Posts by [B^S] thierry@home

1) Message boards : Number crunching : GTX 480 (Message 43077) Posted 21 Oct 2010 by [B^S] thierry@home Post: Found the opti app. It works fine :-)
2) Message boards : Number crunching : GTX 480 (Message 43075) Posted 21 Oct 2010 by [B^S] thierry@home Post: I have just installed a GTX 480 and all the WUs die immediately in a Calculation error. Must I install something? Thanks
3) Message boards : Number crunching : Donating to Milkyway@Home (Message 29258) Posted 12 Aug 2009 by [B^S] thierry@home Post: Done :-)
4) Message boards : Number crunching : Confused..about what GPU support is coming 1st (Message 25441) Posted 14 Jun 2009 by [B^S] thierry@home Post: Your last post, at least, is argumentative. he, he :-)
5) Message boards : Number crunching : Milestones II (Message 24168) Posted 4 Jun 2009 by [B^S] thierry@home Post: 500K for MilkyWay (without script :-p )
6) Message boards : Number crunching : GPU vs CPU Tasks (Message 23745) Posted 31 May 2009 by [B^S] thierry@home Post: 1. GPU work : there is no GPU app for the moment. It's under construction. 2. CPU work : have a look to the thread "Why is it so hard to get work?"
7) Message boards : Number crunching : Why is it so hard to get work? (Message 23215) Posted 24 May 2009 by [B^S] thierry@home Post: Have a look at the "Why is it so hard to get work?" thread. Have fun :-)
8) Message boards : Number crunching : Why is it so hard to get work? (Message 23119) Posted 23 May 2009 by [B^S] thierry@home Post: You have to click on Refresh, refresh, refresh, refresh, .... That's what I do and after I get my 24 first WUs (for a quad) they are coming regularly....
9) Message boards : Number crunching : General Prefs: from Milkway - but I removed it (Message 23096) Posted 23 May 2009 by [B^S] thierry@home Post: That's probably because MW is the last project prefs you have updated.
10) Message boards : Number crunching : updated granted credit (Message 2758) Posted 24 Mar 2008 by [B^S] thierry@home Post: I think 4.5 would be a fair number and still be competitive against other projects. Anything less than that would probably still reduce your "volunteer" base more than you would like to see. Project parity is a pipe dream of David Anderson anyway and a way for him to control all BOINC projects, never mind that a large part of the data he was using was flawed and proven to be so. I really believe that he is using it to try to get back the large part of SETIs volunteer base that have moved on because of the problems there. I really do not want to move on to regular DC projects, but if things keep going the way they are with a credit reduction every time one of us improves the application, that is most likely where I will end up. At least then I would not have to put up with David Anderson's anecdotal behavior. Or maybe we should just make the improvements and use them for ourselves instead of releasing them to the public in general. Ok, it's not only for credits. If you look your teams's stats, your four preferred projects are Seti, ABC, QMC and Milkyway. By chance they are those who give the more credits. Lucky. Don't answer. Thanks You need to look again. We hold number 1 in several projects that you failed to mention. As a matter of fact, we tend to spread ourselves around quite a bit, especially since Formula BOINC started. And how can you say that SETI gives more credits? That is a laugh for sure. Sarge, he obviously doesn't know that the team regularly asks team members to crunch a project on a rotating basis to support it or improve the teams position regardless of whether it pays well or not. Often the team pulls crunching power to lower paying projects. But, then he wouldn't know that since he's not a member of the team. That's right. But I don't want to discuss to death ;-) I only find curious (stupid?) that for the same amount of work you get x from one project, y from another and z from another. It's as curious as you have three guys doing the same job in the same company. The first like white shirts and he gets $50,000 pert year, the second $60,000 because of its blue shirts and the third $70,000 because of its green shirts. Not very constructive. And I would prefer see people interested in a project because of the subject instead of intereted by the local higher credits.
11) Message boards : Number crunching : updated granted credit (Message 2746) Posted 24 Mar 2008 by [B^S] thierry@home Post: Its time to say good bye. MilkyWay: For 994 sec. work 2.17 points. PrimeGrid: For 958 sec. work 4.88 points. Intel Celeron 1,7GHz, 512 MB RAM. I hope that a lot of crunchers change the project. This is not the state of the art of changing the credit system. Where are the lot of people with the meaning MW Credits 300% to high? This is a joke, a very big joke! Bye So, you mean you were not here because the subject is motivating? What a disapointment!
12) Message boards : Number crunching : updated granted credit (Message 2732) Posted 24 Mar 2008 by [B^S] thierry@home Post: I think 4.5 would be a fair number and still be competitive against other projects. Anything less than that would probably still reduce your "volunteer" base more than you would like to see. Project parity is a pipe dream of David Anderson anyway and a way for him to control all BOINC projects, never mind that a large part of the data he was using was flawed and proven to be so. I really believe that he is using it to try to get back the large part of SETIs volunteer base that have moved on because of the problems there. I really do not want to move on to regular DC projects, but if things keep going the way they are with a credit reduction every time one of us improves the application, that is most likely where I will end up. At least then I would not have to put up with David Anderson's anecdotal behavior. Or maybe we should just make the improvements and use them for ourselves instead of releasing them to the public in general. Ok, it's not only for credits. If you look your teams's stats, your four preferred projects are Seti, ABC, QMC and Milkyway. By chance they are those who give the more credits. Lucky. Don't answer. Thanks
13) Message boards : Number crunching : updated granted credit (Message 2725) Posted 24 Mar 2008 by [B^S] thierry@home Post: Oh yes, we have to. Its not like everyone had the same computer.... Fast or slow computers, the ratio remains the same.
