Welcome to MilkyWay@home

WU abuse


Advanced search

Message boards : Number crunching : WU abuse
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · Next

AuthorMessage
ProfileThe Gas Giant
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Dec 07
Posts: 1947
Credit: 240,884,648
RAC: 0
200 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 16952 - Posted: 26 Mar 2009, 21:54:55 UTC - in response to Message 16946.  

The Gas Giant wrote:
I think you think I said something I didn't say or imply up there,


Probably not. It's sombody else that's advocating for cross-project parity, and other people who are doing this "only for the science"

I am for cross project parity, call me naive, but I think it can happen and I think it should be a continual goal for the BOINC devs.


The Gas Giant wrote:
Now if the project then releases another stock app that is partially optimised then purely based on benchmarks or FLOPS counting alone the credit granted for wu's completed utilising that app will be proportionally less. Let's call that Y. (This is what LHC@home did a few years ago). If a 3rd party is still able to release an optimised app that completes it faster, then the granted credit should still be Y.


We can agree to disagree here, or perhaps I don't understand. If the stock app gets some optimizations so it runs faster, that means that the credits have to be lowered accordingly, but if only the optimized app does, then it's OK as it is?


You should still get the same amount of credit per hour using the stock app, but you do complete more wu's per hour.

So more efficient software gets penalized (but only if it's the stock app), but more efficient hardware (or hardware made more efficient because of enhanced instruction sets) isn't?


No, you still get the same credit per hour as you would have using a stock app. Like you, people can show their displeasure by doing other projects if they don't like what has happened.


The Gas Giant wrote:
My old 3.0GHz P4 with HT is running SETI and MW utilising optimised apps and can get a RAC of 800 on SETI and 1400 on MW. It was doing a RAC closer to 1400 on SETI before they incorporated optimisations in their stock code.


...and then devalued the credits granted for the same amount of work

No, it also got a RAC of about 400 with the stock SETI app. It got more by using an optimised app.


The Gas Giant wrote:
If it did a project that does not have 3rd party optimised apps (like Malaria Control or LHC@home) it would only do a RAC of around 400. It does not do projects that do not have a 3rd party optimised app available anymore.


So much for "parity"


That's the issue with optimised apps. They need to be taken out of the equation when looking at cross project parity.


The Gas Giant wrote:
Project stock applications should give similar credits per hour on the same machine no matter what project you do.


Not possible across the board. Some projects run a lot faster on AMD than Intel, or the other way around.


All with 5% to 10% of each other though on stock apps.

The Gas Giant wrote:
Mind you it does start to get ugly once a project starts releasing different stock apps that are optimised for the different instruction sets and distribute that app as their stock app. If/when that happens (I know there was talk about it) the granted credit should be based around the worst performing app they have.


If only. It appears to me that they generally try to achieve "parity" on some of the better performers, and the old boxes be hanged. That way, the faster boxes aren't earning "too much" credit.

I believe at some point the amount of credit needs to be reduced by an order of magnitude or 2 across the board. It's just silly seeing hosts with RACs of 100,000!


The Gas Giant wrote:
Now we can discuss what I have said or what I hope to have said.


I'm sorry I gave that impression. It seems like you have similar views on cross-project parity as I do, and you seem more interested in a kind of intra-project parity, which I agree is totally doable (not necessarily advisable, but at least doable).


No probs...
ID: 16952 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Profilebanditwolf
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Nov 07
Posts: 2425
Credit: 524,164
RAC: 0
500 thousand credit badge10 year member badge
Message 16954 - Posted: 26 Mar 2009, 22:16:56 UTC - in response to Message 16952.  

I believe at some point the amount of credit needs to be reduced by an order of magnitude or 2 across the board. It's just silly seeing hosts with RACs of 100,000!


