1)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Cheaters???
(Message 719)
Posted 28 Nov 2007 by Jenik Post: 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 Jenik Post: 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 Jenik Post: 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. 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 Jenik Post: 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. 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. |
©2024 Astroinformatics Group