Over at EaH I suggested a test and talked about it here too in other threads. Reception and comments were lukewarm but I decided to do my survey anyway. But, here I did not start a specific thread for this test. Anyway, one week in and I just summarized the results as follows:

=============================

After 8 days of running I have accumulated another 1,039,977 CS across 37 projects with 108,690 being earned on non-GPU type projects. This number should rise as several projects that have been completely quiet these last couple months have started to issue work randomly (Hydrogen).

Almost every project has had an outage at one time or another and there was the day where Comcast decided to interrupt service. So, I changed my queue from 0.1 days to 1.0 days as soon as I noticed. No machine ran dry. Cosmology and Ralph seems to be the only projects where the outage may be affecting the earnings more than expected.

The Milky Way GPU application has matured a little and the 19d version has allowed some customization so that it will run more as you desire. I am not sure I have it under control yet and the project scheduler seems reluctant to issue me work up to the available limits (for unknown reasons) and so I run into short periods where work is not available on the one machine running the API GPU application. The other machines running MW are running the appropriate optimized application. In that others are doing more detailed tests of the earnings of MW (primarily as compared to SaH and Einstein) I was never intending to get all that into that comparison issue.

The last couple of days QCN has stopped issuing me double tasks on the Mac Pro (not sure if that will last or not) so I no longer seem to have to abort tasks every now and again.

There have been task failures on Hydrogen, FreeHAL, Rosetta, Aqua and a couple tasks that seemed to have "hung" and I shot them.

ABC seems to be the leader on my spreadsheet but that may be a lingering holdover from earlier pending tasks finally being awarded. Pending is now down to about 2K and change which should be close to a sustaining level.

Over the next week I am hoping that my get-up-and-go won't have gotten-up-and-went and I can create a spreadsheet to begin to capture the CS per S data from Willy's data.

Anyway, the rough data after 8 days shows (for selected projects),

Project . . . Raw CS . . . . . . .  Share . . . . CS / Share
ABC . . . . . 11,047 . . . . . . . . 50 . . . . . 220.94
QMC . . . . ..  1,673 . . . . . . . . 10 . . . . . 167.30
CPDN . . . .. 15,394 . . . . . . . .100 . . . . . 153.94
EaH . . . . . 12,298 . . . . . . . .100 . . . . . 122.98
POEM . . . . . 2,955 . . . . . . . . 25 . . . . .  118.20
Rosetta . . ..  5,166 . . . . . . . . 50 . . . . . 103.32

I can see that my simplistic analysis to this point does not adequately take into account earning over time so I will need to ponder that. The good news is that gathering the raw data is the most annoying part and I can fiddle with the data later.

Some of the projects it is obvious that they are penalized because of intermittency of the the work and others (QCN) because of the fact that resource share is meaningless with regard to its execution.