>I will crunch Collatz until my cache runs out, then return to MW.
My Collatz cache ran out yesterday, but can't crunch MW on that GPU as its only a 5870 and doesn't qualify.

Geez you people are cranky. The sky isn't falling. The database got corrupted last night (most likely because the controller is indeed bad). So we're ordering a new controller and getting the database repaired.

This is interesting thought taking distributed computing to a new level.

Here is a thought to help that comment out.

1. All credit rates and times should be the soul ownership of the project admin, Not DA's quest for equal wu parity. As this cross parity will never work. This would be do to the fact that all Science projects will have different needs and require different computer types and hardware. And who will be the credit cops for this new adventure? DA? Then all lower projects should now comply and raise there rates...Right like this will ever happen..

2. Some times in our lives we must as parents let go of the children, and let them grow up for them selves. So Please DA..Find more kids to raise. Please!

3. This whole argument about credits that has been going on now for 3 or more years could be stopped by the admin's of projects, by stating that this point per wu will be this and not change any unless the admin's increase the amount of computer time required to complete the task per wu.

4 All those who think that the credit is too high will be asked to leave the project and find a lower credit project to make them happy, as we want to make them happy don't we? And I will do my best to point them out for the complainers. Hey anything to help those folks out.

5. Have a great day.

I'm a little reluctant to do big software upgrades while the hardware is having issues, because the last thing we need is a big bad database corruption that would hose all your credits and accounts.

I would urge people not to leave Milkyway. My beef is that things could be improved, and some attention from admin would be appropriate which has happened recently.

Yes things have been slow for months, and Travis has been working on his degree for months ... there are only so many hours in the day, and, well, first things first ...

His priority is his thesis and degree and so there is where he properly is focusing his time and effort. Work is underway to change the logistics with a new server, the new guy, and getting the degree thingie out of the way ... so ...

Disk drives should not fail from heat either, or dust, or age ... then again ... they do ...

Even RAID arrays fail ... paradoxically adding more disks to an array to make it "safer" actually reduces the MTBF on the array itself ...

Common guys, Travis does not owe us work ... and if it is too frustrating to you then you should goto another project ... my druthers is that I should be doing MW to the exclusion of other projects as hard physics is my primary love ... yet look at my stats and you will see that I spread it around because it is the right thing to do ... especially if the project is overloaded ... so I do MW, Collatz and GPU Grid on my systems because it is the right thing to do ... and I pretty much always have work (though BOINC has gotten real bad about running dry on the GPU side in later versions) ...

My feeling for a while has been that this project will just go off one day. I think that is close to reality now. All of the so-called "donation" money was supposed to do:"The majority of our costs directly support students who maintain the servers, answer your questions in the forum, create new Milky Way models and improve the computing infrastructure, and create knowledge from our activities.".

What of that has happened? none.

I am not going to run any tasks here untill improvements are made. I know my handful of tasks are meaningless, but add all of the work together with others who are quitting and they are huge. When you have multiple top 10 RAC users leaving you have a BIG problem.

If computer A) does 275,124 work units in a particular time frame(the actual amount is hamudgen, or meaningless).
If computer B) does 275,124 work units in half the time.

Which computer did more work?

Just because it took longer for one computer to reach the same amount of completed units it means it did more work?

This was and is my entire point. A point that you continuously ignored.
All things considered equal a fast computer will do more work than a slower one. Is this correct?

This is my final post on this subject. I wasn't going to post anything at all, but it is clear that you have some major misunderstandings about the BOINC credit system and how it works, and what the Cross Project Parity fanatics look at to justify their views.

In the scenario above, both computers did the same amount of work. They both did 275,124 work units.

BOINC-wide standings though are not based on total number of work units. With SETI Classic, they were. With BOINC, they are not. It does not matter if you don't want to talk about other projects, as the people who will be bringing this to you won't respect your wishes. If the CPP crowd knew that the basis for the charts that they use to compare projects was distorted as badly as it is, they'd be all up in Travis's email demanding further cuts.

What you are not understanding is that each change that has happened across the many years, across any of the projects, impacts the net worth of a work unit that was processed during a different credit granting era/scheme/epoch.

I stated that I found it to be impossible that your system here has done more work in what amounts to be 7-8 days (it was 2.5x for 21 days) than what my systems had done in 4 years on other projects. Regardless of whether you want to talk about other projects, again, David Anderson isn't going to respect your "because I said it's not allowed to be talked about" decree.

What happens each time that a project lowers credit per unit time is that new users have to do more work to attain the same total credit as users who processed under the older, higher credit rate. This potentially sets up a situation where older users not only have a "head start" over newer users, the newer users have a handicap.

If you know accounting terms, the way things have happened with David Anderson at the helm mandating these reductions, is the Net Future Value of work is always less than the Net Present Value. Also true with that is the Net Present Value is less than the Net Past Value (if such a thing existed). It is a continually deflationary cycle. That is what has happened, whether you want to talk about it without restrictions or not.

The prime example I gave was Cosmology. My average credit/time there is barely above the BOINC benchmark * time method. I get 420 credits for 22-28 hours of work sometimes. Cross Project Parity fanatics got ahold of that project. We were told that the "excessive credits of the past make up for the low credits now" (in a nutshell).

This was why I went through and did the work units per day/month/year comparison. I totally ignored and removed the credit argument from that equation, you kept trying to put it back in using cobblestones and comparing percentages of whatever in your replies.

...because that's the way that the BOINC credit and ranking system really works. It is pointless to talk about workunits done when the ranking system doesn't rank people on workunits done. It ranks people on credits obtained. As I said, the credit trend is continually deflationary, not static. The cut that hit anyone still using app version 0.19 here was pure deflation. They are still doing the same work with the same application, just getting less for it.

Again, you cannot just ignore the pieces that you want to ignore and talk about the pieces that you want to talk about. David Anderson isn't going to honor that...and it would behoove you to try to figure out a real counter-argument to what he and the CPP fanatics will say rather than just "well I don't want to talk about that".

I am not focusing in on any one particular thing that you have said, I am being very fair, very open and supporting my statements with evidence... or at the very least realistic examples.

The problem is, the realistic examples that I've brought in, you just call bunk as you don't want to talk about it. David Anderson, John McLeod VII, and a host of other people are not going to have one bit of respect for "I don't want to talk about that". They are the ones that will make the decision and implement it. Telling them "you can't talk about that" is just going to get you laughed at by them and ignored.

Adios...