I think 6.5 credits/WU was perfectly reasonable. Think out of the box, don't crawl inside it. Go back to 6.5. I have 17 work units left split on three other machines, then its back to ABC@home 100%. What use is the science if you only have a handfull of people doing it. Look at the Near Earth Astroid (NEA) program. Boy are we doomed! Remember, we are your customers.

What is the point of coming out with an optimized app if the project is going to negate the effect? (Please, don't say 'do it for science') You're sending a message - 'Why optimize?'

If the optimized app becomes the standard app and is issued to all platforms supported by the project, credit granted should IMO be based on using that (standard, optimized) app. Nothing unusual about that - it's been done elsewhere (like Einstein)

Remember, we are your customers.

We are not customers - we are volunteers, or contractors if you will. If we were customers we'd not be asking for credits, we'd be paying with our credits.

---

Join the #1 Aussie Alliance on MilkyWay!

If the optimized app becomes the standard app and is issued to all platforms supported by the project, credit granted should IMO be based on using that (standard, optimized) app. Nothing unusual about that - it's been done elsewhere (like Einstein)

I didn't say it was unusual.

What I did say is that if that becomes the norm then the incentive to do it, to achieve additional cobblestones, is out the door.

Mr DA shows up and tells you, "You've done a wonderful job, but we must now negate the additional cobblestones you achieved so you are back in line with SETI"

What's up with that?

---

CLICK TO HELP BUILD

As the number one cruncher in this project (until a few hours ago) let ne say this. I chose to allocate ny resources to this project from the beginning because I liked it and not because how much credits I could get from it. Having said that I am disappointed in the tendency in not just this but other projects to lower the credit ratio or increase the time it takes to complete a WU. As volunteers we all have a choice as to which projects we are going to follow. Some of us chose a project because of its scientific value others because they like the chase, they like the challange or in deed try their best with whatever their resources are to improve their teams standing like safety in numbers. Since it costs us a considerable amount to run our stations the choice as to what projects we are going to run is determined by the points we get for our efforts. Let the market determine this number and not us. If MilkyWay is determined to give the lowest score than as it is already happening a lot of valued crunchers will go elswhere. I do not see the reason for change...

---

I yelped a bit a couple of weeks ago when it was mooted that credits should be reduced. That is because I am running a PPC Mac and it didn't get any optimisation in the last round of app updates. However, I subsequently looked at the figures again and I concede that 6.5 per result was too high. Trouble is, 2.17 is way too low. Somewhere around 4 would be reasonable I would think.

I think that 4.2 is a reasonable number.

I agree that 4.2 is reasonable and acceptable if the more likely alternative is the current 2.17. Admittingly, as most agree in all fairness, 6.5 was on the high side to be a stock ap. Interestingly, I run 32 bit XP on a T7200 laptop & MW was good for 100 credits per hour. Also run current Einstein "power users Ap" which grants 78.8 per hour. It's from the project, not 3rd party, so it's what "stock" is awarding.

I agree w/ Crunch3r and Philly that Seti is not a good reference & their methodology is flawed & broken. One has to have a strong motivation to crunch it, given the numerous deficiencies. It's in pretty sad shape actually and a shadow of its former self. But I digress.....

4.2 will drop credit to @ 65 per hour on my rig, a fair amount. Not the highest, not the lowest...but "acceptable". 2.17 means 33 per hour on this rig...not very motivating. That said, I crunch MW, Einstein etc. because I like the projects and they have awesome scientific relevance. To me, good credits are enough appreciation for time, electricity and the shortened lifespan of components running 100% load 24/7. Since 99', the sum of my personal investment in distributed computing considering these things & donations is surely a few thousand $$$ by now.

