Welcome to MilkyWay@home

Credit Calculations.


Advanced search

Message boards : Number crunching : Credit Calculations.
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 . . . 9 · Next

AuthorMessage
John McLeod VII
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 27 Aug 07
Posts: 85
Credit: 405,705
RAC: 0
100 thousand credit badge13 year member badge
Message 4389 - Posted: 22 Jul 2008, 22:44:13 UTC - in response to Message 4358.  


No John. Jeff and the many others are right.

You keep repeating and repeating that there is "the problem". Yet you have not proved it. You haven’t even tried to refute many of the explanations that have been presented here. You just repeat your mantra, or you invoke the “authority” of the founders. That’s not an argument. That’s sophistry.

Ever hear the phrase: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”? Words for an engineer to live by.

If there are no untoward consequences of something, there is no problem, no matter how many times you keep saying there is. Saying it over and over again doesn’t make it so.

We have shown you that the only thing you've described as a possible consequence - credits inflation - isn't happening. Numerous posters here have given various good reasons why it’s not happening, which you have failed to rebut.

No untoward consequences equals no problem. So face it. Since there are no untoward consequences, THERE IS NO PROBLEM! It’s not rational to go around obsessing about an imaginary “problem” that has no untoward consequences.

Nothing needs to be fixed. No harm of any consequence is being done. You haven't proved otherwise.

There is no credits problem.

So stop saying there is. And leave people alone. Go find something to fix that’s actually causing harm.[/quote]

This is what happens when you "take the bait". Drop this loser and find a better way to waste our time.

Voltron[/quote]
Hmm. The argument ends in a flame. Reduced to name calling? Please check on accomplishments before calling someone a looser.


BOINC WIKI
ID: 4389 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ProfileJayargh
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 Oct 07
Posts: 289
Credit: 3,690,838
RAC: 0
3 million credit badge13 year member badge
Message 4390 - Posted: 22 Jul 2008, 22:49:31 UTC - in response to Message 4388.  

This is getting seriously funny John

The fact that projects grant credit at seriously different rates is a problem in the perceived fairness of the system.


Seti grants 30% more credit to the same machine only based on whether it has an optimized app or not that the project refuses to deliver to all its users as 20 other projects do!...unfair! Solaris and osx my foot, these are mainstream hosts that get optimized.

By your own ommision,although you felt the need to edit your little factoid out but I quoted you! ;)
The stock applications at S@H are currently much better optimized than they were, and even the best optimized applications do not grant at 2 to one, but if I recall, only around 1.3 to one at the moment. Trust me on this. S@H and BOINC are being re-worked to make it much easier for projects to have optimized applicatons delivered to clients


30% more credit and you have the gall to intimidate other projects and participants.

Trust me on this.


I THINK NOT!

If Seti wants the rest of BOINC to change then it needs to change its own culture 1st to start leveling the playing field.

I am sorry that I really don't understand your insinuation. S@H grants the same credit for a single task to all that crunched that task. Some computers go through tasks more quickly. Some people have better computers. That still has no bearing at all on cross project parity.



You certaily are dense John...If I have 2 identical computers and optimize 1 that runs 30% faster than the other 1, are you not showing favoritism rather than leveling the playing field making available to ALL rather than to just the big crunchers that you wish to keep because Seti will have the highest credit!Other projects optimize so all get the benefit....now I have said this at least 5 TIMES in this thread and you have yet to acknowledge this as being an issue! I am joining Bill & Voltron and am done feeding the troll!
ID: 4390 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
John McLeod VII
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 27 Aug 07
Posts: 85
Credit: 405,705
RAC: 0
100 thousand credit badge13 year member badge
Message 4391 - Posted: 22 Jul 2008, 22:52:56 UTC - in response to Message 4390.  

This is getting seriously funny John

The fact that projects grant credit at seriously different rates is a problem in the perceived fairness of the system.


Seti grants 30% more credit to the same machine only based on whether it has an optimized app or not that the project refuses to deliver to all its users as 20 other projects do!...unfair! Solaris and osx my foot, these are mainstream hosts that get optimized.

By your own ommision,although you felt the need to edit your little factoid out but I quoted you! ;)
The stock applications at S@H are currently much better optimized than they were, and even the best optimized applications do not grant at 2 to one, but if I recall, only around 1.3 to one at the moment. Trust me on this. S@H and BOINC are being re-worked to make it much easier for projects to have optimized applicatons delivered to clients


30% more credit and you have the gall to intimidate other projects and participants.

