I wonder what would happen if the per core limit was dropped from 5k a day to someplace around 500..an i7 would still get 4k WU per day, at an average of 25cr/WU, 100k a day, Q6600 about 50k a day...(with using s GPU)

Seems fair to me...

Might as well just put the speed limit back in place if these sorts of policies are implemented.

OK, maybe 500 is a bit low...1k per core would get you about 200k credit per day on an i7, or any 8 CPU box. UL1 is doing 193k RAC with the top host. That should keep his PC fed...

---

Click to help Seti City.

OH MY GOD i though this project was about the science not the credit.

The users Dedicated to science are the one's who crunch for those projects which award a pittance for the hours spent crunching.

As far as Crunchers are concerned, most projects are about credits, that's why they complain about it!

Why can't it be both?

I am here as with the other 30 or so projects I give time to for the science. Credit is my proof that I was here... and that I did do the work.

I complain because the credit system is flawed and the payment is inherently unfair ...

I'm not saying that it has to be one way or the other, I agree, I also have credits at over 20 projects - though I don't run the other projects very often (must start revisiting). My statement is about some users who crunch for one, maybe two projects and that's because they PAY the most.

How is the credit system flawed? Humour me!
Payment is inherently unfair...? On what basis?

If the credit system is flawed, then it's cross-project parity you should be arguing for, for example, uFluids 1 credit or less (average.) for 5-10 mins crunch-time should be applied across all projects? Would that be deemed Fair?

I don't know what is inherently unfair regarding payment, could you enlighten me!

I think comparing any two projects will inevitably show a certain amount of unfairness, no two projects are the same!

If you feel that the credit system is flawed and that you are being treated unfairly, then why are you here? Same as me, accumulation of credits, but, the difference is, I don't feel as if I'm being treated unfairly and if I did, I'd go somewhere else.
<br>
<br>
<br>
I notice your from the U.S.A. so the comparison I'll make may be unfamiliarly to you.
In the U.K. we have a Community (POLL TAX) Charge, a tax paid to the local authority for the services they provide to each house-hold.
Each house-hold is given the same services, no-one gets any more than anyone else.
So, the comparison is, does each house-hold pay the same as every other house-hold? No of course not, the bigger your house, the more you pay.

It currently stands at 6 units per core, no-one gets more than any-one else, the only difference is how many 6's you get

---

I'm reporting you all for Abusing WU's :P

It used to be that would get you 10-20, but now I hear it's only 6... ;-)

It currently stands at 6 units per core, no-one gets more than any-one else, the only difference is how many 6's you get

Here Here totally agree with you....

Its almost like say why buy a ATI GPU 4870 for £165.00 from my local computer store and only be able to use it on one project.
Where as i could buy a Intel Core 2 QuadPro Q6600 8MB LGA775 2.40GHz 1066FSB SLACR for £170.00 once again from my local computer store and be able to use in on all projects

---

Smoke me a kipper ill be back for breakfast

It currently stands at 6 units per core, no-one gets more than any-one else, the only difference is how many 6's you get

Here Here totally agree with you....

Its almost like say why buy a ATI GPU 4870 for £165.00 from my local computer store and only be able to use it on one project.
Where as i could buy a Intel Core 2 QuadPro Q6600 8MB LGA775 2.40GHz 1066FSB SLACR for £170.00 once again from my local computer store and be able to use in on all projects

Because they're here for the points, not the science, to quote a well used term - Credit Whores.

Sorry.......the science does matter, just not as much as the credits.

---

One thing that annoys me about these scripts is that after it requests work, BOINC tries again right away (presumably only if it failed to get work). Is there any way to disable this behavior?

One thing that annoys me about these scripts is that after it requests work, BOINC tries again right away (presumably only if it failed to get work). Is there any way to disable this behavior?

What's annoying about the normal behaviour of BOINC?

---

Obviously, I don't want to hammer the servers unnecessarily. So if I'm already running a script to update every 15 minutes, I don't want it to -also- update automatically.

I do feel a bit guilty about using a script, but my computer has been dry for the past week.

Obviously, I don't want to hammer the servers unnecessarily. So if I'm already running a script to update every 15 minutes, I don't want it to -also- update automatically.

I do feel a bit guilty about using a script, but my computer has been dry for the past week.

You could try changing to 'Network Activity based on Preferences' under the Activity tab!

