Message boards :
Number crunching :
resetting credit
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
![]() Send message Joined: 30 Aug 07 Posts: 2046 Credit: 26,480 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
since we've gone to a new credit granting scheme and have some problems with the previous one, i'm thinking about starting all the credit over from scratch (if i can even figure out how to do this). I've been looking for a way to remove credit for individual workunits but so far haven't been too successful. if anyone has some knowledge about this let me know :) ![]() |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 12 Nov 07 Posts: 2425 Credit: 524,164 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
I know at Nano Hive they went through these problems starting up. They were able to get it sorted out nicely. They may be able to help. |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 28 Aug 07 Posts: 20 Credit: 36,099 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
If I recall right, Once Nano started making alot of work available, They upped their credits per work units way too high. It stayed that way awhile and then they eventually lowered the credit for each work unit, And then later removed a certain amount or percentage from each user also, Something like that I believe. Not common for most starting projects really, as long as the credit to work unit done ratio isnt too extreme to start with. My only thought currently on the new credit system here, Is that getting less credit per work unit done than what your client says you are due (Using the standard acceptable client), Seems abit low, As most projects I have run usually are in the equal too, Or abit higher than asked for credit/wu ratio. Off hand and im sure there are more, PrimeGrid is the only one I noticed that grants lower than asked for, At least for the smaller work units there I run at times. It might cause some users to not crunch as much here, If they can get more credit for each work unit else where, If that is a factor for the future workloads or work done here. Thats just my opinion anyways, For what its worth...LOL G^R |
Send message Joined: 29 Aug 07 Posts: 115 Credit: 502,527,662 RAC: 3 ![]() ![]() |
Starting over from "0" is a bad idea. You will create a lot of bad will that way. And once you stepped in that pile, it is very hard to get the stink off. However, retroactively resetting the granted credits is possible, and a much better solution. As noted, earlier, they did that at NanoHive. Other avenues of help for doing so are on the project email lists and #boinc. ![]() |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 28 Aug 07 Posts: 49 Credit: 556,559 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
I think most would like to NOT start over again. I think if something could be done about a couple of the WUs that were granted hundreds of thousands of credits most would be OK from here on out. Of course if something could be done about the others that received hundreds of credits per WU, it would be appreciated. I do not think anyone is too worried about the people that were getting 6 or even 20 credits per WU. Just my thoughts. ![]() |
![]() Send message Joined: 24 Oct 07 Posts: 22 Credit: 130,021 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
isnt it possible to set all results that are send back so far to the new 1 credit per wu? ![]() |
![]() Send message Joined: 23 Nov 07 Posts: 33 Credit: 300,042,542 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
Anything you do about this situation is going to make some people upset. A fair and generous system will attract a lot more users and cause the ones that want to bend the rules to go elsewhere. You should post news in advance stating what you are going to do. That way it will not come as a surprise to anybody. I would suggest a flat credit per WU and throw out all the wierd credits. As to the amount of credit per WU, I would think that 2 is the minimum. As an example my Quad crunches a WU in about 5:45. That works out to about 250 WU's per core per day. At a flat credit of 2 that works out to about 2000 credits a day. This is acceptable but a little low when I can get 3000-3500 a day at SETI using a standard client. BTW Thanks for upping the limit 20 20 WU's at a time. It seems to have resolved the running out of work issue. |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 28 Aug 07 Posts: 20 Credit: 36,099 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
I also agree, That resetting all users credits to zero would not be good. As it would be like punishing the users running valid clients or whatever as well as the ones not. Not a good way to start things off with either crowd to me. As this is still in alpha, Users have to expect things to be changed abit including the credits. I think that tweaking it as it is until its a happy medium for all is good. And for the ones that have been obviously using a hacked client or whatever, Perhaps when you have more time down the road you can just removed an X amount of credit from their scores using the copied print list of all users/credits as of now. Or just leave things as they are now and keep them even from now on with the new crediting system, As I doubt there any projects out there, Where credits were even (Or fair)from the beginning hehe. G^R |
Send message Joined: 21 Nov 07 Posts: 52 Credit: 1,756,052 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