Trust me on this.


I THINK NOT!

If Seti wants the rest of BOINC to change then it needs to change its own culture 1st to start leveling the playing field.

I am sorry that I really don't understand your insinuation. S@H grants the same credit for a single task to all that crunched that task. Some computers go through tasks more quickly. Some people have better computers. That still has no bearing at all on cross project parity.



You certaily are dense John...If I have 2 identical computers and optimize 1 that runs 30% faster than the other 1, are you not showing favoritism rather than leveling the playing field making available to ALL rather than to just the big crunchers that you wish to keep because Seti will have the highest credit!Other projects optimize so all get the benefit....now I have said this at least 5 TIMES in this thread and you have yet to acknowledge this as being an issue! I am joining Bill & Voltron and am done feeding the troll!

OK. As I have stated before, I would like to have that made available to all, and the BOINC developers are working on it.

Now, what was your insinuation again?


BOINC WIKI
ID: 4391 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ProfileJayargh
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 Oct 07
Posts: 289
Credit: 3,690,838
RAC: 0
3 million credit badge13 year member badge
Message 4392 - Posted: 22 Jul 2008, 23:11:35 UTC - in response to Message 4362.  
Last modified: 22 Jul 2008, 23:15:36 UTC

John,

Since this subject has been so hotly debated for so long, I doubt you would have recieved a reasonable response here no matter how you phrased your inital post, but it doesn't help that you made a completely outlandish claim concerning appropriate credit for MW tasks.

You stated, "The long tasks really should be granting about 50 CS per task."

If you really believe that, then you understand that you're stating that MilkyWay should grant approximately 30% the amount of credit per unit of time vs SETI. (I'm assuming that MW is currently granting at a rate of 1.64 v SETI which seems to be a good average of the cross project comparisons that I could find) A 260 cs (long) task here would therefore grant around 159 on your hallowed SETI. (But should only grant "about 50" here)

Seems either quite spiteful or quite ignorant to tell the system administrators here that they're being "anti-social" if they don't value their project at 1/3rd the value of SETI.

I wanted to make sure that this comparison made some sense, so I looked at the computer I'm working from now and discovered that an Einstein task that takes me around 9 hours grants me ~240 cs. A MilkyWay task that takes 8 hours grants me 260. So that 260 cs task here would grant me 213 at Einstein.

Just so I'm clear, let me confirm. In your way of thinking it's 3 times more valuable to look for signals from extraterrestrials than it is to map the structure of our galaxy and over 4 times more important to look for gravity waves than to map the structure of our galaxy, yes?
ID: 4392 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
John McLeod VII
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 27 Aug 07
Posts: 85
Credit: 405,705
RAC: 0
100 thousand credit badge13 year member badge
Message 4396 - Posted: 23 Jul 2008, 0:12:40 UTC - in response to Message 4392.  

John,

Since this subject has been so hotly debated for so long, I doubt you would have recieved a reasonable response here no matter how you phrased your inital post, but it doesn't help that you made a completely outlandish claim concerning appropriate credit for MW tasks.

You stated, "The long tasks really should be granting about 50 CS per task."

If you really believe that, then you understand that you're stating that MilkyWay should grant approximately 30% the amount of credit per unit of time vs SETI. (I'm assuming that MW is currently granting at a rate of 1.64 v SETI which seems to be a good average of the cross project comparisons that I could find) A 260 cs (long) task here would therefore grant around 159 on your hallowed SETI. (But should only grant "about 50" here)

Seems either quite spiteful or quite ignorant to tell the system administrators here that they're being "anti-social" if they don't value their project at 1/3rd the value of SETI.

I wanted to make sure that this comparison made some sense, so I looked at the computer I'm working from now and discovered that an Einstein task that takes me around 9 hours grants me ~240 cs. A MilkyWay task that takes 8 hours grants me 260. So that 260 cs task here would grant me 213 at Einstein.

Just so I'm clear, let me confirm. In your way of thinking it's 3 times more valuable to look for signals from extraterrestrials than it is to map the structure of our galaxy and over 4 times more important to look for gravity waves than to map the structure of our galaxy, yes?

I already replied to this and admitted an error in calculation or input. Why are you bringing it up again?