Also,there should be some consideration (for any project that is open-source or welcomes development from volunteers) that dedicated & capable volunteer programmers/optimizers are rather rare. The difference that they can make in productivity can be quite substantial and the potential financial impact to the project from time & hardware savings etc....HUGE. I'd think many projects would like to keep such an individual(s) on "their team" as a franchise player ; > ) & not encourage free-agency. For the extra work and time they dedicate, there's got to be some sort of incentive to improve the ap performance if personal interest is not the prime motivator. The project might not ask this of a person, but still, are they any less valuable?
A little higher credit base is a rather inexpensive, but effective reward (in some cases) for their improvements.

Just offering my opinion.

Gecko

---

I yelped a bit a couple of weeks ago when it was mooted that credits should be reduced. That is because I am running a PPC Mac and it didn't get any optimisation in the last round of app updates. However, I subsequently looked at the figures again and I concede that 6.5 per result was too high. Trouble is, 2.17 is way too low. Somewhere around 4 would be reasonable I would think.

I think that 4.2 is a reasonable number.

I agree that 4.2 is reasonable and acceptable if the more likely alternative is the current 2.17. Admittingly, as most agree in all fairness, 6.5 was on the high side to be a stock ap. Interestingly, I run 32 bit XP on a T7200 laptop & MW was good for 100 credits per hour. Also run current Einstein "power users Ap" which grants 78.8 per hour. It's from the project, not 3rd party, so it's what "stock" is awarding.

I agree w/ Crunch3r and Philly that Seti is not a good reference & their methodology is flawed & broken. One has to have a strong motivation to crunch it, given the numerous deficiencies. It's in pretty sad shape actually and a shadow of its former self. But I digress.....

4.2 will drop credit to @ 65 per hour on my rig, a fair amount. Not the highest, not the lowest...but "acceptable". 2.17 means 33 per hour on this rig...not very motivating. That said, I crunch MW, Einstein etc. because I like the projects and they have awesome scientific relevance. To me, good credits are enough appreciation for time, electricity and the shortened lifespan of components running 100% load 24/7.

Also,there should be some consideration (for any project that is open-source or welcomes development from volunteers) that dedicated & capable volunteer programmers/optimizers are rather rare. The difference that they can make in productivity can be quite substantial and the potential financial impact to the project from time & hardware savings etc....HUGE. I'd think many projects would like to keep such an individual(s) on "their team" as a franchise player ; > ) & not encourage free-agency. For the extra work and time they dedicate, there's got to be some sort of incentive to improve the ap performance if personal interest is not the prime motivator.
A little higher credit base is a rather innexpensive, but effective reward for their improvements.

Just offering my opinion.

Gecko

I like your argument. I'm going to show it to Travis. He's the one who controls the credit and the main aspects of the project. I'd like to say though that I really don't care about credit. I'd set it to 1,000 per work unit if it'd keep the user base together. This is a great community of people and i'm going to try hard to keep it that way.

---

Dave Przybylo
MilkyWay@home Developer
Department of Computer Science
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Just for interest sake, I present the following info.
I keep all my project data in spreadsheets for the last several years.
These stats are made up of last 150 valid W/U's from each project per machine which are automatically analysed as follows per core:

Projects over last 3 months
ALL running 64bit Ubuntu/Kubuntu Linux
Values per core per hour
ALL standard speeds - no overclocks

Project    x2/4600      Q6600        XP3500
          (twincore)  (quadcore)  (singlecore)
ABC         49.47       50.56        45.75
Cosmo       35.80       43.01        33.12
Pirates     10.73       12.40         8.68
Poem        26.50       25.73        26.03
Simap       25.64       26.57        26.10

MilkyWay    36.72       35.46        34.20  pre-optimized @ 6.50 cr/wu
MilkyWay    82.67       76.65        76.74  new-optimized @ 6.50 cr/wu
MilkyWay    27.84       25.64        25.60  new-optimized @ 2.17 cr/wu

Make of it what you will - but 2.17 is a bit low putting it in the lowest earning projects.

---

I like your argument. I'm going to show it to Travis. He's the one who controls the credit and the main aspects of the project. I'd like to say though that I really don't care about credit. I'd set it to 1,000 per work unit if it'd keep the user base together. This is a great community of people and i'm going to try hard to keep it that way.