---

I tried 'Network Activity Suspended' which is overruled by the script being run - but it ignores the option and asks for work anyway.

I'm not saying that it has to be one way or the other, I agree, I also have credits at over 20 projects - though I don't run the other projects very often (must start revisiting). My statement is about some users who crunch for one, maybe two projects and that's because they PAY the most.

[quote]How is the credit system flawed? Humour me!
Payment is inherently unfair...? On what basis?

Start Here ... I forget when I wrote that, but it was last modified in 2007 ... if you follow the links to the old discussion threads some of those pre-date that discussion. Others, sadly, are missing as the site they were posted on was dropped (BOINC Beta). I think some of the "fixes" that have been done are flawed in that they don't really address the fundamental issues, or address it in a way that is not optimal.

If the credit system is flawed, then it's cross-project parity you should be arguing for, for example, uFluids 1 credit or less (average.) for 5-10 mins crunch-time should be applied across all projects? Would that be deemed Fair?

I do argue for cross project parity and I do not buy the argument that it is impossible. Well, it is impossible if the "powers that be" don't even want to look at the issue. But there is no technical reason that we could not fix this.

I do not, and never have claimed to have the solution ... but at least I have been willing to look for one.

I think comparing any two projects will inevitably show a certain amount of unfairness, no two projects are the same!

Yes, and no ... the end goal of the projects and the means by which they want to get there varies... but the fundamentals are about the same. And, I would be willing to bet that there is less variance in the actual fundamental ways our computers are used than many insist. I say this as a former systems engineer that used to take systems like this apart ... this being the BOINC System including all 40 some active projects, BOINC itself, the server stuff, the participant population, etc.

I agree to a certain extent that unfairness is in the mind of the oppressed ... but ... some of that is simply one of psychology, which, off and on, I have tried to get people to understand ... with little success ...

If you feel that the credit system is flawed and that you are being treated unfairly, then why are you here? Same as me, accumulation of credits, but, the difference is, I don't feel as if I'm being treated unfairly and if I did, I'd go somewhere else.

Again, you read me a little out of context. I made no claim that MW was better, or worse than any other project. I was responding to a sweeping statement with a general reply.

THAT said, I am here for the science and for the credit. Just as I am at all the other projects ...

I notice your from the U.S.A. so the comparison I'll make may be unfamiliarly to you.
In the U.K. we have a Community (POLL TAX) Charge, a tax paid to the local authority for the services they provide to each house-hold.
Each house-hold is given the same services, no-one gets any more than anyone else.
So, the comparison is, does each house-hold pay the same as every other house-hold? No of course not, the bigger your house, the more you pay.

It currently stands at 6 units per core, no-one gets more than any-one else, the only difference is how many 6's you get

Ours is based on the current price of the property and is called "property tax" and it also varies by locality as to the size in percentages. So, a 2,000 sq ft house where I live is probably taxed less than one in Beverly Hills if for no other reason than the neighborhood is more "exclusive" or just plain expensive ... and yes a significant portion of that tax is used to fund the local schools which I have no need for in that my children are all adults and live in other localities.

I'm not saying that it has to be one way or the other, I agree, I also have credits at over 20 projects - though I don't run the other projects very often (must start revisiting). My statement is about some users who crunch for one, maybe two projects and that's because they PAY the most.

[quote]How is the credit system flawed? Humour me!
Payment is inherently unfair...? On what basis?

Start Here ... I forget when I wrote that, but it was last modified in 2007 ... if you follow the links to the old discussion threads some of those pre-date that discussion. Others, sadly, are missing as the site they were posted on was dropped (BOINC Beta). I think some of the "fixes" that have been done are flawed in that they don't really address the fundamental issues, or address it in a way that is not optimal.

If the credit system is flawed, then it's cross-project parity you should be arguing for, for example, uFluids 1 credit or less (average.) for 5-10 mins crunch-time should be applied across all projects? Would that be deemed Fair?

I do argue for cross project parity and I do not buy the argument that it is impossible. Well, it is impossible if the "powers that be" don't even want to look at the issue. But there is no technical reason that we could not fix this.

I do not, and never have claimed to have the solution ... but at least I have been willing to look for one.

I think comparing any two projects will inevitably show a certain amount of unfairness, no two projects are the same!