Those are most likely Gpu's for a single host. There is no need to cut credits.
Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?
If it makes sense, DON'T do it.
ID: 16954 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Stefan Ver3

Send message
Joined: 17 May 08
Posts: 16
Credit: 528,507
RAC: 0
500 thousand credit badge10 year member badge
Message 16956 - Posted: 26 Mar 2009, 22:51:46 UTC

Best thread ever.
ID: 16956 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
ProfileLord Tedric
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Nov 07
Posts: 151
Credit: 8,391,608
RAC: 0
5 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 16958 - Posted: 26 Mar 2009, 23:50:26 UTC - in response to Message 16954.  
Last modified: 27 Mar 2009, 0:08:05 UTC

I believe at some point the amount of credit needs to be reduced by an order of magnitude or 2 across the board. It's just silly seeing hosts with RACs of 100,000!


Those are most likely Gpu's for a single host. There is no need to cut credits.


ERROR

Posting to wrong thread...................oooooooooops
ID: 16958 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Misfit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 27 Aug 07
Posts: 915
Credit: 1,503,319
RAC: 0
1 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 16972 - Posted: 27 Mar 2009, 1:14:09 UTC - in response to Message 16888.  
Last modified: 27 Mar 2009, 1:17:20 UTC

Here we go again....

You posting (whining) several times in a row? Yes, quite.

Best thread ever.

For Lloyd.
me@rescam.org
ID: 16972 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Brian Silvers

Send message
Joined: 21 Aug 08
Posts: 625
Credit: 558,425
RAC: 0
500 thousand credit badge10 year member badge
Message 16973 - Posted: 27 Mar 2009, 1:14:28 UTC - in response to Message 16958.  

I believe at some point the amount of credit needs to be reduced by an order of magnitude or 2 across the board. It's just silly seeing hosts with RACs of 100,000!


Those are most likely Gpu's for a single host. There is no need to cut credits.


ERROR

Posting to wrong thread...................oooooooooops


Uhhh, is this the right room for an argument?
ID: 16973 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
ProfileBruce
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Apr 08
Posts: 1415
Credit: 2,716,428
RAC: 0
2 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 16974 - Posted: 27 Mar 2009, 1:18:12 UTC - in response to Message 16973.  

I believe at some point the amount of credit needs to be reduced by an order of magnitude or 2 across the board. It's just silly seeing hosts with RACs of 100,000!


Those are most likely Gpu's for a single host. There is no need to cut credits.


ERROR

Posting to wrong thread...................oooooooooops


Uhhh, is this the right room for an argument?

Yep as far as I can tell this is the right room for an argument.
ID: 16974 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Misfit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 27 Aug 07
Posts: 915
Credit: 1,503,319
RAC: 0
1 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 16975 - Posted: 27 Mar 2009, 1:18:49 UTC - in response to Message 16974.  

Uhhh, is this the right room for an argument?

Yep as far as I can tell this is the right room for an argument.

This is Lloyd's room.
me@rescam.org
ID: 16975 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Lloyd M.

Send message
Joined: 1 Dec 08
Posts: 139
Credit: 8,721,208
RAC: 0
5 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 16981 - Posted: 27 Mar 2009, 2:02:38 UTC - in response to Message 16950.  

Paul,
Very, very, very well said. Likewise I will not quote, and for the same reason. I absolutely believe you about anticipating GPUs, your background, and bonafides in general.

BTW, my first machine was assembled from component parts (450+ solder connections on 1/10" centers - and it worked on the first try), circa 1978. I have Byte magazines back to Volume I, was living in the Silicon Valley in those days, and even bought an Apple II from Steve Wozniak's brother Mark.

Back on topic - I get that you get it, and could help straighten out this mess if "the powers that be" would listen. Point well taken on how I myself have been essentially lost as a volunteer to SETI because of their mishandling of my contribution to their project. I admit that I never saw it that way. I guess it's hard to see that kind of thing in ourselves, sometimes. While I still don't think this is actual injury, it is certainly affront, and your point is well taken on how this kind of behavior is harmful to SETI.

