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 . . . 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profilebanditwolf
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Nov 07
Posts: 2425
Credit: 524,164
RAC: 0
500 thousand credit badge10 year member badge
Message 4463 - Posted: 25 Jul 2008, 2:36:33 UTC - in response to Message 4445.  

Could one of the Admins delete this thread before it takes down the server?

Voltron


I have been waiting for it to be deleted since it started.
Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?
If it makes sense, DON'T do it.
ID: 4463 · 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 badge10 year member badge
Message 4464 - Posted: 25 Jul 2008, 2:38:23 UTC - in response to Message 4462.  

Credt....ohhh yes Credit.

I see the argument continuously that BOINC Credits have no real value. However these credits do have an intrinsic value. A participant's mere possession of credit in relation to other participants creates that intrinsic value. This feeling of value provides participants information of how much one has contributed towards "real" science.

So yes, one can argue that this value of credit should be equal among the projects.

I would even be willing to concede to the notion of cross-project parity.

However when DA and the self-appointed "credit police" continuously attack the projects that "pay" more credit than the norm and blatently ignore those projects that grant less credit, it is impossible to give any credibility to this crusade.

Case in point: When DA approached QMC and practically threatened them that if they did not reduce their credits they would be adjusted via the stat sites. QMC quickly did what they were told. Did DA approach any projects that grant sub-par credits, like Spinhenge@home? Well I'm still waiting on that one.

It is quite possible that the BOINC Community would adopt the cross-project parity campaign with open arms if all projects were treated equally. Until then participants, like myself, that have and continue to be alienated (no pun intended) by DA and the "credit police" will continue to be vocally opposed to the notion....

It bothers us. Any real solution has to include those projects as well.


Ok then...why haven't DA, yourself, or any other member of the "credit police" attack projects that are sub-par to the norm?

I have seen countless threads across BOINC projects from the CP screaming "FOUL" your credits are too high!! Not once, have I ever seen a thread from this same group crying "FOUL" your credits are too low!!

This is NOT Cross-project parity...and if your going to see any type of success ALL projects need to be adressed with the same passion.

I have been part of several "why are this projects credits so low" threads. Typically it is because they are granting the lowest of two (granting the high promotes cheating as does granting the mean), and using benchmarks * time, and have been bitten by various benchmarks bugs (Linux systems tended to benchmark lower than Windows systems - fixed I hope) (Windows 95/98/ME tend to lose CPU time - unfortunately not apparently fixable). These are flaws in the BOINC platform itself and need to be fixed there. S@H still allows clients that cannot do reporting of the FLOPS count and use benchmarks * time, but these are becoming less prevalent as time goes on.

For some reason the threads about low credit are not as contentious and do not last nearly as long. But these projects have not been forgotten and if there is a solution, they will be included.


BOINC WIKI
ID: 4464 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Stevea

Send message
Joined: 14 Jul 08
Posts: 50
Credit: 8,398,033
RAC: 0
5 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 4465 - Posted: 25 Jul 2008, 3:40:40 UTC - in response to Message 4464.  
Last modified: 25 Jul 2008, 3:44:04 UTC

For some reason the threads about low credit are not as contentious and do not last nearly as long. But these projects have not been forgotten and if there is a solution, they will be included.


And just why is that?
Because it's not that important to Dr. A and the credit police if a project gives less credit than the all mighty SETI.

Want proof.... here it is: http://boinc.netsoft-online.com/e107_plugins/boinc/get_cpcs.php

Count'em up....

33 projects giving less credit than SETI
13 projects giving more credit than SETI (SETI is included in this group total)

There are more than twice as many projects giving less credit than the all mighty SETI. If the credit police want us to believe a single word that is spoken from them, they MUST get the projects that give less credit than SETI to give more credit. The credit police cannot just keep beating down the few projects that give more, without anything being done about the ones that give less.

Or that has been the master plan all along:
ALL PROJECTS MUST BE EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN SETI WITH CREDIT GRANTING.

Until Dr. A and the credit police show actions backing up what they say none of you can be trusted.
ID: 4465 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Alinator

Send message
Joined: 7 Jun 08
Posts: 464
Credit: 56,639,936
RAC: 0
50 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 4466 - Posted: 25 Jul 2008, 5:59:37 UTC

Spare me...

OK, here it is in black and white.

For better or worse, SAH is the defacto standard for what a Cobblestone is worth in BOINC at the moment.

Therefore as a request to all projects:

If you are currently paying less than SAH on the CPP list today, please take steps to up it.

If you are paying more, then please take steps to adjust that down.