BOINC WIKI
ID: 4396 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
John McLeod VII
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 27 Aug 07
Posts: 85
Credit: 405,705
RAC: 0
100 thousand credit badge13 year member badge
Message 4397 - Posted: 23 Jul 2008, 0:16:03 UTC - in response to Message 4390.  

This is getting seriously funny John

The fact that projects grant credit at seriously different rates is a problem in the perceived fairness of the system.


Seti grants 30% more credit to the same machine only based on whether it has an optimized app or not that the project refuses to deliver to all its users as 20 other projects do!...unfair! Solaris and osx my foot, these are mainstream hosts that get optimized.

By your own ommision,although you felt the need to edit your little factoid out but I quoted you! ;)
The stock applications at S@H are currently much better optimized than they were, and even the best optimized applications do not grant at 2 to one, but if I recall, only around 1.3 to one at the moment. Trust me on this. S@H and BOINC are being re-worked to make it much easier for projects to have optimized applicatons delivered to clients


30% more credit and you have the gall to intimidate other projects and participants.

Trust me on this.


I THINK NOT!

If Seti wants the rest of BOINC to change then it needs to change its own culture 1st to start leveling the playing field.

I am sorry that I really don't understand your insinuation. S@H grants the same credit for a single task to all that crunched that task. Some computers go through tasks more quickly. Some people have better computers. That still has no bearing at all on cross project parity.



You certaily are dense John...If I have 2 identical computers and optimize 1 that runs 30% faster than the other 1, are you not showing favoritism rather than leveling the playing field making available to ALL rather than to just the big crunchers that you wish to keep because Seti will have the highest credit!Other projects optimize so all get the benefit....now I have said this at least 5 TIMES in this thread and you have yet to acknowledge this as being an issue! I am joining Bill & Voltron and am done feeding the troll!

See This thread for an example of either unfair (he is not releasing the code to all) or inflationary (If it gets released and the credits here are NOT reduced).


BOINC WIKI
ID: 4397 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ProfileCrunch3r
Volunteer developer
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Feb 08
Posts: 363
Credit: 258,227,990
RAC: 0
200 million credit badge13 year member badge
Message 4398 - Posted: 23 Jul 2008, 0:35:39 UTC - in response to Message 4397.  
Last modified: 23 Jul 2008, 0:45:59 UTC


See This thread for an example of either unfair (he is not releasing the code to all)

you know what ? life isn't fair at all and the World is full of things you can not have.


or inflationary (If it gets released and the credits here are NOT reduced).


that's not going to happen... could you now go away please and stalk some other people on other boards ? I think we all here would appreciate that.
Thank you.

Join Support science! Joinc Team BOINC United now!
ID: 4398 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
John McLeod VII
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 27 Aug 07
Posts: 85
Credit: 405,705
RAC: 0
100 thousand credit badge13 year member badge
Message 4399 - Posted: 23 Jul 2008, 1:21:03 UTC - in response to Message 4398.  


See This thread for an example of either unfair (he is not releasing the code to all)

you know what ? life isn't fair at all and the World is full of things you can not have.


or inflationary (If it gets released and the credits here are NOT reduced).


that's not going to happen... could you now go away please and stalk some other people on other boards ? I think we all here would appreciate that.
Thank you.

I am not going away. People here were complaining about S@H being unfair when it did not release the optimized apps to all. My point was that they don't even have to look that far for optimized apps that are not being released to all. Since your application seems to be about 100 times as efficient, releasing it without a corresponding credit reduction per task would indeed be a major problem since that would make it look like the science here was vastly more important than the science anywhere else.


BOINC WIKI
ID: 4399 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ProfileThunder
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 08
Posts: 85
Credit: 44,842,651
RAC: 0
30 million credit badge12 year member badge
Message 4400 - Posted: 23 Jul 2008, 1:32:20 UTC - in response to Message 4397.  
Last modified: 23 Jul 2008, 1:34:35 UTC

See This thread for an example of either unfair (he is not releasing the code to all) or inflationary (If it gets released and the credits here are NOT reduced).


Good GOD man, will you please just shut up and go away?!?! I would have enjoyed having a discussion with Crunch3r about potential gains in the science of this project, but you have to stick your annoying, asinine nose into the conversation and make it all about your pet peeve of CREDIT!

Guess what? It's not the Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Credit , but that seems to be all you care about.

The worst part is that you ignore any information that doesn't fit your self-serving lunacy, practically nothing that you type is even accurate, but like sooooo many others have mentioned you believe that anything repeated enough becomes the truth. "he is not releasing the code to all"? Did you even read the post or only the bits that agree with your twisted little viewpoint? He shared it with the freakin' project developers!!

I can thank you for one thing only. I had actually been limiting my resource share on these projects that I also felt were giving too much credit, but all it took was 2 days of your whining drivel and I'm just going to set an equal share at all the projects where I want to support the science. You're a developer for SETI, right? That's enough to convince me to drop it. I never particularly cared what credit they ever "gave" me and I know my contribution was growing ever smaller, but if "voting with my feet" is the only power I have, then I plan to exercise it.

[edit]Adding to what others have said... don't bother replying, because I'm done feeding you as well. That's definitely the last post I'll make acknowledging your existance as well[/edit]
ID: 4400 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
John McLeod VII
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 27 Aug 07
Posts: 85
Credit: 405,705
RAC: 0
100 thousand credit badge13 year member badge
Message 4402 - Posted: 23 Jul 2008, 1:47:54 UTC - in response to Message 4400.  

See This thread for an example of either unfair (he is not releasing the code to all) or inflationary (If it gets released and the credits here are NOT reduced).


Good GOD man, will you please just shut up and go away?!?! I would have enjoyed having a discussion with Crunch3r about potential gains in the science of this project, but you have to stick your annoying, asinine nose into the conversation and make it all about your pet peeve of CREDIT!

Guess what? It's not the Berkeley Open Infrastructure for Network Credit , but that seems to be all you care about.

The worst part is that you ignore any information that doesn't fit your self-serving lunacy, practically nothing that you type is even accurate, but like sooooo many others have mentioned you believe that anything repeated enough becomes the truth. "he is not releasing the code to all"? Did you even read the post or only the bits that agree with your twisted little viewpoint? He shared it with the freakin' project developers!!

I can thank you for one thing only. I had actually been limiting my resource share on these projects that I also felt were giving too much credit, but all it took was 2 days of your whining drivel and I'm just going to set an equal share at all the projects where I want to support the science. You're a developer for SETI, right? That's enough to convince me to drop it. I never particularly cared what credit they ever "gave" me and I know my contribution was growing ever smaller, but if "voting with my feet" is the only power I have, then I plan to exercise it.

[edit]Adding to what others have said... don't bother replying, because I'm done feeding you as well. That's definitely the last post I'll make acknowledging your existance as well[/edit]

Down to name calling. Pathetic.


BOINC WIKI
ID: 4402 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ProfileJayargh
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 8 Oct 07
Posts: 289
Credit: 3,690,838
RAC: 0
3 million credit badge13 year member badge
Message 4403 - Posted: 23 Jul 2008, 2:00:32 UTC - in response to Message 4396.  
Last modified: 23 Jul 2008, 2:01:40 UTC

John,

Since this subject has been so hotly debated for so long, I doubt you would have recieved a reasonable response here no matter how you phrased your inital post, but it doesn't help that you made a completely outlandish claim concerning appropriate credit for MW tasks.

You stated, "The long tasks really should be granting about 50 CS per task."

If you really believe that, then you understand that you're stating that MilkyWay should grant approximately 30% the amount of credit per unit of time vs SETI. (I'm assuming that MW is currently granting at a rate of 1.64 v SETI which seems to be a good average of the cross project comparisons that I could find) A 260 cs (long) task here would therefore grant around 159 on your hallowed SETI. (But should only grant "about 50" here)

Seems either quite spiteful or quite ignorant to tell the system administrators here that they're being "anti-social" if they don't value their project at 1/3rd the value of SETI.

I wanted to make sure that this comparison made some sense, so I looked at the computer I'm working from now and discovered that an Einstein task that takes me around 9 hours grants me ~240 cs. A MilkyWay task that takes 8 hours grants me 260. So that 260 cs task here would grant me 213 at Einstein.

Just so I'm clear, let me confirm. In your way of thinking it's 3 times more valuable to look for signals from extraterrestrials than it is to map the structure of our galaxy and over 4 times more important to look for gravity waves than to map the structure of our galaxy, yes?

I already replied to this and admitted an error in calculation or input. Why are you bringing it up again?


http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/forum_thread.php?id=368&nowrap=true#4367
ID: 4403 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
John McLeod VII
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 27 Aug 07
Posts: 85
Credit: 405,705
RAC: 0
100 thousand credit badge13 year member badge
Message 4404 - Posted: 23 Jul 2008, 2:03:48 UTC - in response to Message 4403.  

