Welcome to MilkyWay@home

Posts by Jenik

1) Message boards : Number crunching : Cheaters??? (Message 719)
Posted 28 Nov 2007 by ProfileJenik
Travis, can you reduce the credits of two hosts got 2x250k and 700k credits / WU? These are the 2 ones on top computer list, we must fair enough but there are many other too but not so extremely.

i'm game!

But no 2x250k, but 2x205k.

And what about another users?

What is difference between host ID2433 who manipulated hundred WU 700s/255C and host ID1314 who man. thousands WU 300s/28C each?

Look at this - http://www.volny.cz/dsl_353972280/cheaters/
2) Message boards : Number crunching : Please check this host (Message 594)
Posted 25 Nov 2007 by ProfileJenik
Take an average across different os and cpu's of "claimed credit" in benchmarks...

But exclude cheaters, of course. ;-)
3) Message boards : Number crunching : Please check this host (Message 593)
Posted 25 Nov 2007 by ProfileJenik
Thats probably a good idea. The work units are (for the most part) fixed size, so fixed credit might be the way to go. Currently, the amount of work done is based off two things: 1. the size of the volume, and 2. the number of stars.

Between a quorum of 2 and a way of calculating credit not based off boinc's benchmarks, maybe that will fix the problem?

In My Opinion - Yes
As well as QMC@HOME or Cosmology@Home
4) Message boards : Number crunching : Please check this host (Message 571)
Posted 25 Nov 2007 by ProfileJenik
The High Benchmarks could be causing a problem if that is how the Core client figures out scores. That is an Old version of BOINC and was known to cause weird results. They did not cheat but should update their Boinc client to a newer version.

Version 5.10.20 had no problems with correctly benchmarking a CPU.
The BOINC versions that possibly gave weird outcomes due to benchmark inconsistencies were 5.8.17, 5.10.1 and 5.10.6

None of the above versions gave integer benchmark claims in the way the two clients in this thread have them. So either someone took the core client code and adjusted how the benchmarks should be done before compiling it as a 5.10.20 client (easily done by changing the version number before compiling), or they've changed their values in client_state.xml

BINGO! client_state.xml
But "changing the version number" is OT.
Try edit (make higher) benchmark in this file.
For example <p_iops>500002814793331.347700</p_iops> instead of <p_iops>2814793331.347700</p_iops>
and "credit jumped from 1.xx to 1xxx.xx per result with no increase in crunch time."
Version number of the Boinc client is irrelevant.
To admin: ...Houston, ve have problem...
Best and simply is FIXED credit.

©2023 Astroinformatics Group