claimed vs. granted credits

> Hi.
>
> I found that E@H grants the lowest of all claimed credits to the people
> participating in a specific unit.
Sorry, but that's not right.

For example, take a look at this WU:
http://einsteinathome.org/workunit/307539

@ Juerschi, you can't just go by 1 WU at any of the Projects. I've gotten as much as 130 credits on a few WU's here at Einstein and even as much as 150 a couple of times.

You have to figure how long the WU's (Time Wise) are taking you to run at each Project & how much Credit your getting per hour of crunching time to compare the Credits.

From some of the posts here at Einstein I gather that there were some bugs in how the credit was being configured and given out but with the newer version releases that has supposedly been fixed.

In addition I don't think the Dev's have settled in on how the Credit's are going to be configured yet, it's nothing more than what all the other projects have gone thru when they first started up, and don't forget the Einstein Project is still in the Alpha or Beta Phase yet so nothing is set in cement yet ... Friendly

@PoorBoy: This WU was only an example to show t_wolf that not always the lowest credit is the granted credit to a WU

@t_wolf:Look at what ShuR has written in this thread. The credit is given canonical.

In the validator currently running I think the granted credit is picked more or less randomly from the claimed credits of the Results considered to be valid.
========

I had that figured out a few days after joining the Project, after digging through my account and a few other peoples accounts it just didn't make any sense to me on how the credits where being given out, one set of credits would just contradict another set of credits given out. So I just figured it was the luck of the draw at this point in time ... :)

I'm no expert on this, but this is just my observations over time.

Generally, the validator waits for two or three completed results before it awards any credit. At this point, it picks the lowest of those two/three claimed credits and awards it to all the completed WUs. If I read my information right, this is theoretically how BOINC is designed to grant credit.

However, there are some flukes. Juerschi's is a great example:
http://einsteinathome.org/workunit/307539

Notice that the awarded credit was the lowest amount between the two units (bottom listings) that reported on 19 Jan 2005. Then the final result (3rd from top) was reported on 21 Jan 2005. From looking at this, the validator probably awarded credit after receiving the first two results. Then, when the third one came in two days later, it was awarded the same amount as had already been credited to that WU. I've seen cases where this happened in my own WUs. I received one from P@H to crunch somewhere around 15 Jan or so, which had received two results back in December, both of which had been granted credit. I came in somewhat under their claimed credits, but I was award the same amount they had received. I don't have that info available to me right now, but I could try and look it up later if anyone was interested.

Now having said all of this, just rooting around on a couple of the examples given seems to indicate something fishy to me. Juerschi's WU indicates two similar machines (Athlon XP 2600) whose only differences are one was a mobile (laptop) chip and the other appears to be desktop, which returned similar benchmark results. Yet, somehow the desktop smoked the laptop by almost a factor of 10 (4,969.91 secs vs 45,241.64 secs). Seems to me that something may be wrong in the validatator code somewhere that accepted an incomplete result from the "really fast" host as a completed WU. From looking at the similarity in machines, this is just my gut feeling. There may be more cases of this floating around as well, but I thought that one seemed highly questionable.

And finally, this is no attempt to trash or contradict Bernd - so no offense to the staff! I'm just throwing in what I seem to remember as the way the system supposedly works, along with a few semi-educated guesses.