You are adding your own meaning to this - it was intended to be a reference to the hapless comedic Keystone Kops of old movie fame.

Cross -project stats parity is a pipedream of David A and his komedic Kredit Kops. I shall assume you are a member of the group.

emphasis of the incriminated expression added by me


Since I do assume that your are not dumb as a nutshell I believe that you are totally aware of your highly insulting expression.
The comparism to the Ku-Klux-Klan is overstepping every limit. I didn't do anything to you.
You just had no argument left, so you start insulting. This is very poor and not tolerable.

I hope you rethink your writing and consider to seriously apologize.

regards Kalessin

You are adding your own meaning to this - it was intended to be a reference to the hapless comedic Keystone Kops of old movie fame.

Angus, this is not a game and not fun. This was a very serious insult by you and you cannot sneak out of your responsibility by inventing some pretty side references.

Such an alliteration always implies all interpretations according to their publicity. It would be your job to qualify which was meant, if it wasn't the number one meaning but number #437 or whatever.

If you don't do that, then you do intend it to be understood as the normal meaning of kkk.

---

Dragons can fly because they don't fit into pirate ships!

BS - you jumped to a wrong interpretation. Get over it.

Try a Google search for "Kredit Kops" you'll get hits from BOINC projects all over the place, even on this project weeks ago. I'm certainly not the first one to use the term, with this spelling.

I wil admit to intending an insult , but only to David A and his gang of Kredit Kops for trying to assert their imaginary credit authority over the projects.

You are adding your own meaning to this - it was intended to be a reference to the hapless comedic Keystone Kops of old movie fame.

Angus, this is not a game and not fun. This was a very serious insult by you and you cannot sneak out of your responsibility by inventing some pretty side references.

Such an alliteration always implies all interpretations according to their publicity. It would be your job to qualify which was meant, if it wasn't the number one meaning but number #437 or whatever.

If you don't do that, then you do intend it to be understood as the normal meaning of kkk.

Each project can choose to either make the stats files available or not. It is their choice. As soon as they choose to, then they should have to play by the same RULES* (or close enough). If not then it would be like each state in the US having a different currency where 1 Texan dollar may not be worth the same as 1 Georgia dollar etc.

(*my capitals and bold)

Where are these 'Rules', may I ask? Could you please supply a link to these 'Rules'? Because I don't remember any tick box concerning 'Credit Rules' when I signed up to BOINC 9yrs ago!

These rules are nowhere written in the stone. They evolved as an (often unliked and criticized, but understood as necessary) consensus, mostly through conversations over boinc_projects and boinc_dev emailing lists (feel free to join and help make them better). And yes, it is indeed hard to try to keep (not obey) them... (Especially with free source codes and a space for algorithm optimizations.)

BTW, I did not see any BOINC around when I've ticked the 'Credit Rules principles understood' checkbox 9 years ago ;-)

As already said, if the credits would explode, all statistics sites could pack and close they business. And they are mostly for those, who like to compare credits.

Peter

Just to add, the ultimate (unreachable?) goal is not to keep 1:1 parity with SETI, but approximately across projects.

Just wanted to chime in, and say awesome work on the application!

Yes, AWESOME job. Can't believe how much faster it is.

Btw. as it is now possible again, I've updated my profile.
The files linked there contain a fixed app_info.xml.

Or as a short cut:
application for Windows 32 and 64Bit versions
application for Linux 32 and 64Bit versions

Thanks for the great app. I guess this makes the issue of whether the WUs are reported fast enough for the science moot at this time until the work generator can keep up with the tremendous gain in efficiency. :)

I guess this makes the issue of whether the WUs are reported fast enough for the science moot at this time until the work generator can keep up with the tremendous gain in efficiency. :)

ATM the new work waiting server is keeping up with the demand OK. But this is for those who have D/Led the Milksop fast client.

The real problem may occur when Dave, and the Admins, release the new client based, to some extent, on Milksop's work. All the community will move across eventually and the demand will be from everyone, not just the ones using the current fast client (just a few).

I wonder what proportion of the crunching community is actually currently using the fast client?

I wonder what proportion of the crunching community is actually currently using the fast client?

The 6 web pages, referenced on this thread, count less than 1000 downloads.

Peter

I guess this makes the issue of whether the WUs are reported fast enough for the science moot at this time until the work generator can keep up with the tremendous gain in efficiency. :)

ATM the new work waiting server is keeping up with the demand OK. But this is for those who have D/Led the Milksop fast client.

The real problem may occur when Dave, and the Admins, release the new client based, to some extent, on Milksop's work. All the community will move across eventually and the demand will be from everyone, not just the ones using the current fast client (just a few).

I wonder what proportion of the crunching community is actually currently using the fast client?

Hmm.. well I wasn't able to get any new WUs yesterday after downloading the app to most of my computers. Currently I see 56 WUs available with 70k in progress. I guess I'll have to see if I can get some work later on (this computer uses the old app for now since it doesn't have access to file sharing sites).

