I finally have BOINCs new credit policy implemented for the nbody workunits. It's to the point where I need to test it live. If you're having any problems with the nbody workunits being validated incorrectly, or being assigned weird amounts of credit (note -- the new credit policy is adaptive so the credit awarded can change over time, and it might take awhile to stabilize), this is the place to let me know.

Once I've gotten this debugged and working correctly, we'll have a days of double credit as promised for all our recent outages; and to make up for any weirdness in testing the new credit policy with the nbody workunits.

So I'd like to thank everyone for their patience in dealing with us getting everything updated and working correctly these last few weeks.

--Travis

---

Can you give any yardstick/rough idea of credit levels set against a couple of machine types so we can guage if its wierd or not

Regards
Zy

Can you give any yardstick/rough idea of credit levels set against a couple of machine types so we can guage if its wierd or not

Regards
Zy

It should be similar to what it was awarding before -- what the clients were reporting for claimed credit (unfortunately this has been removed in the lastest versions of the server code so I don't have too much to check that against).

---

What is the amount of credit because, as the stats of the units is not on our behalf and we do not see anything ...

---

Team Alliance francophone, boinc: 7.0.18

GA-P55-UD5, i7 860, Win 7 64 bits, 8g DDR3, GTX 470

I've also been testing the new credit policy over on DNA@Home, and it seems that it's on the rather low end of things as far as credit is concerned. I've added a credit modifier (which is currently set to 5x what the credit policy is returning).

If anyone can give me any info about how close the credit the nbody workunits are returning is to other projects, it would be much appreciated.

---

Travis. Question, was this switch to the new credit scheme the "BIG NEWS"? Was afraid to ask at the time :(

Travis. Question, was this switch to the new credit scheme the "BIG NEWS"? Was afraid to ask at the time :(

I don't know if it's big news. But we're using BOINC's default credit system now, so things are definitely different.

Right now I'm just using it on the n-body application, as credit values for it are pretty difficult to calculate. I'm going to start testing it with the other application however -- but just to calculate the values initially (we'll still be using fixed credit), so I can compare how close BOINC's default estimated credit gets to what we're awarding with fixed credit. If we can get them close enough, I'll probably do the swap for the main application as well.

---

I don't know if it's big news. But we're using BOINC's default credit system now, so things are definitely different.

Right now I'm just using it on the n-body application, as credit values for it are pretty difficult to calculate. I'm going to start testing it with the other application however -- but just to calculate the values initially (we'll still be using fixed credit), so I can compare how close BOINC's default estimated credit gets to what we're awarding with fixed credit. If we can get them close enough, I'll probably do the swap for the main application as well.

I was referring to the BIG NEWS COMING thread. think maybe it's disappeared now. Anyway, why change credit systems? Is there a reason? The 3 WU sizes are fixed, so fixed credit seems like the fair way to go. If you start throwing the totally brain dead BOINC flops estimates into the equation it'll not be pretty. If the new BOINC system is allowed to degrade the GPU credits downward compared to the same size CPU WUs it'll also be less than shiny. So far AFAIK the new system has been pretty much universally rejected/ignored. SETI might use it but they have their own reasons. Wondering?

I don't know if it's big news. But we're using BOINC's default credit system now, so things are definitely different.

Right now I'm just using it on the n-body application, as credit values for it are pretty difficult to calculate. I'm going to start testing it with the other application however -- but just to calculate the values initially (we'll still be using fixed credit), so I can compare how close BOINC's default estimated credit gets to what we're awarding with fixed credit. If we can get them close enough, I'll probably do the swap for the main application as well.

Travis, If it is anything like the credit system they had a few months ago it will be bad news. The projects that I have seen that tried to use it the Credits dropped drasticly. Aqua credit dropped 90%. they had to abanden them and go back to their on system to prevent a mass exodus.

Royce

---

I don't know if it's big news. But we're using BOINC's default credit system now, so things are definitely different.

Right now I'm just using it on the n-body application, as credit values for it are pretty difficult to calculate. I'm going to start testing it with the other application however -- but just to calculate the values initially (we'll still be using fixed credit), so I can compare how close BOINC's default estimated credit gets to what we're awarding with fixed credit. If we can get them close enough, I'll probably do the swap for the main application as well.

Travis, If it is anything like the credit system they had a few months ago it will be bad news. The projects that I have seen that tried to use it the Credits dropped drasticly. Aqua credit dropped 90%. they had to abanden them and go back to their on system to prevent a mass exodus.

Royce

Well if it sucks, we'll improve on it. :)

---

Just thought I would mention, starting this morning(May 4) I have had 4 fails in a row. Windows Error - milkyway_nbody_0.40_windows_x86_64_mt.exe has stopped working. Computation Error.

I'm seeing a bunch of failures for the nbody code the past day or two on MacOS due to the time limits being set far too low (3 seconds or so).

Hi Travis, I have the following problem.

MilkyWay @ home N-Body Simulation 0.40 (mt) 00:00:00 de_nbody_orphan_test_2model_4_68481_1304613093_2 planned duration.

The result:
aborting task de_nbody_orphan_test_2model_4_68481_1304613093_2: exeeded 0.000542 elapsed time limit.

Can you explain?
Thanks

Nekodemus

---

regards
Ruth vom Bollwerk

Hi Travis, I have the following problem.

MilkyWay @ home N-Body Simulation 0.40 (mt) 00:00:00 de_nbody_orphan_test_2model_4_68481_1304613093_2 planned duration.

The result:
aborting task de_nbody_orphan_test_2model_4_68481_1304613093_2: exeeded 0.000542 elapsed time limit.

Can you explain?
Thanks

Nekodemus

I've been on the BOINC mailing lists and having a bit of back and forth trying to track down this problem. I made a couple changes to the database today which hopefully should make it happen less often. Have you noticed any difference?

---

hi,

did i miss the double credit day ?

Ian

---

....Please Join team Scotland HERE

hi,

did i miss the double credit day ?

Ian

No. I don't think it is near running well enough yet. Again today one 'fix' caused more problems. And still no cpu opti app.

---

Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?
If it makes sense, DON'T do it.

Hi Travis,

Give thanks for the reply. Published 2 days working the N-body simulation error free.

Thanks Nekodmus

---

regards
Ruth vom Bollwerk

Server are down ???? FYI

Regards

John G

Server are down ???? FYI

Regards

John G

The servers are up. Next time please post this in Number Crunching rather then the news forum. I'll see it sooner.

Thanks

---