers.




Let me try to understand this.
You are using credit as a way to determine whether or not your computers are being use the most efficiently?... Really?...

But if your goal is the most amount of credit per hour, without regards to efficiency, because efficiency is really not the issue here, the issue is, what project will pay you the highest return on a old worn out PC, OS=Win-32 running on CPU. Is this what you are trying to say?

You never mentioned before what sort of OS you were running. Nor have you mentioned what flavor of CPU's you are running. So, with that in mind, Aqua returns approx 150-160 C/H on Win-32. While MW/CPU - Optimized app returns approx 130 C/H.

.
ID: 33978 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Sailor

Send message
Joined: 10 Feb 08
Posts: 32
Credit: 13,227,191
RAC: 0
10 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 33983 - Posted: 30 Nov 2009, 6:47:27 UTC - in response to Message 33978.  


Let me try to understand this.
You are using credit as a way to determine whether or not your computers are being use the most efficiently?... Really?...



What else do you have to compare? And there are cases where it works pretty good. Example: A Phenom II vs a C2D, projects Rosetta & SIMAP: in Rosetta the C2D will go ahead with ~33% credits/per hour, in SIMAP the Phenom II is slightly faster - in most other projects the C2D is faster then the Phenom II, but the difference is way smaller then in Rosetta.
So its easy to make the statement: The Phenom II is most efficent in SIMAP, while beeign bad at Rosetta, on the other hand the C2D is very efficent in Rosetta, while rather poor on SIMAP. This statement has only been done over creditcoparison - note: I dont care which project gives the machine a higher RAC, thats a total different story and goes into the "cross project credit parity" and it isnt what im talking about.

btw: your comparisions to "socialism" are way off, they dont fit at all, and by no means in this general form as you are throwing them. Id be interested what your idea behind socialism, in general, not in meaning of BOINC, is. PM me if youd like to discuss.
ID: 33983 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
ProfileBruce
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Apr 08
Posts: 1415
Credit: 2,716,428
RAC: 0
2 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 33998 - Posted: 30 Nov 2009, 12:47:13 UTC - in response to Message 33978.  
Last modified: 30 Nov 2009, 12:47:49 UTC

While MW/CPU - Optimized app returns approx 130 C/H.
I get aprox 70 C/H on my i7 920 with MW opp app on 64 bit Vista so either I'm doing something wrong or your numbers are off? 45 mins to run a WU.
;-p
ID: 33998 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Nuadormrac

Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 08
Posts: 18
Credit: 2,185,166
RAC: 3,375
2 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 34071 - Posted: 1 Dec 2009, 20:02:13 UTC
Last modified: 1 Dec 2009, 20:07:39 UTC

I got one of the larger units, and when I divided total credits by hours spent crunching the result was a bit lower (fell down to 37/hour on the same opti-app). This said the computer was downloading at the time, so a comparison when something else isn't running would probably be a bit more fair. Truth be told however, some of us can't run this on a GPU, nor is "go out and by x hardware" a likely situation during a time of a recession where we got layed off from work.

Not trying to start controversy or anything; but rather stating that many aren't exactly in the hardware buying market at present, because "well under this configuration..." We're talking about donation of computer resources, which do become a bit more limited for many of us state side, until this economy pulls out of it's current slump and work opportunities become better. Ways to spend is just not what people are thinking about when they're having to survive a recession.
ID: 34071 · 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 34072 - Posted: 1 Dec 2009, 20:45:34 UTC - in response to Message 34071.  
Last modified: 1 Dec 2009, 20:52:15 UTC

I got one of the larger units, and when I divided total credits by hours spent crunching the result was a bit lower (fell down to 37/hour on the same opti-app).


37/hr is approximately what my P4 2.4GHz would get, so I think things are pretty much constant (only minor variations, if any).

What is interesting to note though is given the difference in FP performance of K8 vs. Northwood, your 3500+ should've significantly outperformed my P4, and my 3700+ should significantly outperform my P4, but they do not. In your case, it is slightly slower, and in my case, my 3700+ is only slightly faster. In both cases, there are clock speed differences, your 3500+ slower, while my 3700+ is faster than my P4. It's either the app is more integer based, or it mostly resides in cache...
ID: 34072 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
ProfileOink-NL
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Jul 09
Posts: 7
Credit: 21,357,652
RAC: 0
20 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 34075 - Posted: 1 Dec 2009, 22:30:14 UTC

For baseline comparisons, you can not compare a third party optimized app with a project vanilla non-optimized app. Not only is it non-scientific, it is just dumb.
In fact, what is even more dumb than that, is comparing credits of any project against any other project. Cross project parity is a socialists point of view.


On the contrary: it's a capitalist point of view.

I'll explain: I have a unit that can do work. If I'm an idealist I put it to use at a project that helps me fullfill my ideals (cure for decease x, y or z. Finding alien signals. Finding Prime numbers).
But if I'm not an idealist, I want to be paid. What have these projects to offer? CREDITS. So shop for the job that gives your unit the highest reward.

Compare it with manual labour: few people do manual labour for idealistic reasons. Most people do it to earn (in this example) money. Why work an extra hour for the same pay if you can get a higher hourly wage at another employer?

I say: unless you're putting your CPU/GPU to work for idealistic purposes, shop untill you drop. Figure out which project has the highest credit rating for your hardware / OS / driver combination and go for it.

And if you are worried about another project giving a higher rate: take a chance and test is for yourself: no guts, no glory!
ID: 34075 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : Cruncher's MW Concerns

©2019 Astroinformatics Group