Personally, I strongly believe that SAH (and EAH) should up their pay rate for a number of reasons I'm not going to spell out now, but the aforementioned statements pretty well sum up my basic feelings on the matter right here, right now.

Alinator
ID: 4466 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ProfileKeck_Komputers
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Aug 07
Posts: 20
Credit: 1,124,139
RAC: 56
1 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 4468 - Posted: 25 Jul 2008, 9:06:16 UTC - in response to Message 4462.  

Ok then...why haven't DA, yourself, or any other member of the "credit police" attack projects that are sub-par to the norm?

I have seen countless threads across BOINC projects from the CP screaming "FOUL" your credits are too high!! Not once, have I ever seen a thread from this same group crying "FOUL" your credits are too low!!

This is NOT Cross-project parity...and if your going to see any type of success ALL projects need to be adressed with the same passion.

You are correct and perhaps we should look at this more.

Personally I don't compare the credits much, I see a thread, then I go and check it out, then I start posting about it. In almost all cases that type of thread has pointed out a project that is granting too much credit.

It also seems to be harder to spot a project that grants too low. When you see one that is too high you glance across the chart and see a bunch of 1.xxx's. When they are too low you see 0.8xx, 0.7xx, and 0.9xx, that just doesn't make as much of an impression.
BOINC WIKI

BOINCing since 2002/12/8
ID: 4468 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
STE\/E

Send message
Joined: 29 Aug 07
Posts: 486
Credit: 573,905,473
RAC: 2,477
500 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 4469 - Posted: 25 Jul 2008, 9:27:05 UTC

I've seen a Post here & there at some Projects about the Credits being to low but never have I seen a whole Thread with the Heated Debate in it that the To Much Credit Threads seem to bring out.

ID: 4469 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Bigred
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Nov 07
Posts: 33
Credit: 300,042,542
RAC: 0
300 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 4470 - Posted: 25 Jul 2008, 9:55:38 UTC
Last modified: 25 Jul 2008, 9:56:50 UTC

First, I've had a lot of fun reading this thread. It has taken up a lot of my boring time at work.

Now for my 5 cents (inflation). Inflation is a fact of life. I can remember buying gas for my car for $.17 a gallon. Try that now. Not everybody gets paid the same for the amount of effort they provide. If you work at a burger place and make $6 an hour and I work at another one and make $7 an hour are you saying that my pay should be reduced? Have you never changed jobs for better pay? Are you saying that a Doctor and an EMT should be paid the same?

The bottom line is that life is not about everything being fair and equal. Most of us do not live in a communist society. We have the right to make decisions. I, along with many others, made the decision to leave SAH and Predictor because we didn't like what was going on. There are only 2 ways that I see that everything can be made equal. 1. wipe out all credit given across the board and give out no credit at all, which is not likely to happen. 2. Have a credit system incorperated into Boinc that does not allow the projects to set the credit given. Also not likely to happen.

I will continue to work the projects that I like without concern about the amount of credit given compared to other projects.
ID: 4470 · 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 badge10 year member badge
Message 4473 - Posted: 25 Jul 2008, 12:37:44 UTC - in response to Message 4470.  

First, I've had a lot of fun reading this thread. It has taken up a lot of my boring time at work.

Now for my 5 cents (inflation). Inflation is a fact of life. I can remember buying gas for my car for $.17 a gallon. Try that now. Not everybody gets paid the same for the amount of effort they provide. If you work at a burger place and make $6 an hour and I work at another one and make $7 an hour are you saying that my pay should be reduced? Have you never changed jobs for better pay? Are you saying that a Doctor and an EMT should be paid the same?

The bottom line is that life is not about everything being fair and equal. Most of us do not live in a communist society. We have the right to make decisions. I, along with many others, made the decision to leave SAH and Predictor because we didn't like what was going on. There are only 2 ways that I see that everything can be made equal. 1. wipe out all credit given across the board and give out no credit at all, which is not likely to happen. 2. Have a credit system incorperated into Boinc that does not allow the projects to set the credit given. Also not likely to happen.

I will continue to work the projects that I like without concern about the amount of credit given compared to other projects.

The assumption is that you get paid more for better skills (same as faster computers getting through WUs faster).

While inflation is a fact of life, is it a good thing? Usually not that great (and it can be devastating if the inflation rate is too high - some places in the world have suffered inflation rates as high as 1000% per year).

There are places in life where things are supposed to be fair (any sporting event is supposed to be fair for example, and there are rather loud protests when it is deemed to be unfair for some reason).


