And now on to everybody's favorite subject :)

Since we've moved over to the new app, I'm wondering how everyones credit rate compares to seti@home (which we'll be trying to use as a benchmark).

update: comparison to other projects (like einstein@home) is also very welcome. we want to keep credit generation here similar to other boinc projects.

---

Infinitley better since I crunch zilch for SAH, so anything else is mounds better ;)

---

Here's my two cents, originally posted in a different thread.

<edit to fix link> Sorry, wrong post! :-O

<edit2> I'd make it a little higher than SAH, to be a burr under the saddle, but that's just me! :-D

As I also said before, you're paying about what the Coop apps do rate wise, which is in the 1.5 to 2.5 times better than what the stocker can do ballpark.

Alinator

And now on to everybody's favorite subject :)

Since we've moved over to the new app, I'm wondering how everyones credit rate compares to seti@home (which we'll be trying to use as a benchmark).

Why use seti as a benchmark? Run your own project! Personally, Ive seen my credits cut in half just since yesterday with the "new" app. and I expect them to go down more with the first full day of work being processed.

---

A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory

Well, as far as I'm concerned I'm quite satisfied with the credits, you shouldn't change anything about that!
I get a credit level from 40-50 on my AMD X2 5200 under Win 32-Bit. Have not yet checked it under Linux 64-Bit but I'm sure it's not that much different.
Leave it like it is and forget about the credit whiners. ;-D
Anyway I think, studying the MilkyWay is much more worth than searching for aliens right now. ;-)

---

Member of BOINC@Heidelberg and ATA!

My BOINCstats

Why use seti as a benchmark? Run your own project!

Sums it up for me.

---

Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?
If it makes sense, DON'T do it.

As the WUs. seem to being purge faster them you can reach your task list how can you tell. A longer than ???? seconds would help.

I agree why compare with seti claimed and granted rely on lowest returned.

But I would like to see some returned credits here before trying to comparing.

The only remaining WUs on the task list are errors.

Task ID 56895678
Name nm_stripe82_1_25820_1228139976_0
Workunit 57113572
Created 1 Dec 2008 13:59:40 UTC
Sent 1 Dec 2008 14:10:57 UTC
Received 1 Dec 2008 17:08:26 UTC
Server state Over
Outcome Client error
Client state Compute error
Exit status -1 (0xffffffffffffffff)
Computer ID 5448
Report deadline 4 Dec 2008 14:10:57 UTC
CPU time 2007.233667
stderr out <core_client_version>6.4.1</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<message>
- exit code -1 (0xffffffff)
</message>
<stderr_txt>
Unrecognized XML in parse_init_data_file: computation_deadline
Skipping: 1228353057.000000
Skipping: /computation_deadline
Unrecognized XML in GLOBAL_PREFS::parse_override: mod_time
Skipping: /mod_time
Unrecognized XML in GLOBAL_PREFS::parse_override: max_ncpus_pct
Skipping: 100.000000
Skipping: /max_ncpus_pct
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
Unrecognized XML in parse_init_data_file: computation_deadline
Skipping: 1228353057.000000
Skipping: /computation_deadline
Unrecognized XML in GLOBAL_PREFS::parse_override: mod_time
Skipping: /mod_time
Unrecognized XML in GLOBAL_PREFS::parse_override: max_ncpus_pct
Skipping: 100.000000
Skipping: /max_ncpus_pct
Error reading into stream_integrals

</stderr_txt>
]]>

Validate state Invalid
Claimed credit 8.19794151280182
Granted credit 0
application version 0.04

Task ID 56547667
Name nm_test27_4775_1228009632_0
Workunit 56776775
Created 30 Nov 2008 2:54:39 UTC
Sent 30 Nov 2008 9:36:45 UTC
Received 30 Nov 2008 15:41:06 UTC
Server state Over
Outcome Client error
Client state Compute error
Exit status -1 (0xffffffffffffffff)
Computer ID 5448
Report deadline 3 Dec 2008 9:36:45 UTC
CPU time 817.960043
stderr out <core_client_version>6.4.1</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<message>
- exit code -1 (0xffffffff)
</message>
<stderr_txt>
Unrecognized XML in parse_init_data_file: computation_deadline
Skipping: 1228163805.000000
Skipping: /computation_deadline
Unrecognized XML in GLOBAL_PREFS::parse_override: mod_time
Skipping: /mod_time
Unrecognized XML in GLOBAL_PREFS::parse_override: max_ncpus_pct
Skipping: 100.000000
Skipping: /max_ncpus_pct
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
APP: error writing checkpoint (closing checkpoint file) 0
Unrecognized XML in parse_init_data_file: computation_deadline
Skipping: 1228163805.000000
Skipping: /computation_deadline
Unrecognized XML in GLOBAL_PREFS::parse_override: mod_time
Skipping: /mod_time
Unrecognized XML in GLOBAL_PREFS::parse_override: max_ncpus_pct
Skipping: 100.000000
Skipping: /max_ncpus_pct
Error reading into stream_integrals

</stderr_txt>
]]>

Validate state Invalid
Claimed credit 3.34071149889838
Granted credit 0
application version 0.04


Michael

As the WUs. seem to being purge faster them you can reach your task list how can you tell. A longer than ???? seconds would help.

I agree why compare with seti claimed and granted rely on lowest returned.

But I would like to see some returned credits here before trying to comparing.

The only remaining WUs on the task list are errors.

<Snip problem report>

Michael

Just FYI about SAH: the only time there is a major difference in the granted for a task is if your wingman is running a deprecated or other wise broken CC or host. They could cut them off and eliminate that really annoying and credability busting problem, but won't for god only knows what reason (I don't buy the official line). ;-)

AFA your problem goes, trying setting the apps to stay in memory when suspended for now.