While I don't number myself among them, there are certainly a lot of people that have nothing nice to say about SETI, and wouldn't crunch for them on a bet. On a similar vein to your observations, given the amount and type of influence SETI has on BOINC, this can't be a good thing.

I like your idea about trying to apply pressure to the ONE worst project. Or maybe it could be a carrot first - if we could get enough potential RAC to agree to commit to a certain period of crunching, if only they will boost up their credit by x%, or accept help optimizing their app so it processes faster, etc.

Anyway, in general, I stand corrected in many regards, and humbly ask for your forgiveness for any insinuations and my generally snarky tone.
ID: 16981 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Lloyd M.

Send message
Joined: 1 Dec 08
Posts: 139
Credit: 8,721,208
RAC: 0
5 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 16982 - Posted: 27 Mar 2009, 2:05:24 UTC - in response to Message 16972.  

Misfit wrote:
You posting (whining) several times in a row? Yes, quite.


"(Q)uite" what? Pray tell which posts of mine do you characterize as "whining"?

ID: 16982 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Lloyd M.

Send message
Joined: 1 Dec 08
Posts: 139
Credit: 8,721,208
RAC: 0
5 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 16984 - Posted: 27 Mar 2009, 2:10:15 UTC - in response to Message 16975.  

Misfit wrote:
This is Lloyd's room.


How specifically?

ID: 16984 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Lloyd M.

Send message
Joined: 1 Dec 08
Posts: 139
Credit: 8,721,208
RAC: 0
5 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 16987 - Posted: 27 Mar 2009, 2:21:02 UTC - in response to Message 16952.  

The Gas Giant wrote:
I am for cross project parity, call me naive, but I think it can happen and I think it should be a continual goal for the BOINC devs.


I'm for things I don't believe I'll see in my lifetime, and I also have opinions concerning what the best use of very finite BOINC resources would be. Still, and perhaps to certain parties' disappointment if not dismay; I'm not going to disparage you about this.


The Gas Giant wrote:
You should still get the same amount of credit per hour using the stock app, but you do complete more wu's per hour.


Precisely my point. My credit/hour for the Big Gorilla project took a sudden hit of about 40%

The Gas Giant wrote:
No, you still get the same credit per hour as you would have using a stock app.


OK, and it was still reduced across the board.


The Gas Giant wrote:
All with 5% to 10% of each other though on stock apps.


I'll have to take your word on that, as I've heard differently more than once.


ID: 16987 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Misfit
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 27 Aug 07
Posts: 915
Credit: 1,503,319
RAC: 0
1 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 17007 - Posted: 27 Mar 2009, 5:21:21 UTC

Oh it's like watching a train wreck in slow motion.
me@rescam.org
ID: 17007 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
ProfileThe Gas Giant
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Dec 07
Posts: 1947
Credit: 240,884,648
RAC: 0
200 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 17010 - Posted: 27 Mar 2009, 8:13:13 UTC - in response to Message 17007.  

Oh it's like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

I thought it was more like train spotting...fun for some, damn boring for others.
ID: 17010 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
ProfilePaul D. Buck

Send message
Joined: 12 Apr 08
Posts: 621
Credit: 161,934,067
RAC: 0
100 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 17025 - Posted: 27 Mar 2009, 15:58:07 UTC - in response to Message 16981.  

Anyway, in general, I stand corrected in many regards, and humbly ask for your forgiveness for any insinuations and my generally snarky tone.

I completely missed the tone, sorry ...

Dr. Anderson and some others have for a long time misused the community and have essentially created the situation where they beg for help and get none. They get none because people are not completely oblivious and they see that outside the "clique" that suggestions, input, and actual changes are not accepted. Thus, they don't bother to try ... with self-fulfilling results.

