Message boards :
Number crunching :
New App status
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 . . . 7 · 8 · 9 · 10
Author | Message |
---|---|
Send message Joined: 12 Nov 07 Posts: 2425 Credit: 524,164 RAC: 0 |
Here's one more: Check our 11-14, 2,348,137 credits. http://boincstats.com/stats/host_graph.php?pr=milkyway&id=38259 Host ID "38259" Owner UL1 Link to users host stats Commission time 2008-11-13 CPU Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5482 @ 3.20GHz Number of CPU's (number of (virtual) cores) 4(8) Operating System and version Linux Total Credit 2,349,389.18 Yet it doesn't seem to be acknowledged on this persons full page, as in 11-14 only shows 165,768 credits for all projects. http://boincstats.com/stats/boinc_user_graph.php?pr=bo&id=d7a3d9afaf379c6984d47f1d9672f5e2 ------------------------------------------ Here's a second, back to the n/a user again: It's not possible to get this from a quad. http://boincstats.com/stats/host_graph.php?pr=milkyway&id=40467 12-9: 1,003,763 credits Host ID "40467" Owner n/a Link to users host stats n/a Commission time 2008-12-08 CPU Intel(R) Core(tm)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz Number of CPU's (number of (virtual) cores) 1(4) Operating System and version Linux Total Credit 1,010,672.65 Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected? If it makes sense, DON'T do it. |
Send message Joined: 3 Aug 08 Posts: 89 Credit: 255,801 RAC: 0 |
|
Send message Joined: 12 Nov 07 Posts: 2425 Credit: 524,164 RAC: 0 |
Good day all! But wouldn't the 108 credit/hour limit keep the credits down? 108 x 24 = 2592 per core/per day. Quad = 10368 not 1,000,000 8core = 20736 not 2,349,000 64 core server = 165888 not 3,145,000 1000000 = 41666 credits per hour 2349000 = 97875 3145000 = 131041 Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected? If it makes sense, DON'T do it. |
Send message Joined: 3 Aug 08 Posts: 89 Credit: 255,801 RAC: 0 |
Hi banditwolf, For some reason boincstats plays crazy with the users or hosts results of MW , but Allprojects.com seems to me it delivers the same stats you can find on the MW projects statistics page. Yesterday i read somewhere that the optimized client can crunch a wu in 300~ seconds, as i checked the stats some of the top quads it looks like its true what i've read. The most crazy of all is that i have the optimized client ,but only the win version. I have Linux 64 and im working to optimize the client for my machine, hope i can optimize the client for my machine. |
Send message Joined: 12 Nov 07 Posts: 2425 Credit: 524,164 RAC: 0 |
Allprojects.com ?? I get nowhere. Yesterday i read somewhere that the optimized client can crunch a wu in 300~ seconds, as i checked the stats some of the top quads it looks like its true what i've read. I don't doubt this, but the 108 credits/hour should be a cap right? That means some are getting around this unless it was taken down. Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected? If it makes sense, DON'T do it. |
Send message Joined: 3 Aug 08 Posts: 89 Credit: 255,801 RAC: 0 |
Allprojects.com Im sorry, the correct URL is www.allprojectstats.com . The 108 cap it's an unproductive limit for the project, this is my viewpoint. Personally i support all those who can optimize the application of MW ,but to be correct on this matter ,as return the project should not put new limits on the production, or even much more the credits should not be dropped down again. At my opinion MW have to correct the granted credits to something like 50-55 credits per wu for several reasons. |
Send message Joined: 12 Nov 07 Posts: 2425 Credit: 524,164 RAC: 0 |
Since this was covered before in this topic= Here's the same results on this site: http://www.allprojectstats.com/show.php?projekt=61&id=40570 Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected? If it makes sense, DON'T do it. |
Send message Joined: 21 Aug 08 Posts: 625 Credit: 558,425 RAC: 0 |
Something to bear in mind is that if stats exports don't happen from the project for multiple days, the stats sites will end up seeing hosts having a "really good day" once the stat export comes through. I don't know if that has anything to do with or not, but what I do know is that far to many people around here have itchy "they're cheating" pointing-fingers... It's ok to bring this up in the context of "Hey Travis and Dave, maybe you have a problem", but I do not have a favorable opinion about accusations of cheating being done in public. |
Send message Joined: 8 Nov 08 Posts: 178 Credit: 6,140,854 RAC: 0 |
It's ok to bring this up in the context of "Hey Travis and Dave, maybe you have a problem", but I do not have a favorable opinion about accusations of cheating being done in public. Seconded. There's just too many factors to take into account about why some machines have really good credits compared to others. |
Send message Joined: 12 Nov 07 Posts: 2425 Credit: 524,164 RAC: 0 |
Something to bear in mind is that if stats exports don't happen from the project for multiple days, the stats sites will end up seeing hosts having a "really good day" once the stat export comes through. I don't know if that has anything to do with or not, but what I do know is that far to many people around here have itchy "they're cheating" pointing-fingers... It's ok to bring this up in the context of "Hey Travis and Dave, maybe you have a problem", but I do not have a favorable opinion about accusations of cheating being done in public. Well I have not seen a missed day in exports in awhile. And I Never said anybody was cheating. Just asking how 1 machine can get over 3 million in one day. It should take that server 19 days to hit 3.145 million at 108/hour/core. It was reqisterd 12-10. Even as of now that is 4 days. And if you look I put Travis: Is this when a lot of the errored/odd results were from?Since around that time Travis said a lot of bad results were comming in. And around then people weren't getting any work. Travis has yet to reply. Some have an itchy finger accuising people of calling others cheaters. Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected? If it makes sense, DON'T do it. |
Send message Joined: 21 Aug 08 Posts: 625 Credit: 558,425 RAC: 0 |
And I Never said anybody was cheating. Just asking how 1 machine can get over 3 million in one day. It should take that server 19 days to hit 3.145 million at 108/hour/core. It was reqisterd 12-10. Even as of now that is 4 days. And if you look I putTravis: Is this when a lot of the errored/odd results were from?Since around that time Travis said a lot of bad results were comming in. And around then people weren't getting any work. Travis has yet to reply. Again, if one wishes to bring up the question as "Hey Travis and Dave, maybe you have a problem", that doesn't bother me. You are stating that's how you're approaching it, so the second part of what I said should not be bothering you... |
Send message Joined: 12 Nov 07 Posts: 2425 Credit: 524,164 RAC: 0 |
If you did feel I was saying that someone was cheating, why bring it up again? Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected? If it makes sense, DON'T do it. |
Send message Joined: 21 Aug 08 Posts: 625 Credit: 558,425 RAC: 0 |
If you don't feel that you are, and the post was not directed at you (honestly, I was more leaving it for Saenger, even though he hasn't posted in this specific thread in 3 weeks, but has thrown around the word "cheaters" lately), then why are you taking offense? |
Send message Joined: 7 Jun 08 Posts: 464 Credit: 56,639,936 RAC: 0 |
The most likely explanation is that the current #1 host is the result of HID merge. If you look at it's history, it was created and the ran a result or two to give a preliminary value for RAC and Credit. Then it was merged with another HID which had the bulk of the credit. Due to the way this is handled by the BOINC server package, this results in the 'surge' in RAC you have observed. However, it should be noted that it is not sustainable, unless of course the project is not auto-decaying the stats for inactive hosts. This phenomena has been seen many times in the past on many different projects, and really isn't anything to get too worked up over. I look at it sort of like the old trick of getting your browser to display the contents of one of your hard drives and then try to represent that as an indication that your computer is infected and you need to pay some cash to someone to get it fixed. ;-) Not really living up to the spirit of the game, but it's a real stretch to call (or even imply) it's 'cheating'. :-) Alinator |
Send message Joined: 21 Aug 08 Posts: 625 Credit: 558,425 RAC: 0 |
Bluescreen is more fun though... |
Send message Joined: 6 Apr 08 Posts: 2018 Credit: 100,142,856 RAC: 0 |
Bluescreen is more fun though... That's really great. It certainly brings back some feelings of dread... :P |
Send message Joined: 21 Aug 08 Posts: 625 Credit: 558,425 RAC: 0 |
Bluescreen is more fun though... Fear and loathing in [your town]? |
©2024 Astroinformatics Group