Alinator

It's been a while since I've even participated at SETI, so I don't know if my sentiment matches Alinator's or not. However, based on anecdotal observations, I would tend to agree with what was said about the inflationary aspects of "the Coop" apps (optimized apps originally by Simon Zadra, now run by a different group at KSWN). The performance of the stock SETI application is significantly less than those applications. The figure reported at BOINC Combined Statistics is skewed upward vs. everyone running stock. How much of a skew is anyone's guess...

Anyway, another problem at SETI is a severe AMD penalty for Astropulse if you run the stock Astropulse application. From what I have been able to determine, this performance penalty was noticed in beta before Astropulse was pushed out to the main project.

One of my main issues with Cross-project Parity is that I feel you can't have cross-project values be "equivalent" if you can't even make intra-project values equivalent. With respect to that, the group at Einstein@Home has made a very valiant effort in bringing intra-project parity with their applications.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that if you feel you MUST pick a project to align credits with, I'd align them with Einstein, which with the SSE2 application currently yields me about 25 cr/hr... The current 0.04 application here yields about 50-52 cr/hr...which is right about the same as the old non-optimized application.

Personally, I think you should run your own project, but if you want a target reduction amount, I'd suggest cutting by a maximum of half the current level, but probably more along the lines of a 30-40% cut from the current level...

Just FYI about SAH: the only time there is a major difference in the granted for a task is if your wingman is running a deprecated or other wise broken CC or host. They could cut them off and eliminate that really annoying and credability busting problem, but won't for god only knows what reason (I don't buy the official line). ;-)

Which "official line"? That they might be sponsors? That they might have an NTLM proxy? That the project does not want to cut off anyone submitting "valid science"?

The 3.x clients give 0 credit for anyone who is "lucky" enough to get paired with them. 4.x clients seem to have a significantly higher risk of going into "stand-alone" mode and also asking for 0 credit. Might be enough to offset the optimized apps...

Also, don't forget the issues with Astropulse too...

AFA your problem goes, trying setting the apps to stay in memory when suspended for now.

See my post in the windows_x86 thread. Kinda hard to keep apps in memory when you click Start -> Shutdown ;-)

All my credits comparison so far:
http://www.editgrid.com/user/hickop/boinc

AFA your problem goes, trying setting the apps to stay in memory when suspended for now.

See my post in the windows_x86 thread. Kinda hard to keep apps in memory when you click Start -> Shutdown ;-)

I keep them in my memory good when I do that, but the computers have a hard time doing the same..... :D

---

And now on to everybody's favorite subject :)

Since we've moved over to the new app, I'm wondering how everyones credit rate compares to seti@home (which we'll be trying to use as a benchmark).

I have been running the new fast stock client for 24 hours now, and think the current set up for demand/WU results return/servers keeping up looks to be stable.

The shorter WU (2.5 x longer than the Milksop client) gives about 10 CS, while the longer WU (4 x Milksop's client time) gives ~ 40 CS.

If the stock clients only are compared, and the output comes from the newer Core 2 CPUs, then the output is about 45 - 50 CS per hour (roughly comparable to SETI and Einstein - I get 44 CS per hour from a Core 2 Quad).

I am happy for the current set up to continue and the current credit levels to be where they are. The servers seem to be coping with demand (at least over the last 24 hours) and cross project parity is loosely maintained.

You need to leave things as they are and settled for a week or two, and note the total credit score say tomorrow and next week. Then divide the rise in credit by the number of hosts crunching. This should give you the credit per hour actually done. Adjustments can then be made, should they prove necessary.

Just managed to get some data to compare between seti beta 6.03 and milky way


56890136 57109332 1 Dec 2008 12:39:54 UTC 1 Dec 2008 20:20:13 UTC Over Success Done 4,035.92 17.28 39.84 0.0042815516660389700489603361810938 credt per second
56888838 57108372 1 Dec 2008 12:20:41 UTC 1 Dec 2008 20:20:13 UTC Over Success Done 3,985.08 17.07 39.84 0.0042827035977720909227758542827036 credit per second

seti beta

4918672 1520395 1 Dec 2008 9:04:01 UTC 1 Dec 2008 16:53:55 UTC Over Success Done 1,987.75 13.25 13.25 0.006665828197710979750974720160986 credits per second.
4918667 1520370 1 Dec 2008 9:04:01 UTC 1 Dec 2008 16:19:21 UTC Over Success Done 1,871.61 13.25 13.25 0.0070794663418126639631119731140569 credits er second.

michael

On my Linux x86_64 system, 2.53GHz Core 2 Duo, the only project I run on there, ABC@Home, gives about 60 credits/hour. They also have good scale ups for 64-bit systems though, I think the ideal would be a little lower, maybe around 45-50 credits/hour. Last I checked (0.4 app), it was at 108 credits/hour, which was the cap implemented.

---

from first tests: hmm 15-20% better then opt. seti 64bit, but still testing

---

Personal opinion here since I refuse to run seti. Been running einstein for a number of years and I think they would be a favorable project for comparison. 50 credit per hour is a reasonable amount. That's 1/2 of what we were limited to before and while it might not get us down to seti's level it goes a long way to reducing the excess that made DA pay a visit here.

Its your project and its how you determine what the value is for the work being done, NOT DA. 50 credits per hour seems to be a happy medium from the low projects and the higher paying projects.

---

... 50 credits per hour seems to be a happy medium from the low projects and the higher paying projects.

100% agreed!! ;)

---

Lovely greetings, Cori

... 50 credits per hour seems to be a happy medium from the low projects and the higher paying projects.

100% agreed!! ;)

DITTO!

---

A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory