Message boards :
Number crunching :
Nice!
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
Send message Joined: 17 May 08 Posts: 16 Credit: 528,507 RAC: 0 |
I got a laugh out of this client. Now thats a smoking cpu!#23471 Even managed to snip a w/u screen capture! Must have rockets for rollerskates. |
Send message Joined: 7 Sep 07 Posts: 444 Credit: 5,712,523 RAC: 1 |
I've just downloaded and completed a WU in 10min 48sec. Seems there are a couple of short ones to be had. It was amazing to watch the estimated remaining time drop so quickly. Unfortunately the next WU looks like a long one... |
Send message Joined: 9 Jul 08 Posts: 85 Credit: 44,842,651 RAC: 0 |
I think the issue is that you probably got 4 credits for that short one. This client got 260 credits for what it reported as 17.5 minutes or so. With the reported processor, I don't see how it could have completed the task even if it started working on it the moment it was sent, but then the RAC is completely nuts for that processor as well so something is off. |
Send message Joined: 27 Aug 07 Posts: 85 Credit: 405,705 RAC: 0 |
I think the issue is that you probably got 4 credits for that short one. It is possible that someone is gaming the system since there is no [edit]apparent[/edit] validation done here. If the user were to attach the header for the task to some stock data that was calculated for a previous task, there is no evident validation to stop them. S@H Classic had exactly the same problem, which is why S@H uses 2 tasks per WU and makes certain they match before granting credit. BOINC WIKI |
Send message Joined: 17 May 08 Posts: 16 Credit: 528,507 RAC: 0 |
Fish on! Fish on! Got me another one! Nice Pentium4 2.8Ghz #23272 Smile!! You ought to be in pictures! :D I'm on FIRE today! |
Send message Joined: 17 Feb 08 Posts: 363 Credit: 258,227,990 RAC: 0 |
Fish on! Fish on! Got me another one! And now what exactly makes you think that this is cheating ? Join Support science! Joinc Team BOINC United now! |
Send message Joined: 27 Aug 07 Posts: 85 Credit: 405,705 RAC: 0 |
I did not say it was cheating, that has yet to be proved. I said it could be cheating, that has yet to be disproved. It could be other things as well (such as a win9X client that restarted causing the CPU time to go to 0). Until there is some sort of investigation, we won't know either way. I believe that it is probably only the project admins that can do the investigation, we can only bring the possibility of a problem to their attention. BOINC WIKI |
Send message Joined: 17 Feb 08 Posts: 363 Credit: 258,227,990 RAC: 0 |
I did not say it was cheating, that has yet to be proved. I said it could be cheating, that has yet to be disproved. It could be other things as well (such as a win9X client that restarted causing the CPU time to go to 0). Until there is some sort of investigation, we won't know either way. I believe that it is probably only the project admins that can do the investigation, we can only bring the possibility of a problem to their attention. There is no problem with this nor is it cheating. It's just ... doing the math a little bit faster that's all... and of course its valid. Join Support science! Joinc Team BOINC United now! |
Send message Joined: 17 May 08 Posts: 16 Credit: 528,507 RAC: 0 |
I did not say it was cheating, that has yet to be proved. I said it could be cheating, that has yet to be disproved. It could be other things as well (such as a win9X client that restarted causing the CPU time to go to 0). Until there is some sort of investigation, we won't know either way. I believe that it is probably only the project admins that can do the investigation, we can only bring the possibility of a problem to their attention. Don't get me wrong now, I never said there was cheating. If I suspected there was cheating, I would have flat out said it was. I need me a farm of those Pentium 4's! LOL |
Send message Joined: 17 Feb 08 Posts: 363 Credit: 258,227,990 RAC: 0 |
the farm of P4s won't help... you need the application to do this ;) Join Support science! Joinc Team BOINC United now! |
Send message Joined: 17 May 08 Posts: 16 Credit: 528,507 RAC: 0 |
MINT! Crunch3r :D :D |
Send message Joined: 9 Jul 08 Posts: 85 Credit: 44,842,651 RAC: 0 |
There is no problem with this nor is it cheating. It's just ... doing the math a little bit faster that's all... and of course its valid. Glad to know you've been continuing the optimization Crunch3r! I must admit that I suspected there were some serious opportunities for it when I saw that a 6 year old Celeron 2Ghz was only taking about 40% longer to do a task than a Xeon 5120 on the stock app. ;) So are you hopefully going to share with the whole class and provide these to the developers? :D |
Send message Joined: 17 Feb 08 Posts: 363 Credit: 258,227,990 RAC: 0 |
just take a look at this thread... i think the answer to your question becomes quite clear... besides that the "developers" do know what can be done to improve the apps performance cuz i told them a few months ago... Join Support science! Joinc Team BOINC United now! |
Send message Joined: 8 Oct 07 Posts: 289 Credit: 3,690,838 RAC: 0 |
Yes give the 'enemy' more ammunition while at war! :D But seriously last time it was done the project adjusted credit accordingly ;) |
Send message Joined: 9 Jul 08 Posts: 85 Credit: 44,842,651 RAC: 0 |
just take a look at this thread... i think the answer to your question becomes quite clear... Uh... I'm lost. What does yet another "Wahhh... credit is too <low/high/sideways/unfair/shiny>" thread have to do with improving the task execution times? That's at least a 20-fold increase in speed! They could increase the precision to the level of the 373 tasks and still be completing them in only slightly longer than the time of the original tasks! Damn! :D What the heck are they waiting on? Are you positive these are producing identical output on identical tasks? (or at least close enough for the science value?) |
Send message Joined: 17 Feb 08 Posts: 363 Credit: 258,227,990 RAC: 0 |
there are a couple of other things involved in that decision. seeing the whiners here is just the tip of the iceberg...
might be even faster... i could get a rac of 450K/day out of a single V8 xeon if it would let it crunch 24h... but i dont.
i guess money/time plays a part..
results were identical in my off-line tests. Join Support science! Joinc Team BOINC United now! |
Send message Joined: 9 Jul 08 Posts: 85 Credit: 44,842,651 RAC: 0 |
Well, I have at least a few older machines that I could theoretically do testing on if you're needing to do any validation on less common processors. Shoot me a message if I can ever be of assistance. Until then, I'll just hope the project folks can make use of your improvements. Good luck! :) |
©2024 Astroinformatics Group