John,

Since this subject has been so hotly debated for so long, I doubt you would have recieved a reasonable response here no matter how you phrased your inital post, but it doesn't help that you made a completely outlandish claim concerning appropriate credit for MW tasks.

You stated, "The long tasks really should be granting about 50 CS per task."

If you really believe that, then you understand that you're stating that MilkyWay should grant approximately 30% the amount of credit per unit of time vs SETI. (I'm assuming that MW is currently granting at a rate of 1.64 v SETI which seems to be a good average of the cross project comparisons that I could find) A 260 cs (long) task here would therefore grant around 159 on your hallowed SETI. (But should only grant "about 50" here)

Seems either quite spiteful or quite ignorant to tell the system administrators here that they're being "anti-social" if they don't value their project at 1/3rd the value of SETI.

I wanted to make sure that this comparison made some sense, so I looked at the computer I'm working from now and discovered that an Einstein task that takes me around 9 hours grants me ~240 cs. A MilkyWay task that takes 8 hours grants me 260. So that 260 cs task here would grant me 213 at Einstein.

Just so I'm clear, let me confirm. In your way of thinking it's 3 times more valuable to look for signals from extraterrestrials than it is to map the structure of our galaxy and over 4 times more important to look for gravity waves than to map the structure of our galaxy, yes?

I already replied to this and admitted an error in calculation or input. Why are you bringing it up again?


http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/forum_thread.php?id=368&nowrap=true#4367

Still doesn't say anything about why you are bringing it up again.


BOINC WIKI
ID: 4404 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profilemscharmack
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Dec 07
Posts: 45
Credit: 1,257,904
RAC: 0
1 million credit badge13 year member badge
Message 4405 - Posted: 23 Jul 2008, 3:01:13 UTC

If you don't like the credit here, there are other projects that would enjoy your computer time. Stop the complaining about credit. The amount of credit assigned was voted upon by the users just after the project started up. He got rid of the highs and the lows and settled upon one about in the middle. The current credits are a reflection of that. Stop the crying and crunch along.
ID: 4405 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
John McLeod VII
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 27 Aug 07
Posts: 85
Credit: 405,705
RAC: 0
100 thousand credit badge13 year member badge
Message 4407 - Posted: 23 Jul 2008, 5:05:11 UTC - in response to Message 4405.  

If you don't like the credit here, there are other projects that would enjoy your computer time. Stop the complaining about credit. The amount of credit assigned was voted upon by the users just after the project started up. He got rid of the highs and the lows and settled upon one about in the middle. The current credits are a reflection of that. Stop the crying and crunch along.

If you don't like the way BOINC is supposed to work, you can go do some non-BOINC project. Same argument reversed.


BOINC WIKI
ID: 4407 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Odd-Rod

Send message
Joined: 7 Sep 07
Posts: 444
Credit: 2,888,255
RAC: 6,621
2 million credit badge13 year member badge
Message 4409 - Posted: 23 Jul 2008, 6:12:45 UTC - in response to Message 4402.  

I've stayed out of this till now, but I will comment on a few things here (and whenever I say 'you' here I mean John):

like sooooo many others have mentioned you believe that anything repeated enough becomes the truth. "he is not releasing the code to all"? Did you even read the post or only the bits that agree with your twisted little viewpoint? He shared it with the freakin' project developers!!


The worst part is that you ignore any information that doesn't fit your self-serving lunacy

Here you've chosen to ignore a direct question. As insulting as the way the question is asked may be, the question still has merit.

You're a developer for SETI, right? That's enough to convince me to drop it. I never particularly cared what credit they ever "gave" me and I know my contribution was growing ever smaller, but if "voting with my feet" is the only power I have, then I plan to exercise it.

Wow, if SETI was a company and you worked for me, and I heard something like this, I would take disciplinary action against you.

[edit]Adding to what others have said... don't bother replying, because I'm done feeding you as well. That's definitely the last post I'll make acknowledging your existance as well[/edit]

Down to name calling. Pathetic.


'Pathetic' is also name calling. And you've used it as a way to ignore the issues in the posting. Unfortunately many people rise to the bait instead of trying to be rational about it, which is what I have attempted here - don't know how well I've succeeded.

Good luck with trying to get everybody to like Boinc the way is supposed to be.