Yes, and no ... the end goal of the projects and the means by which they want to get there varies... but the fundamentals are about the same. And, I would be willing to bet that there is less variance in the actual fundamental ways our computers are used than many insist. I say this as a former systems engineer that used to take systems like this apart ... this being the BOINC System including all 40 some active projects, BOINC itself, the server stuff, the participant population, etc.

I agree to a certain extent that unfairness is in the mind of the oppressed ... but ... some of that is simply one of psychology, which, off and on, I have tried to get people to understand ... with little success ...

If you feel that the credit system is flawed and that you are being treated unfairly, then why are you here? Same as me, accumulation of credits, but, the difference is, I don't feel as if I'm being treated unfairly and if I did, I'd go somewhere else.

Again, you read me a little out of context. I made no claim that MW was better, or worse than any other project. I was responding to a sweeping statement with a general reply.

THAT said, I am here for the science and for the credit. Just as I am at all the other projects ...

I notice your from the U.S.A. so the comparison I'll make may be unfamiliarly to you.
In the U.K. we have a Community (POLL TAX) Charge, a tax paid to the local authority for the services they provide to each house-hold.
Each house-hold is given the same services, no-one gets any more than anyone else.
So, the comparison is, does each house-hold pay the same as every other house-hold? No of course not, the bigger your house, the more you pay.

It currently stands at 6 units per core, no-one gets more than any-one else, the only difference is how many 6's you get

Ours is based on the current price of the property and is called "property tax" and it also varies by locality as to the size in percentages. So, a 2,000 sq ft house where I live is probably taxed less than one in Beverly Hills if for no other reason than the neighborhood is more "exclusive" or just plain expensive ... and yes a significant portion of that tax is used to fund the local schools which I have no need for in that my children are all adults and live in other localities.

Each point nicely addressed
thanx

---

I tried 'Network Activity Suspended' which is overruled by the script being run - but it ignores the option and asks for work anyway.

You are correct. If you select "Network Activity Suspended" only transfers are suspended. Communications with the projects for reporting tasks etc either via a script or via pressing the Update button are not suspended. I remember this change occurring and a pretty lame argument being made by the devs....

You guys can't be this stupid, I'm not complaining about the lower points I'm getting. I'm not even trying to get them back or use a script. It's amazing how you guys spun that around. Your the ones trying to maximize your points at the expense of the group. You really think that BS will float with anyone. You had no problem saying those things when there was NOTHING to support it, group idiots. The ONLY complaint here was about those who think that they are above the group. That they come first and on and on and on... I don't think I acted that way at all. Extra Ball you gotta be 10 years old with that mentality. Where did I say I wanted more points, where? My god your as dumb as the other 2. Holger how can I put this, I don't like people who are not satisfied with the rules. When you decide to do your own thing and it affects the group, I know your gonna keep doing it. I'm gonna call you on it just the same. Your not special, your sad. So twist what I said, it's the only way you can construct a reply.

Oh ya nickth, that last quote you trimmed to make your argument, it said:

By the way I have a gpu, was getting 98k, now 60k. The difference between you and I is I am actually here for the project. If I'm driving down the road, highways are faster than city streets and I'll use the highway but I'm smart enough to know it's not my highway, it belongs to everyone and your not first.

Next time quote me properly.

I was showing the loss made no diff to me, I won't cheat to make it up.

Put this last thread into perspective. Scripts are easy use - monkey easy even. Did Milkyway embrace a script put it on it's homepage and tell everyone what a fantastic idea it was? no? I wonder why. It doesn't matter anyway, they are seperating cpu from gpu - WU wise , your scripts won't matter. signing off

thanks

---

4870 GPU
4870 GPU

Your the ones trying to maximize your points at the expense of the group.

You had no problem saying those things when there was NOTHING to support it, group idiots.

The ONLY complaint here was about those who think that they are above the group.

When you decide to do your own thing and it affects the group, I know your gonna keep doing it.

KWSN imcrazynow wrote:

I currently have no ati card running MW. Feel free to check my computers. It is with actual cores alone.

I can vouch for my fellow Knight. He has some serious hardware, and has had it since 'way before there was such a thing as a GPU app.

---

Phil wrote:

What - I can post a bigger logfile full of crap than you can!!!

ROFLMAO! For my part, I was wondering what was going on with all of that.

---