Stock client credit output should be compared to stock client, and optimised to optimised. No shout of "unfair" should be given credence if comparing optimised client to a stock client, even though for MW the optimised client is the stock client.

"optimized" is not a yes/no question. You're saying we can't compare big apples to small watermelons, we have to compare big to big and small to small. But they're still different fruit. And what size does it have to be to be called "big"?

---

Please use "Reply" or "Quote" buttons on posts, instead of "reply to this thread". Keep the posts linked together ("X is a reply to Y").

I must be missing something about this 'credit.' What's the big deal? Is there a prize? Can I spend them somewhere?

BKE

And what size does it have to be to be called "big"?

Size doesn't matter...

I have Lenovo t7200/winxp32 laptop I use to test various projects. I have never run SETI but have run a fair spectrum of other projects. I have a spreadsheet where I take the granted credit divided by cpu time to compute the PPD/core. Numbers are averaged over up to 10 WU's when available.

docking@home: 350 ppd/core
nqueens: 330 ppd/core
3x+1: 1200 ppd/core
sha-1: 450 ppd/core
simap: 500 ppd/core
superlink: 400 ppd/core
milkyway optimized client: 2600 ppd/core
milkyway 0.07: 875 ppd/core (two wu only so far, seeing similar numbers for a linux64 e4300)

assessment: credit appears generous.

And what size does it have to be to be called "big"?

Size doesn't matter...

But optimized does matter.

---

Please use "Reply" or "Quote" buttons on posts, instead of "reply to this thread". Keep the posts linked together ("X is a reply to Y").

And what size does it have to be to be called "big"?

Size doesn't matter...

But optimized does matter.

I suppose, since we are charting the motion of the cosmic ocean...

I suppose, since we are charting the motion of the cosmic ocean...

and looking into the Milky Way makeup potion...

I have Lenovo t7200/winxp32 laptop I use to test various projects. I have never run SETI but have run a fair spectrum of other projects. I have a spreadsheet where I take the granted credit divided by cpu time to compute the PPD/core. Numbers are averaged over up to 10 WU's when available.

docking@home: 350 ppd/core
nqueens: 330 ppd/core
3x+1: 1200 ppd/core
sha-1: 450 ppd/core
simap: 500 ppd/core
superlink: 400 ppd/core
milkyway optimized client: 2600 ppd/core
milkyway 0.07: 875 ppd/core (two wu only so far, seeing similar numbers for a linux64 e4300)

assessment: credit appears generous.

Depends on the level of optimisation.....

On my Q6600 @ 3342 with reasonably efficient DDR2 timings.
Running Debian Sid AMD64:

Seti using the AK V8 SSSE3 app I seem to vary between about 53 to 64 credits per hour depending on the AR.

With the new MilkyWay app I have been getting around the 58 credits per hour.

This to me makes the credit look pretty fair and reasonable at least on this Box.

IMHO all somewhat attentive S@h enthusiasts use the optimized clients so I think it is fair comparison. I would imagine this portion of the S@h users more correctly reflects the MW@h user base than the average S@h user with the forgotten older P4 running the stock client.

I think Dr. David P. Anderson's dream of cross project parity is misguided and creates more problems between projects than it is worth.

Comparisons should relate merely to other contributors within a particular project and a project should live or die on the value of its contribution to science and enjoyment of its participants rather than who is giving the best cross project reward for this week.

That said I am a big fan of the work of Dr. Anderson and his role in the creation of distributed computing as we know it.


UncleVom

Is someone tinlkering with the credits again?. I'm running in to a whole batch of new workunits that are giving 1/2 the adjusted credits. No more 42 units, bunch of 39 unit credits and now I have 39 credit ones that are giving 19.18 credit for the same amount of time as the original 39 credit units?

Its getting really hard to figure out what is going on when you have 79,82 and 86 work that has R1,R2, R4, R5, R7 in them. How are we supposed to know the difference?


Travis maybe it would help instead of just telling us what the 79, 82, 86 units are to break down what they are with the different R designations are supposed to mean and the credit that is supposed to be awarded.

---

Is someone tinlkering with the credits again?. I'm running in to a whole batch of new workunits that are giving 1/2 the adjusted credits. No more 42 units, bunch of 39 unit credits and now I have 39 credit ones that are giving 19.18 credit for the same amount of time as the original 39 credit units?