Thanks Dave! I understand & appreciate your comments above. Group unity and the credit subject is a challenging tightrope to walk.
Keep up the great work!

---

I guess the real question is where do you want to be amongst all projects?

Isn't ABC and Cosmology currently the highest? Would hate to be in range of like LHC or Spinhenge( bout lowest). This now might be near dead-center but I think Set-optimized should be the standard...so what would that value be? 3-3.5?

Thanks for your input Dave ...it is much appreciated :)

No,

ABC is only high with 64 bit apps, I have both machines types running ABC.
With the 32 bit app, it is about normal, but the optimized 64 bit app is a bit higher, from what I can tell, just about where SETI optimized is granting.

Cosomo is also a mis understood project, yes it grants 100 credit for each work unit - and many times those WU's are short, but there are also many times they are very large, the real credit for Cosmo is not enough out of range to cause issues. I run Cosmo on my 32 bit machines because they have no 64 Bit optimized app... yet-


I do agree that the credit per hour here was high, but I was under the understanding that it was set at that during the test phase, and because the servers were down so much it was the only way to keep us credit whores happy.

I like this project and have been waiting for it to come online and into full production so I could participate. Now I am here I plan to continue to participate.

However, I also agree that the credit reduction is a tad bit tight, and should be increased to about 4 or 4.5 credit per WU.

Another thing to consider, rumor has it that there are longer running WU's in the making. If this is so, then the multiplier for those WU's need to be adjusted accordingly.

I am not sure what machine is being used for benchmarking, but a non overclocked q6600 should running 100% should receive approximately 4500 credit per 24 hours.
Given a full cache that never runs dry.

A Pent D dual 3.0 should receive approximately 1300 credit in a 24 hour period.

I have not run the calculations for the past 24 hours, I have been out looking for Easter Eggs. I will leave this up to someone else.

Personally I don't have a problem with what the granted credit has been set to. I'm staying, and so is my overclocked CPU.

Just a question -

http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/show_user.php?userid=2095

What sort of overclocked CPU are you running.. a Pent III :)

Just jabbing at you...nothing personal. I am staying as well, with a couple of my non-overclocked machines, the overclocked ones I reserve for projects that pay enough to keep it, like this one.
http://abcathome.com/show_host_detail.php?hostid=37811

I think that 4.2 is a reasonable number.

Lets give it shot and find out, hoping for 4.5. (remember, it does not cost you anything to give them, and too low = fewer volunteers)... As long as when longer WU's are released, the credit is increased in like manner.

4.5 sounds good to me. I'll be sitting here waiting to hear the verdict. Soon I hope. :)

---

Join Cruncher Junkies on MilkyWay!

Personally I don't have a problem with what the granted credit has been set to. I'm staying, and so is my overclocked CPU.

Just a question -

http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/show_user.php?userid=2095

What sort of overclocked CPU are you running.. a Pent III :)

Just jabbing at you...nothing personal. I am staying as well, with a couple of my non-overclocked machines, the overclocked ones I reserve for projects that pay enough to keep it, like this one.
http://abcathome.com/show_host_detail.php?hostid=37811

You must be talking about my Pentium 4. I don't think it's nice, you laughin'. You see, my Pentium don't like people laughing. He gets the crazy idea you're laughin' at him. Now if you apologize, like I know you're going to, I might convince him that you really didn't mean it. Nah just kidding, that was from an old Clint western. :D

That's an old Pentium 4 I had on my board awhile ago to run some benchmarks. I installed my q6600 again and so I'm using that now. http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/show_host_detail.php?hostid=9119. It's not the best OC, but considering that it's B3 stepping and I'm using 1.41V, it's not that bad either. Those are some pretty high numbers you have at ABC. If I had to guess I'd say you're running above 3700 MHz. Very good overclocking.

I can understand your reasoning about the credit system, and I'm not suggesting people should leave if they don't like it or anything like that. It's up to them. The way I see it is, even with the lower credit numbers, the total credit will still be much higher for machines that turn in more WUs. So I'm happy enough with that.