BOINC WIKI
ID: 4473 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
KAMCOBILL

Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 07
Posts: 18
Credit: 1,123,074
RAC: 46
1 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 4475 - Posted: 25 Jul 2008, 15:02:18 UTC

The only fair credit system that will work to make all project credits, reward for work & computers equal/fair is 1 CPU Second = 1 Credit (or any fixed credit per CPU Second). This will make all projects and computers equal if that the goal being seeked.
ID: 4475 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Irishgeezah
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 10 Nov 07
Posts: 37
Credit: 11,443,363
RAC: 0
10 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 4476 - Posted: 25 Jul 2008, 15:26:57 UTC - in response to Message 4475.  
Last modified: 25 Jul 2008, 15:28:05 UTC

FAO John McLeod VII

The only fair credit system that will work to make all project credits, reward for work & computers equal/fair is 1 CPU Second = 1 Credit (or any fixed credit per CPU Second). This will make all projects and computers equal if that the goal being seeked.


I totally agree with you but do you think the power that be will allow this? The fact that credit police chase the projects awards too much (more than S@H) speaks volumes for their actual interest in the science and does anyone really think that Boinc will give a Pentium 2 the same credits/hour as a Quad-Core (per cpu).

I agree that there should be parity across all projects, that way people will crunch purely for science but the real world is a different place and we all know that cross-project parity is the Utopia of boinc clients

For those interested:
I believe in the science behind the projects i crunch for and while points are important, they weren't the deciding factor on why I began crunching for M@H. If that was the case I'd have stopped crunching for S@H when Boinc became mandatory.
There is no need to to have a "Credit Police", if you're not happy with the credits awarded go somewhere else. Just let this community alone and spend time on one project instead to trying to monitor/compare projects.


ID: 4476 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
STE\/E

Send message
Joined: 29 Aug 07
Posts: 486
Credit: 573,905,473
RAC: 2,477
500 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 4477 - Posted: 25 Jul 2008, 15:33:38 UTC - in response to Message 4475.  

The only fair credit system that will work to make all project credits, reward for work & computers equal/fair is 1 CPU Second = 1 Credit (or any fixed credit per CPU Second). This will make all projects and computers equal if that the goal being seeked.


Thats really not fair either because the Older Computers could get just as much Credit as newer ones even though they would running less Wu's ...

EXAMPLE > A person with a say P4 2.4 Ghz Computer could take 8 hours to run a Wu while A person with a say Q6600 Computer could only take 2 hours to run the same Wu. So the Guy with the Q6600 would run 4 Wu's while the Guy with the P4 2.4 would only run 1 Wu yet they would end up with the same credit for the time spent Processing.

Great for the Guy with the P4 2.4Ghz Computer & but not so Great for the Guy with the Q6600 because he's doing 4 times the work but not receiving any more Credit for it. I'm sure everybody with older Computers would love it that way but I seriously doubt that would ever happen ... :)
ID: 4477 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
KAMCOBILL

Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 07
Posts: 18
Credit: 1,123,074
RAC: 46
1 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 4479 - Posted: 25 Jul 2008, 17:18:05 UTC

I agree with P4 getting more credit for the WUs they run. That's what's fair about. A CPU second is a CPU second. The P4 runs 1 WU and the Quad will run 4 WUs. Same Credits for 8 Hours of work.

Just like in your example that get the same amount of credits. Parity. If someone runs their P4 24 hours a day and someone runs the quad 24 hours a day, It's should be the same. I have PII up to Quads running 24/7/365. In most cases the electric cost, time spent on each for maintenace and CPU seconds are the same.

Now, I have to say this as a non-bias cruncher. I'm not into it for the credits. It's is a nice tool to see how I compare to others though. I'm attached to 83 projects and they all get the same amout of resources, except for the single platforms that I don't run and the projects that won't give WU to host (e.g. lower memory, older OS version and etc. I've been attached to QCN Alpha Test Project since it went live which it's WUs aren't CPU intensive and don't give any credits.

Which brings about the only flaw in the system, maybe. How to credit it and DepSpid?

I would say that someone that is in it for the credits are going to run the higher credit giver projects and/or give more resources to them. Someone in it for the good of the world or hobby would run them all.

As for SAH, nothing against it, loosing a lot of CPU time from me by "WU cancelled by Server" Even on my Quads. That tells me that if your not fast enough or if your running other projects, we don't want you. Of course, that not the only one I get WUs cancelled on, there are a couple of others I get it.

Last but not least, It don't matter what the credit system is, if Users/Teams have the resources and use them they'll still be in the same position in the project that they are in. So I cannot see the Fuss. Think about it.

