Another credit reduction?

M. Schmitt
M. Schmitt
Joined: 27 Jun 05
Posts: 478
Credit: 15,872,262
RAC: 0
Topic 191763

On my 4 hosts all newer WUs show a shorter time for calculation, even they are out of the same series.

A teammate already got a result with less credits.

Richard Haselgrove
Richard Haselgrove
Joined: 10 Dec 05
Posts: 1,933
Credit: 169,161,030
RAC: 285,246

Another credit reduction?

Quote:

On my 4 hosts all newer WUs show a shorter time for calculation, even they are out of the same series.

A teammate already got a result with less credits.


Good spot. I have a reasonably fast P4 currently working on short WUs (l1_0188.5_...), and there's a similar drop in estimated times with WUs downloaded after about 17:00 UTC yesterday (+/- 30 mins).

That's reading estimated times from my cache, but one of my quorum partners (717234) has started getting reduced credit.

Bernd/Bruce, I appreciate what you're trying to do with the fair credit across projects, but I'm not sure it's a good idea to slip these changes in without comment - it can make the natives restless...

ErichZann
ErichZann
Joined: 11 Feb 05
Posts: 120
Credit: 81,582
RAC: 0

yes... the first credit drop

yes... the first credit drop was ok and needed, the second one was already a bit... hmm.. and this one is really too much i think....

Crunch3r
Crunch3r
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 90
Credit: 30,236,616
RAC: 0

RE: yes... the first credit

Message 44887 in response to message 44886

Quote:
yes... the first credit drop was ok and needed, the second one was already a bit... hmm.. and this one is really too much i think....

Yes way to much but they don't care anyway....

Anyway did someone ever tried a statistics regarding the output (RAC) if a computer only runs long wus compared to if it would run only small ones ?

Bruce Allen
Bruce Allen
Moderator
Joined: 15 Oct 04
Posts: 1,109
Credit: 172,125,663
RAC: 0

RE: Bernd/Bruce, I

Message 44888 in response to message 44885

Quote:

Bernd/Bruce, I appreciate what you're trying to do with the fair credit across projects, but I'm not sure it's a good idea to slip these changes in without comment - it can make the natives restless...

This failure to communicate is my fault.

A couple of days ago, after studying the average credit/hour of E@H hosts and comparing with other projects, I came to the conclusion that we were granting about 8% too much credit, so I reduced the granted credit by this amount.

Bruce

Director, Einstein@Home

[AF>HFR>RR] Black Hole Sun
[AF>HFR>R...
Joined: 14 Mar 05
Posts: 31
Credit: 890,358
RAC: 0

RE: RE: Bernd/Bruce, I

Message 44889 in response to message 44888

Quote:
Quote:

Bernd/Bruce, I appreciate what you're trying to do with the fair credit across projects, but I'm not sure it's a good idea to slip these changes in without comment - it can make the natives restless...

This failure to communicate is my fault.

A couple of days ago, after studying the average credit/hour of E@H hosts and comparing with other projects, I came to the conclusion that we were granting about 8% too much credit, so I reduced the granted credit by this amount.

Bruce

Bruce,

I just don't understand how you can figure out an average credit/hour among hosts.

Here are my hosts (all with XP, 2400+ with Linux) :
Opteron 170 : 22.7 per hour per cpu => 45.55 per hour for this host
P4C 3.2 (HT ON) : 8.83 per hour per cpu => 17.66 per hour for this host
XP 2400+ : 18.31 per hour per cpu => 18.31 per hour for this host
P4B 2.4 : 13.26 per hour per cpu => 13.26 per hour for this host
Pentium-m 1.6 (Banias) : 13.95 per hour per cpu => 13.95 per hour for this host

I guess the difference between 2 of my hosts could be call a gap. A huge one!
45.55 vs 13.26 : a factor of almost 3.5
Not easy to figure out an "average" with such figures...

From what I get for my hosts, my server should remain on this project.
P4C and XP2400+ may have a look elsewhere to see if they can get better
P4B and P-M, well, they SHOULD get their job from another project.

With these kind of "drastic" average credit per hour, I guess that we may have to improve Boinc. Something like detecting the cpu and giving an automatic advice to the user : "your host is well suited for a, b and c projects. It is OK for d and e. It is NOT recommanded for any other project".

In my case, I passed from Seti to Einstein after the "events" concerning optimized clients. I guess my intel hosts may go back there and get the credit they diserve. As many people (I guess), the more credits my hosts get, the more I think they are usefull for the project. I let you conclude what I think about my intel boxes on E@H...

Boxes are different, as projects are. Some grant more credit on some projects, some grant less. So trying to get an "average credit/hour/host" is vain.
An average could also be done by dividing the credit/hour of the entire E@H project by the number of active hosts. It would be fair (sarcastic)

th3
th3
Joined: 24 Aug 06
Posts: 208
Credit: 2,208,434
RAC: 0

Agree with black hole. If

Agree with black hole.

If E@H will continue like this then credits granted will have to be reduced constantly if new powerful hosts join in here at a higher rate than in other projects. In other words, every time someone sets up a new big fat cruncher we should get less credit. Comparing with other projects is probably good (and totally unnecessary), but how come i see far less Pentium III's here than in for example Rosetta? I mean, just look at the hosts of for example Bruce himself, so many dualcore Opterons is by itself enough to give E@H higher average crunching power per host compared to most other projects. It sure seems like this last credit reduction was too much, i think around 8% too much?

Increase of total crucnching power at Einstein = decrease of credits granted.

Annika
Annika
Joined: 8 Aug 06
Posts: 720
Credit: 494,410
RAC: 0

That's a fair point you two

That's a fair point you two guys make. I never thought about it before but it may well be possible that Einstein simply has (on average) more powerful computers than most other projects and therefore it would be deserved if they got a bit more credit... no idea if there is a reliable way to figure this out but it may be worth considering.

[AF>HFR>RR] Black Hole Sun
[AF>HFR>R...
Joined: 14 Mar 05
Posts: 31
Credit: 890,358
RAC: 0

From BoincStats.com E@H

From BoincStats.com

E@H :
70919.2 GigaFLOPS
73904 active hosts
=> 0.956 GigaFLOPS / Host

S@H :
205273.1 GigaFLOPS
271500 active hosts
=> 0.756 GigaFLOPS / host

Guess what ?
Active hosts on E@H are 21% more powerfull than on S@H.
S@H is just an example. You can try with the rest of the projects.

I repeat : credit is not fair on E@H
Bruce wants (or has to) make it fair regarding other projects, but hosts are not the same !
As a consequence, attach you P3's to E@H and your top boxes to other projects if you want to grant credit. Stupid !

[AF>HFR>RR] Black Hole Sun
[AF>HFR>R...
Joined: 14 Mar 05
Posts: 31
Credit: 890,358
RAC: 0

RE: yes... the first credit

Message 44893 in response to message 44886

Quote:
yes... the first credit drop was ok and needed, the second one was already a bit... hmm.. and this one is really too much i think....

Hi Cruncher

I did it.
the difference is about 10% : about 1-2 credit / hour on a box running about 20 credits / hour

Crunch3r
Crunch3r
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 90
Credit: 30,236,616
RAC: 0

RE: RE: yes... the first

Message 44894 in response to message 44893

Quote:
Quote:
yes... the first credit drop was ok and needed, the second one was already a bit... hmm.. and this one is really too much i think....

Hi Cruncher

I did it.
the difference is about 10% : about 1-2 credit / hour on a box running about 20 credits / hour

So you're saying that smaller Wus give us back what the project has stolen the last time ? 10 % ?

If that's true i know how to deal with it.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.