14) Message boards : Number crunching : updated granted credit (Message 2723) Posted 24 Mar 2008 by [B^S] thierry@home Post: Statistics! They are a wonderful thing. The only problem is that they can be manipulated in any way. Sure Riesel Sieve grants 27 credits per work unit, however they grant 27 credits no matter how long it takes to complete the WU (30 min, 1 hr, 2 hrs, etc). Cosmo does the same with their 100 credits per WU. Faster computers may be able to get 50 - 54 credits per hour, but those with slower computers may get less than 15 per hour. The same goes for many projects. We have to put these stats in perspective or otherwise they are just meaningless. 15 hours of crunch time on any of my machines will give me 1000 credits at ABC@home. Please don't compare different computers. The numbers I gave you are made with the same computer: from the max 52/hour to the min 15/hour. This is not normal.
15) Message boards : Number crunching : updated granted credit (Message 2722) Posted 24 Mar 2008 by [B^S] thierry@home Post: I'm one of those would like to see a standard grant of credits per work done across all projects so that there can be a comparison between projects and a fairer camparison of total credits gained across multiple projects. I stopped crunching for Cosmology due to the obscenely high credits granted there which for me devalues an otherwise worthwhile project. I'm for science first, but want any credits I get to be earned fairly. It's been a problem since Boinc's inception of how to add apples and pears without people going bananas. Then there was the problem of people cheating their benchmarks and other ways to get more credit than others playing fair. All my recent 12 minute wus have claimed 1.47 credits or thereabouts. 6.5 was way too high although if the wus were to take 50 mins it'd be about right, so if there are longer wus planned then credit would need to be adjusted accordingly. 2.17 will probably chase some users away but it's probably closer to a realistic value. Emmanuel said But what annoys me is seeing the posts above where people say "I joined this for the credits, now it sucks, bye-bye." I think you can at least pick projects based on the science they do, then prioritize between them using credits if you can't decide how else. I totally agree. Ray, All these are dicussed for a long time (see the big discussion in the Rosetta board, two years ago). The main goal is science. But credits and competition are important points in this hobby (for me also). But competition can only be made if the rules are the same for everybody and every projects. But ..... cemetery are full of idealist ;-)
16) Message boards : Number crunching : updated granted credit (Message 2719) Posted 24 Mar 2008 by [B^S] thierry@home Post: But you stil have QMC, Cosmo and Riesel Sieve for the credits hunting. There you go again, QMC is not over granting and has not been for many moons, when was the last time you ran a QMC WU ? If fact they never did given all the factors involved with QMC. And their reduction in credit cost them many participants. Milkyway admins should learn from this. Cosmo, a tad bit high, but nothing out of range given SETI's optimized app. RS = they are reducing credit today due to their optimized app that was just released. Check your facts first. It is checked, thank you. QMC gives me 666 credits for 15 hours,that's 42/hour, Cosmo gives 100 credits for 3.5 hours, that's 29/hour, Riesel gives 27 credits for 31 minutes, that's 52/hour.... You can compare this with the 15 credits/hour for Rosetta, Spinhenge, LHC, ... If reducing credits of a project, to bring them to the BOINC credits average, cost some participants, then it's only about credits and ranking.
17) Message boards : Number crunching : Poll: How much credit do you think is fair? (Message 2678) Posted 24 Mar 2008 by [B^S] thierry@home Post: 2,75
18) Message boards : Number crunching : updated granted credit (Message 2666) Posted 24 Mar 2008 by [B^S] thierry@home Post: Who were the 'most people' mentioned on the front page that thought a factor of 3 reduction was appropriate? From posts it seems that there was not even a consensus across the MW@Home team about the size of the reduction! Yes, credits were a little high, yes it is science we are doing, but Stats, numbers and rankings are all also important to us individual users out here. After Dr A's messing about in the wider Boinc commumity I have ceased to crunch Seti (that is if it is still working!) - so job done Dr A. Dave & Travis - watch the results in progress continue to drop (down about 5% already this monring) as people vote silently with their feet.....not that we are likely to see a corresponding increase at Seti. Who's project is it anyway? - clearly the MW@Home staff felt pressured into acting, users are demonstrably unhappy ............. any winners out there? But you stil have QMC, Cosmo and Riesel Sieve for the credits hunting.
19) Message boards : Cafe MilkyWay : Team Recruitment thread - CLOSED (Message 2503) Posted 22 Mar 2008 by [B^S] thierry@home Post: BOINC SYNERGY = BEST STATS BOINC SYNERGY is an International Team and we Welcome All BOINC Participants! What is BOINC and Why use it? - An Interview with Dr. David Anderson! Our team has the Best Statistics that are unmatched anywhere! We have Several Forums that are Informative and Helpful! Step by Step: Setting Up and Running BOINC Projects! The Optimized Application Information Center! We have Cool and Fun Flash-based Video Arcade Games! Sign up with Synergy and get your own @boincsynergy.com email address! Plus get a Fabulous Selection of Synergy Signatures for Individual and Combined Projects! Visit the City of BOINC Synergy! Use the various numbered "increase" links to help our team city grow! You can count on BOINC SYNERGY to be there when Scientific Progress Goes "BOINC" Click the Signature to Join! misfit@boincsynergy.com That's right!