ID: 4479 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
STE\/E

Send message
Joined: 29 Aug 07
Posts: 486
Credit: 573,905,473
RAC: 2,477
500 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 4480 - Posted: 25 Jul 2008, 19:08:21 UTC
Last modified: 25 Jul 2008, 19:46:16 UTC

I agree with P4 getting more credit for the WUs they run. That's what's fair about. A CPU second is a CPU second. The P4 runs 1 WU and the Quad will run 4 WUs. Same Credits for 8 Hours of work.


That's like saying 2 Sprinters should get the same Gold Medal even though 1 of the Sprinters who was older & slower only ran 1 Lap while the other younger & faster Sprinter ran 4 Laps of a Race.

In your View since they both spent the same amount of time on the Race Track then they both should receive the same Reward even though 1 ran 1 Lap & the other 4 Laps ... ???
ID: 4480 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
KAMCOBILL

Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 07
Posts: 18
Credit: 1,123,074
RAC: 46
1 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 4481 - Posted: 25 Jul 2008, 21:34:23 UTC - in response to Message 4480.  

I agree with P4 getting more credit for the WUs they run. That's what's fair about. A CPU second is a CPU second. The P4 runs 1 WU and the Quad will run 4 WUs. Same Credits for 8 Hours of work.


That's like saying 2 Sprinters should get the same Gold Medal even though 1 of the Sprinters who was older & slower only ran 1 Lap while the other younger & faster Sprinter ran 4 Laps of a Race.

In your View since they both spent the same amount of time on the Race Track then they both should receive the same Reward even though 1 ran 1 Lap & the other 4 Laps ... ???


It depends what the goal of the race is. I thought the goal was to do as much as you can do to the best of your ability. Not to be the first one finished or highest scorer. It's a team effort of all the BOINC Crunchers to make all the projects a success.

As I said I'm not credit oreiented but it seems all the Slow computer aren't wanted as much as the Fast ones.

It seems like the projects give high or low credits or just right credits don't have anything to do with type of computer or how fast they complete the task.

Hehe, we're in it together.
ID: 4481 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
STE\/E

Send message
Joined: 29 Aug 07
Posts: 486
Credit: 573,905,473
RAC: 2,477
500 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 4483 - Posted: 25 Jul 2008, 22:37:16 UTC - in response to Message 4481.  
Last modified: 25 Jul 2008, 22:46:22 UTC

I agree with P4 getting more credit for the WUs they run. That's what's fair about. A CPU second is a CPU second. The P4 runs 1 WU and the Quad will run 4 WUs. Same Credits for 8 Hours of work.


That's like saying 2 Sprinters should get the same Gold Medal even though 1 of the Sprinters who was older & slower only ran 1 Lap while the other younger & faster Sprinter ran 4 Laps of a Race.

In your View since they both spent the same amount of time on the Race Track then they both should receive the same Reward even though 1 ran 1 Lap & the other 4 Laps ... ???


It depends what the goal of the race is. I thought the goal was to do as much as you can do to the best of your ability. Not to be the first one finished or highest scorer. It's a team effort of all the BOINC Crunchers to make all the projects a success.

As I said I'm not credit oreiented but it seems all the Slow computer aren't wanted as much as the Fast ones.

It seems like the projects give high or low credits or just right credits don't have anything to do with type of computer or how fast they complete the task.

Hehe, we're in it together.


Your right in that the Goal is to do as much as you can do to the best of your ability, but if your willing to spend the Money on Newer & Faster Hardware then that increases your ability & your reward should be increased too I would think.

If thats not the case then whats the point in anybody buying newer & faster hardware that will run the Wu's faster, thus helping the projects more if they have the money & inclination to do so.

If their not going to be rewarded accordingly then we may as well all just keep running our 200Mhz or 450Mhz Computers which would produce less for the Projects but save ourselves a lot of money.

Your right also in the fact that we're in it together like a Team effort, but do all the Players on a Team get Paid the same, no they don't. I suppose thats much to the dismay of the lesser paid players but thats how all Teams operate ... :)
ID: 4483 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profilecaspr
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 08
Posts: 90
Credit: 501,728
RAC: 0
500 thousand credit badge10 year member badge
Message 4486 - Posted: 26 Jul 2008, 18:35:14 UTC

Soooo, if I spend 10hrs on a wu with a 266g p4 and my wingman comes along with a 3.0 Xeon quad and does that work in 2hrs, my 10hr of work should only get the same credit as the Xeon? That doesn't inspire regular people to crunch these projects with their home computers, which I believe churns out a lot (if not most) of the of the processing power of BOINC.
A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory



ID: 4486 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
STE\/E

Send message
Joined: 29 Aug 07
Posts: 486
Credit: 573,905,473
RAC: 2,477
500 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 4487 - Posted: 26 Jul 2008, 19:17:53 UTC - in response to Message 4486.  
Last modified: 26 Jul 2008, 19:52:25 UTC

Soooo, if I spend 10hrs on a wu with a 266g p4 and my wingman comes along with a 3.0 Xeon quad and does that work in 2hrs, my 10hr of work should only get the same credit as the Xeon?
That doesn't inspire regular people to crunch these projects with their home computers, which I believe churns out a lot (if not most) of the of the processing power of BOINC.