Its getting really hard to figure out what is going on when you have 79,82 and 86 work that has R1,R2, R4, R5, R7 in them. How are we supposed to know the difference?


Travis maybe it would help instead of just telling us what the 79, 82, 86 units are to break down what they are with the different R designations are supposed to mean and the credit that is supposed to be awarded.

which ones are giving bad credit now? i'll try and see the same problem was caused by the crashes yesterday.

edit: i found what was causing the bad credit, so new WUs should be generating appropriate credit. this isn't intentional but a bug :P it really shouldn't be an issue as all WUs are supposed to have the same credit/work ratio.

---

this isn't intentional but a bug :P

Is someone tinlkering with the credits again?. I'm running in to a whole batch of new workunits that are giving 1/2 the adjusted credits. No more 42 units, bunch of 39 unit credits and now I have 39 credit ones that are giving 19.18 credit for the same amount of time as the original 39 credit units?

Its getting really hard to figure out what is going on when you have 79,82 and 86 work that has R1,R2, R4, R5, R7 in them. How are we supposed to know the difference?

Oh jeez thats disgusting. Lets boycott this project, again.

---

edit: i found what was causing the bad credit, so new WUs should be generating appropriate credit. this isn't intentional but a bug :P it really shouldn't be an issue as all WUs are supposed to have the same credit/work ratio.

I had seen this the other day and you said there was a problem. Figured it might be related.

Thanks for checking it out and fixing it so soon Travis....

---

this isn't intentional but a bug :P

You can have all my bugs !!!!!!

I'm willing to share. :-))

Hummmm looks like daily project loss of 900,000 daily wu's being completed now that the project has bowed down to the DA cops and seti@home hummm...
Oh well it was great while it lasted. Cheers....

---

It seems no one has ever watched the brak show :(

Is that with or without Space Ghost Coast to Coast?

---

me@rescam.org

Oh jeez thats disgusting. Lets boycott this project, again.

Caution. Rogue robots.

---

me@rescam.org

My daily RAC was over 3.000 credits averagely with the optimized SETI client , the new credit system of MW it's adjusted to the SETI stock application obviously . My RAC with the optimized MW client its around 2.000 credits now.

---

I have a server where BOINC runs 24/7.
(Intel Quad Core Q9300, 2.5 GHz, 4GB RAM Windows Server 2003 R2 64BIT).
Normally, I change the BOINC project on which it has to calculate every weekend.
So this server calculate 1 week p.ex. for MW, the next week for Einstein@home ...

When I look at my statistics, this server get overall approx. 2200 credits/day.
Some projects give more credits some less. But in the middle I got it.
(I ran Yoyo@home, Einstein@home, WCG)

When this server is calcualting for MW I get about 6000 credit/day!

Here some numbers:
20 WUs from MW (Duration,Credits,Credits/hour):
1149,22 34,48 108,01
1153,7 34,61 108,00
1148,09 34,44 107,99
1153,03 34,59 108,00
2290,28 41,09 64,59
2176,63 39,85 65,91
2191,28 39,84 65,45
2178,09 39,85 65,87
2191,34 39,84 65,45
2305,44 41,09 64,16
2188,73 39,84 65,53
2179,02 39,85 65,84
2194,05 39,84 65,37
2190,39 39,84 65,48
2194,02 39,84 65,37
2187,02 39,84 65,58
1160,81 34,82 107,99
2175,98 39,85 65,93
2192,8 39,84 65,41
2289,91 41,09 64,60

Overall:
Runtime: 38889,83 sec
Credits: 774,33
Credits/hour/core: 71,68



Now Seti (optimized app):
6854,03 55,56 29,18
5377,72 44,2 29,59
5724,2 45,34 28,51
5585,19 44,2 28,49
5485,06 44,2 29,01
7286,03 55,56 27,45

Overall:
Runtime: 36312,23 sec
Credits: 289,06
Credits/hour/core: 28,66



My opinion is that MW spends about 3 time more credits than other BOINC projects.

When you're using BOINC to run your application on clients you should observe the BOINC rules about credits.


thanks

P.S.: Sorry for this bad english.