Ok, the number of WUs in progress is rising quickly, but it seems that a (much smaller) number of WUs is prepared to be sent out continuously - so I have work on all my boxes.
Maybe it helps to suspend other projects temporarily to pull work here.
Also a work cache bigger than the 3 days deadline here might keep your box from downloading work.

---

Lovely greetings, Cori

So faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasttttt!!!!!!!

Did we run dry on WUs again?
I couldn't get some in the last 20 minutes...

Edit:
Never mind, got some again. :-)

---

Member of BOINC@Heidelberg and ATA!

My BOINCstats

Unlike yesterday, when the upload/download server was showing sevral hundred WUs ready to send, the number has been around 50 - 80. This means the WU preparation server is only just keeping up with demand, most of the time. It has gone dry now.

I agree whole heartedly with The Gas giant & Kalessin. Like it or not, the stats sites are used to compare projects. Therefore projects should offer similar credit to one another. Projects offering good worthwhile science would then get more crunchers & worthless ones would have just a few devoted fans.

SETI used to be worthwhile to run on my old 4X500mHz PIII server box, using the "chicken" optimized app. Then they reduced the credits by something like 50%, so I reduced the resources my farm (more like "garden", actually) devotes to SETI by 75% or more.

I'm not a credit whore - I won't process any project that I don't believe in, and most of the projects I process are based on supporting the standing of my team ("The Knights Who Say NI!"). That being said, I do think that SETI's actions were unfair and arbitrary, especially given the likelihood that many, many of their users DON'T use an optimized app. In case you're wondering, the results in my signature as this is posted (863 credits on for this project) are from attaching it to 2 boxes (albeit moderately powerful ones) just yesterday, using the standard app.

As far as SETI goes, if this is really about the science and the optimized app is proven to provide accurate results, why wouldn't you want to process the data quicker, and how is it fair to penalize EVERYONE for the relatively modest productivity increases that some users experienced with optimized apps?

Now, for this project, given the drastic speed increase provided by the optimized app, the implementation of what amounts to credits throttling makes sense to me, at least as an interim measure. What I would like to see is that at least some of the key optimizations be applied to the "official" app, across the board, so our Mac-using friends aren't left out. If this results in a dramatic decrease in processing times, so that the credits/wu have to be adjusted down somewhat, that would strike me as fair because it would have an equal impact on everyone running the standard app, and people running the optimized app wouldn't be at such an advantage. Naturally, adopting the optimized app exactly as it is as the standard app would level the proverbial playing field, so long as a comparable set of optimizations are applied to the Mac app.

Now this probably won't make me very popular around here, and, like it or not, SETI is the "500 pound gorilla" of BOINC. Still, I don't advocate slavish adherence to some party line (or a particular person's views), and I do think that at least some consideration should be made of what it takes to earn credits from other projects. We do NOT operate in a vacuum, and I think it DOES make a difference if credits are suddenly 50 times easier to get (let alone 1000 times easier as used as a rhetorical device elsewhere).

For my part, as soon as I can, I'm going to install the optimized app on the two boxes I am running this project on. I trust the people that make such decisions and adjust how many credits can be earned to continue to do so in a way that is fair. And, as you can see, I have plenty of projects to get work from, if this one runs out.

---

Thanks for updating this, now, rather tired thread.

The faster MW client is now the official client, and processes slightly more science on the shorter "standard" WU. It does considerably more on the longer WU, which are now 2.5 times (shorter WU) more crunching time than the Milksop fast client and 4 times (longer WU) more crunching time.

The credit given for each is ~10 CS for the shorter WU and ~ 40 CS for the longer WU. But, as these are still faster than the old stock client the credit given per CPU/core is about 45 - 50 CS per hour. I understand this is comparable to the BOINC gorilla?

What am I doing wrong? I am getting no work. I detached, and reattached, and installed the faster app. The old faster app worked great, but I am getting no work?

What am I doing wrong? I am getting no work. I detached, and reattached, and installed the faster app. The old faster app worked great, but I am getting no work?

You must delete the app..xml file..

There is no "faster" app anymore, the production app is now the optimized app.

What am I doing wrong? I am getting no work. I detached, and reattached, and installed the faster app. The old faster app worked great, but I am getting no work?

You must delete the app..xml file..

There is no "faster" app anymore, the production app is now the optimized app.

Just detach/reattach and leave it alone! There is no longer a faster app. Everyone is now on a level playing field! As it should be!

---

A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory

There is no longer a faster app. Everyone is now on a level playing field! As it should be!

I agree, it should be. But then it's part of the BOINC 'pleasure' (I probably mean 'pain' ;) to find out if there are optimized apps and how to use them. I'm sure that many don't realize that some with higher RACs don't actually have more/bigger PCs crunching.

---