since we've gone to a new credit granting scheme and have some problems with the previous one, i'm thinking about starting all the credit over from scratch (if i can even figure out how to do this). I've been looking for a way to remove credit for individual workunits but so far haven't been too successful. if anyone has some knowledge about this let me know :) Travis, I suggest you screen just the Top-20 users for manipulated credits and manually reset them to 1. All the rest would probably be much too much work and will most probably upset all users. ![]() |
![]() Send message Joined: 28 Aug 07 Posts: 52 Credit: 8,353,747 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
since we've gone to a new credit granting scheme and have some problems with the previous one, i'm thinking about starting all the credit over from scratch (if i can even figure out how to do this). I've been looking for a way to remove credit for individual workunits but so far haven't been too successful. if anyone has some knowledge about this let me know :) If the new creditsystem is working, reset all to 0, there are to many bad hosts now :/ |
![]() Send message Joined: 23 Nov 07 Posts: 23 Credit: 1,181,270 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
since we've gone to a new credit granting scheme and have some problems with the previous one, i'm thinking about starting all the credit over from scratch (if i can even figure out how to do this). I've been looking for a way to remove credit for individual workunits but so far haven't been too successful. if anyone has some knowledge about this let me know :) you've gone too far the flat rate of 1 credit is much to low, when most of the ones I've seen are 1.59 and now I have seen some 2.??, if you want a flat rate please pick a median not some number lower than the lowest score possible. |
Send message Joined: 29 Aug 07 Posts: 115 Credit: 502,527,662 RAC: 3 ![]() ![]() |
I suggest you screen just the Top-20 users for manipulated credits and manually reset them to 1. All the rest would probably be much too much work and will most probably upset all users. Now hang on... I was the participant leader here for a bit, and am still in the top 20. I have never done anything but used standard BOINC clients, and fiddling with benchmarks. Check with my BOINCstats history. I have done no wrong. And resetting my 33k hard earned credits (especially with all the pop-ups!) is unfair. However, perhaps you mean to reset each result to 1, rather than set the total credits to 1? That I can agree with if it is applied to everyone, not just the top 20 or whatever. ![]() |
![]() Send message Joined: 28 Aug 07 Posts: 52 Credit: 8,353,747 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
I suggest you screen just the Top-20 users for manipulated credits and manually reset them to 1. All the rest would probably be much too much work and will most probably upset all users. Reset each result to 1? This is too late because these results are gone by filedeleter. But its too much work to fiddle out all these bad hosts ^^ Edit: Oh, the new credit system is working, ok, travis try to sort out bad hosts and reduce their credits by the factor of higher benchmarks |
Send message Joined: 18 Nov 07 Posts: 280 Credit: 2,442,757 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
I don't see the problem.. [new credit] = [amount of WU successfully completed] * [some constant]; should work, surely.. |
![]() Send message Joined: 23 Nov 07 Posts: 33 Credit: 300,042,542 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
I suggest you screen just the Top-20 users for manipulated credits and manually reset them to 1. All the rest would probably be much too much work and will most probably upset all users. Don't overreact. All that was said was to SCREEN the top 20 users. This shouldn't upset you unless you have something to hide. |
![]() Send message Joined: 28 Aug 07 Posts: 52 Credit: 8,353,747 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
Travis, how do you calculate credits? 1 defined in template or any other special formula? The value is a bit too low! |
Send message Joined: 21 Nov 07 Posts: 52 Credit: 1,756,052 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
I suggest you screen just the Top-20 users for manipulated credits and manually reset them to 1. All the rest would probably be much too much work and will most probably upset all users. zombie, I suggested to screen the results of the Top-20 and then reset the cheated results to 1 credit each! As outlined in my other posting (Cheaters???) there are quite a few results from Top-20 Users that received huge amounts of credit (e.g. 787,537 credits for just 1 work unit of 272 seconds). My suggestion would reset this one work unit to 1 and leave the rest as it is. If you did not cheat/manipulate in such an extreme fashion then your credits remain untouched. ![]() |
Send message Joined: 15 Nov 07 Posts: 31 Credit: 56,404,447 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
Since the filedeleter did NOT get stopped, whether the results can even be screened is now in question. I suspect that the answer is that they cannot. If that is the case, we are left with 3 people/2 teams way out in front where they should not be. |
![]() Send message Joined: 30 Aug 07 Posts: 2046 Credit: 26,480 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
On another note, I've upped the credit per WU to 2.0, because the average credit seemed to be closer to 2 than 1. I'll try and figure out how to fix the credit already granted. |
Send message Joined: 5 Oct 07 Posts: 15 Credit: 28,314,687 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
On another note, I've upped the credit per WU to 2.0, because the average credit seemed to be closer to 2 than 1. I'll try and figure out how to fix the credit already granted. well, I for one would like to thank Travis for putting the time into this problem. This will not be easy, or straight forward. Cheers. |
©2024 Astroinformatics Group