Just a last thought I suddenly had. Why should SETI be the standard by which other projects are judged? That's not an attack, it's a genuine question.
Ok, I'm off to work now, will look for responses this evening. (I'm GMT+2)

Rod

ID: 4409 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
STE\/E

Send message
Joined: 29 Aug 07
Posts: 486
Credit: 573,906,610
RAC: 0
500 million credit badge13 year member badge
Message 4412 - Posted: 23 Jul 2008, 9:33:20 UTC - in response to Message 4407.  
Last modified: 23 Jul 2008, 10:21:39 UTC

If you don't like the credit here, there are other projects that would enjoy your computer time. Stop the complaining about credit. The amount of credit assigned was voted upon by the users just after the project started up. He got rid of the highs and the lows and settled upon one about in the middle. The current credits are a reflection of that. Stop the crying and crunch along.

If you don't like the way BOINC is supposed to work, you can go do some non-BOINC project. Same argument reversed.


Oh for Pete's Sake, this is all getting so real Boring & Passe, John your starting to sound like a little kid out on the Playground with some of your childish responses. I always thought better of you & respected you, but after seeing your in action the last few days & reading your childish "na na na na na same back you" replies that respect has slipped downwards quite a few notch's.

You've had your say about the Credit's here so why don't you take it up with the Dev's of the Project Privately because you can argue about it in the Forum until everybody's blue in the face but in the end the Dev's of the Project are the only ones that can do anything about it if they choose to do so.

Your continually na na na na na replies do nothing but keep the Participants stirred up, but then thats probably what you want isn't it. By doing that you can get back up on your Soap Opera Box & spew more na na na na na's back at the Participants.
ID: 4412 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
John McLeod VII
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 27 Aug 07
Posts: 85
Credit: 405,705
RAC: 0
100 thousand credit badge13 year member badge
Message 4415 - Posted: 23 Jul 2008, 12:46:13 UTC - in response to Message 4412.  

If you don't like the credit here, there are other projects that would enjoy your computer time. Stop the complaining about credit. The amount of credit assigned was voted upon by the users just after the project started up. He got rid of the highs and the lows and settled upon one about in the middle. The current credits are a reflection of that. Stop the crying and crunch along.

If you don't like the way BOINC is supposed to work, you can go do some non-BOINC project. Same argument reversed.


Oh for Pete's Sake, this is all getting so real Boring & Passe, John your starting to sound like a little kid out on the Playground with some of your childish responses. I always thought better of you & respected you, but after seeing your in action the last few days & reading your childish "na na na na na same back you" replies that respect has slipped downwards quite a few notch's.

You've had your say about the Credit's here so why don't you take it up with the Dev's of the Project Privately because you can argue about it in the Forum until everybody's blue in the face but in the end the Dev's of the Project are the only ones that can do anything about it if they choose to do so.

Your continually na na na na na replies do nothing but keep the Participants stirred up, but then thats probably what you want isn't it. By doing that you can get back up on your Soap Opera Box & spew more na na na na na's back at the Participants.

You are right. Telling me to leave is getting boring. I was merely reacting to the stupidity of the statement once again.

I would love to take it up with the project developers, however, they seem to be unreachable.

The replies that I am getting are just plain stupid in most cases.

One of the basic premises of BOINC is that all research is of equal value in the system. Therefore, the payout should be the same on average for across projects. I did not make this up, it is part of the original BOINC design discussion.


BOINC WIKI
ID: 4415 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
John McLeod VII
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 27 Aug 07
Posts: 85
Credit: 405,705
RAC: 0
100 thousand credit badge13 year member badge
Message 4416 - Posted: 23 Jul 2008, 12:54:17 UTC - in response to Message 4409.  

I've stayed out of this till now, but I will comment on a few things here (and whenever I say 'you' here I mean John):

like sooooo many others have mentioned you believe that anything repeated enough becomes the truth. "he is not releasing the code to all"? Did you even read the post or only the bits that agree with your twisted little viewpoint? He shared it with the freakin' project developers!!


The worst part is that you ignore any information that doesn't fit your self-serving lunacy

Here you've chosen to ignore a direct question. As insulting as the way the question is asked may be, the question still has merit.

You're a developer for SETI, right? That's enough to convince me to drop it. I never particularly cared what credit they ever "gave" me and I know my contribution was growing ever smaller, but if "voting with my feet" is the only power I have, then I plan to exercise it.