MOST of us are contributing because we are interested in the advancement of science. But, there are limits and there has to be something to help maintain the interest. It is like being in a baseball league ... if you never get to bat, well, how many years will you sit on the bench? Same thing here in BOINC. About our ONLY feedback is the credit we earn. It is all we have to measure what we have done individually and collectively. The papers produced are often so abstract or obtuse that only those in the field can understand them ... other papers I don't know about because they were published in subscription only journals and as interested as I might be I was not going to pay those fees to get a document I likely could not understand anyway...

I used to have all of the Bytes except a few of the first 10, but, got rid of them because I needed the space and well, I never used them...

My first computer was an Ohio Scientific based on the 6502 ... later I did get an Apple, and then moved back to DOS machines ... my first cache cost more than the main memory I had it was 8K in size ... later machines I remember having to buy the 80x87 co-processors so that I could get the speed needed for the models I ran ...
ID: 17025 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
ProfileNeal Chantrill
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Jan 09
Posts: 98
Credit: 72,182,367
RAC: 0
50 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 17026 - Posted: 27 Mar 2009, 16:04:28 UTC - in response to Message 16974.  

Yep as far as I can tell this is the right room for an argument.


No it's not!!

{;o)
ID: 17026 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Profile[KWSN]John Galt 007
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Dec 08
Posts: 56
Credit: 269,889,439
RAC: 14
200 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 17032 - Posted: 27 Mar 2009, 16:47:57 UTC - in response to Message 17026.  

Yep as far as I can tell this is the right room for an argument.


No it's not!!

{;o)


But that's not an argument...you're just disagreeing with me...



Click to help Seti City.




ID: 17032 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
ProfileBruce
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Apr 08
Posts: 1415
Credit: 2,716,428
RAC: 0
2 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 17056 - Posted: 28 Mar 2009, 3:28:59 UTC - in response to Message 17032.  
Last modified: 28 Mar 2009, 3:30:10 UTC

Yep as far as I can tell this is the right room for an argument.


No it's not!!

{;o)


But that's not an argument...you're just disagreeing with me...


yes it is ;-P
ID: 17056 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
ProfilePhil
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 13 Feb 08
Posts: 1124
Credit: 46,740
RAC: 0
10 thousand credit badge10 year member badge
Message 17060 - Posted: 28 Mar 2009, 4:31:21 UTC - in response to Message 17056.  

Yep as far as I can tell this is the right room for an argument.


No it's not!!

{;o)


But that's not an argument...you're just disagreeing with me...


yes it is ;-P

Excuse me one moment, is this the five minute argument or the full halfhour?
ID: 17060 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
boosted

Send message
Joined: 4 Feb 08
Posts: 116
Credit: 17,263,566
RAC: 0
10 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 17061 - Posted: 28 Mar 2009, 6:03:29 UTC

While I did not read this entire thread I did read some.

I agree/think that the machines that can do the work the fastest should have priority. It only makes sense if your looking to get the most work done. If you have a collection of computers that work say 3X as fast as others, concentrate the faster ones.

I do not agree with the built in BOINC back off at all. It grows too high too quickly. While I also agree that connecting/reconnecting to the server at too close a time frame is detrimental to the server. 3-5 minutes is more than fair a time frame.

I get tired of me coming to my computer that runs MW and is backed off for hours, then manually updating and then get work units. Most WU's for me take 15-32 seconds and I do 8 at a time.
I picked my graphics card (4870 HD) second with regards to BOINC. I got it for encoding and trans-coding speed not necessarily to crunch with. It was nice to find out that I could crunch with it, but that was not its intended purpose.

I also think that all projects need to have the same rules for credit. It is based on the 'same work done' model. If someone has a quad core, they should be getting many times more credit than a single core, or even a dual core. People all over complain about these GPU apps, but they forget just how many calculations per second these things are clocked to do. In many aspects they are far faster than CPU's. The people that do have these GPU's that can do work do not need to be penalized because their GPU card is far faster than someones single or dual core CPU.

I guess that's it... rant and thoughts over now...
I surrender the soap box to someone else...
ID: 17061 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : WU abuse

©2019 Astroinformatics Group