I guess the real question is where do you want to be amongst all projects?

Isn't ABC and Cosmology currently the highest? Would hate to be in range of like LHC or Spinhenge( bout lowest). This now might be near dead-center but I think Set-optimized should be the standard...so what would that value be? 3-3.5?

Thanks for your input Dave ...it is much appreciated :)

Not sure where to jump into this thread, but this looks as good a place as any ;)

Current 2.17 credit gives me a 30% lower RAC than before the optimisations. Wonderful :( It's not as if MW was even the highest RAC credit that I run (and I don't do Cosmo, ABC or QMC).

I suspect a credit of 3 would bring us back to where we were, when nobody was complaining. I was one of the first to complain that the 1.18 credit was too high.

To me this arbitrary reduction to a third seems overkill. Not sure who was putting so much pressure on - OK, I can guess ;) - or where this "3-times too much" came from.

So, suggestion. Why not arbitrarily reduce the credit by a half to 3.25 - Still a little high, but try it for a while.

And of course the new apps will be along Real Soon Now, meaning that we need to come up with a new figure.

I like this project. Nice science, great communication, a sense of involement.

But I'm afraid that the arbitrary credit hack makes me worry about the 'politics' behind the scenes.

So, I'm afraid to say, I'm out.

Al.

I suspect a credit of 3 would bring us back to where we were, when nobody was complaining.

So, suggestion. Why not arbitrarily reduce the credit by a half to 3.25 - Still a little high, but try it for a while.

That's about where I think it should be with the current length work units. It would put MW in the ballpark with other projects that offer "attractive" credit.

(off topic: I still would like to see the 20 minute timeout reduced - my quads run out of work before they are allowed to connect again as they can crunch 20 work units in approx. 16-18 minutes)

---

Join the #1 Aussie Alliance on MilkyWay!

4.5 sounds good to me. I'll be sitting here waiting to hear the verdict. Soon I hope. :)

Agreed. Anything above 4 would be a lot more appropriate than what we have now. *grin*

PS: I'd be getting whithdrawals without my daily Milkyways... :-P

---

Lovely greetings, Cori

Mr DA shows up and tells you, "You've done a wonderful job, but we must now negate the additional cobblestones you achieved so you are back in line with SETI"

Despite Dr. A's best efforts the BOINC Projects somehow continue to muddle on, he alone is the biggest reason for the increase of interest in the DC Projects & the lessening interest in the BOINC Projects.

Who were the 'most people' mentioned on the front page that thought a factor of 3 reduction was appropriate? From posts it seems that there was not even a consensus across the MW@Home team about the size of the reduction!

Yes, credits were a little high, yes it is science we are doing, but Stats, numbers and rankings are all also important to us individual users out here.

After Dr A's messing about in the wider Boinc commumity I have ceased to crunch Seti (that is if it is still working!) - so job done Dr A.

Dave & Travis - watch the results in progress continue to drop (down about 5% already this monring) as people vote silently with their feet.....not that we are likely to see a corresponding increase at Seti.

Who's project is it anyway? - clearly the MW@Home staff felt pressured into acting, users are demonstrably unhappy ............. any winners out there?

G'bye... :(

Who were the 'most people' mentioned on the front page that thought a factor of 3 reduction was appropriate? From posts it seems that there was not even a consensus across the MW@Home team about the size of the reduction!

Yes, credits were a little high, yes it is science we are doing, but Stats, numbers and rankings are all also important to us individual users out here.

After Dr A's messing about in the wider Boinc commumity I have ceased to crunch Seti (that is if it is still working!) - so job done Dr A.

Dave & Travis - watch the results in progress continue to drop (down about 5% already this monring) as people vote silently with their feet.....not that we are likely to see a corresponding increase at Seti.

Who's project is it anyway? - clearly the MW@Home staff felt pressured into acting, users are demonstrably unhappy ............. any winners out there?

But you stil have QMC, Cosmo and Riesel Sieve for the credits hunting.