Why doesn't it inspire people, believe it or not I'm just one of those regular home computer crunchers who's chosen to invest the Time & Money into my Computers to help the Projects out more & as a result I get more Credit for my efforts.

What your wanting is something for nothing, in other words you either don't want to or just can't afford to or somebody won't let you [with any of those reason being completely understandable] improve your Computers but you still want the same rewards as somebody who has spent the time & money & effort to improve theirs.

What your arguing for is like saying you want as much Credit as IBM's Big Blue because you spend just as much time Processing as Big Blue does ... Good luck with that ... ;)
ID: 4487 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Cluster Physik

Send message
Joined: 26 Jul 08
Posts: 627
Credit: 94,940,203
RAC: 0
50 million credit badge10 year member badgeextraordinary contributions badge
Message 4488 - Posted: 27 Jul 2008, 2:25:29 UTC - in response to Message 4280.  

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.

That still leaves some projects that are way out of line in granting credits.

Are you really sure? When have you checked that?

Just had a look at some results generated by Alex Kans SSSE3x version of the seti app. You get roughly 6000 credits/day with that app on a C2Q@3GHz. If it would be just 30% more than the stock app, SETI must be a really high paying project, isn't it?

So i definitely agree, there are a lot of projects which give way less credits than SETI with optimized apps. But I don't see projects giving much more.
ID: 4488 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ProfileMac-Nic
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Mar 08
Posts: 15
Credit: 2,045,502
RAC: 0
2 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 4489 - Posted: 27 Jul 2008, 5:39:01 UTC
Last modified: 27 Jul 2008, 5:41:55 UTC

Easy solution for cross project parity.
Let every official project app. grant slightly lower credit/hour in comparission to seti(official app.) and allow optimized 3th party app's for every Boinc project.

BTW.I remember the time when a famous business machines builder was accused for cheating and removed from the (seti classic) statslist b'cause they used an optimized app.

A litle off topic.
Personaly I don't give a dime about the credits b'cause they reflect nothing.
For about the same (+/- 200 different) cpu_time at seti I'll get 50, 54, 63, 75 or 84 credits (depending on the weather?)
or if I'm realy lucky and my wingman uses an old boinc client (4.xx) I'll get 20 ~ 30 credits

Example Seti (Boinc credit system)
Total credit 550,414 <======== represents what?
Recent average credit 181.42 <===== totaly meaningless if you have +/- 20k or more pending credits

It would be different if the creditsystem was 1 credit/min.

Example Seti (classic credit system)
SETI@home classic workunits 9,047 <==== it doesn't tell me if they where faulty or not,
SETI@home classic CPU time 57,200 hours <===== but here I can see how much time I've spent contributing to the greenhouse efect.

Warm CPU regards.
ID: 4489 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Odd-Rod

Send message
Joined: 7 Sep 07
Posts: 442
Credit: 1,404,275
RAC: 65
1 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 4490 - Posted: 27 Jul 2008, 9:34:51 UTC - in response to Message 4487.  


What your wanting is something for nothing,

Don't forget it's the projects that are getting something for nothing - a lot of CPU time. (The costs of running the servers, etc, is less than buying that much CPU power)


What your arguing for is like saying you want as much Credit as IBM's Big Blue because you spend just as much time Processing as Big Blue does ... Good luck with that ... ;)


I do believe that more resources deserve more credit, but time is also a resource and should play a part (but not everything) in the credit calculation. Don't forget that the time taken by a slower CPU also costs the user money for the extra electricity used.

To sum up my thoughts on this. A lot of slower CPUs add up to a fast computer - just like even the best desktop is slow when compared to the total crunching power of Boinc. So where do we draw the fast/slow line? I don't think projects or Boinc should lose the slower CPUs if they can return WUs in time.

Ok, just some thoughts from someone who doesn't brag about credit, but realizes it's a very important part of Boinc.
BTW I check my stats almost every day, so I don't only crunch for the science...
he he

Regards
Rod

ID: 4490 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Previous · 1 . . . 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : Credit Calculations.

©2020 Astroinformatics Group