Wow, if SETI was a company and you worked for me, and I heard something like this, I would take disciplinary action against you.

[edit]Adding to what others have said... don't bother replying, because I'm done feeding you as well. That's definitely the last post I'll make acknowledging your existance as well[/edit]

Down to name calling. Pathetic.


'Pathetic' is also name calling. And you've used it as a way to ignore the issues in the posting. Unfortunately many people rise to the bait instead of trying to be rational about it, which is what I have attempted here - don't know how well I've succeeded.

Good luck with trying to get everybody to like Boinc the way is supposed to be.

Just a last thought I suddenly had. Why should SETI be the standard by which other projects are judged? That's not an attack, it's a genuine question.
Ok, I'm off to work now, will look for responses this evening. (I'm GMT+2)

Rod


There was an OR clause that is missing from the first quote. The rest of the statement is missing. Sometimes a partial statement taken out of context is much more inflammatory than the whole statement.

No, I am not a developer for SETI. I have done a bit of development on the BOINC platrform. I was paying attention to the BOINC design discussions. Apparently very few people here were doing so. Likely because most of the people here haven't been around BOINC as long.

There are a few reasons that SETI is considered the standard for the moment. SETI is the first BOINC project. SETI is also just about the middle of the pack for credit allocation. SETI also uses FLOPS counting which is the most reliable method for determining credit with their stock application.


BOINC WIKI
ID: 4416 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
STE\/E

Send message
Joined: 29 Aug 07
Posts: 486
Credit: 573,906,610
RAC: 0
500 million credit badge13 year member badge
Message 4417 - Posted: 23 Jul 2008, 13:07:58 UTC
Last modified: 23 Jul 2008, 13:15:52 UTC

One of the basic premises of BOINC is that all research is of equal value in the system. Therefore, the payout should be the same on average for across projects. I did not make this up, it is part of the original BOINC design discussion.


I'm not arguing about that, in fact it should be that way really. But why hasn't that been brought about already since it's been 5+ years since the SETI@home Project was Initiated.

There are a few reasons that SETI is considered the standard for the moment. SETI is the first BOINC project. SETI is also just about the middle of the pack for credit allocation. SETI also uses FLOPS counting which is the most reliable method for determining credit with their stock application.


SETI also allowed the now Infamous v5.50 (It may still be used at some Projects for all I know) & others to be used & then let them run rampant across many of the Projects without lifting a finger to stop them.
ID: 4417 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
j2satx

Send message
Joined: 3 Nov 07
Posts: 13
Credit: 122,114,444
RAC: 0
100 million credit badge13 year member badge
Message 4419 - Posted: 23 Jul 2008, 15:12:54 UTC - in response to Message 4373.  



I'm not sure what happen in Nov 2006 besides one of my hosts crashed and then the problem bagan. All my old projects had there CPIDs stolen away in this transition. :D What I can't figure is how can a host have different CPIDs (4 in most of them) and control/change the Project CPIDs when they connect. I thought the Projects Servers controled the hosts. The one good thing is I got down from 10 CPIDs to 4. I even detached from BAM to see if CPID Problem would clear up but it didn't

When BAM retires a project they detach all the hosts from the project and it keeps detaching them for an eternity. An example is ABC@Home Beta. It only has work as needed (Nov 2007 was last WU I finished) & it wasn't reachable for a while so I guess that is why they retired it. I attach to it ever once in a while to see if it up and as soon as my host syncs BAM it detached. If It does give out any work, I'll have to Detach from BAM to run it.





Hmmm...

Now that is interesting. I seem to remember loosing a couple of host CPID's on BOINCStats around then, but everything resync'ed on the same Account CPID.

The only side effect was a couple of hosts lost their graphical data for everything from before the event.

Let me check my logs and get back to you on this.

Alinator



I tried everything to solve the problem. Including begging the Dev (which is a low priorty issue). I would like to see if they could straighten out the problem, but I think I going to detach 15 hosts from all the projects, delete/clear out all BOINC. Then go into one node and change all the CPID to my main one (or suspose to be my main one) then run it until I get all the projects to Sync with my host. Then put the others back online again.


This is what works for me. I always use one project on every computer. I always connect the computer to that project first. I then shut down BOINC, restart and connect to the other projects. I do not have any problems with CPIDs.
ID: 4419 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 . . . 9 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : Credit Calculations.

©2021 Astroinformatics Group