Is claiming 1,025.21 cobblestones fair?

Wurgl (speak^Wcrunching for Special: Off-Topic)
Wurgl (speak^Wc...
Joined: 11 Feb 05
Posts: 321
Credit: 140,550,008
RAC: 0
Topic 190873

Is claiming 13,444.62 fair?

These two claims are the maximum of a ceratin box, the usual numers are somewhere between 100 and 300. I think this is unfair, because it is just a P-D 2.8.

Yes, this guy does not get that much cobblestones unless he is lucky and crunches with some other faker, but I think the project shall stop these extremes.

What do you think?

If there is a very good reason, I will post the link to that machine, but since I know just one, making this one public might be unfair to that single person.

Just one line to show that it is a feked result ...

24 Jan 2006 17:15:15 UTC 1 Mar 2006 1:07:37 UTC Over Success Done 3,052,342.00 13,444.62 0.00 3 millions of seconds is 35 days, and 35 days do not match with a Pentium-D

Edit: It is a Pentium-D, not a Pentium-IV :-( Sorry.

history
history
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 127
Credit: 7,573,923
RAC: 0

Is claiming 1,025.21 cobblestones fair?

My suggestion is that the project audit the validator. This evening, I uploaded over 40 WU's from 6 crunchers and my RAC increased Zero. I Got diddley. The rig they have validating work seems to have a very relaxed attitude about responding. If there is a weak link, it is the validator. Of course, my single Intel rig gets a full pull and a smooth performance curve. Too bad for me and my AMD farm. There are details in this project that remain to be addressed.

Bruce Allen
Bruce Allen
Moderator
Joined: 15 Oct 04
Posts: 1,111
Credit: 172,125,663
RAC: 0

RE: My suggestion is that

Message 25641 in response to message 25640

Quote:
My suggestion is that the project audit the validator. This evening, I uploaded over 40 WU's from 6 crunchers and my RAC increased Zero. I Got diddley. The rig they have validating work seems to have a very relaxed attitude about responding. If there is a weak link, it is the validator. Of course, my single Intel rig gets a full pull and a smooth performance curve. Too bad for me and my AMD farm. There are details in this project that remain to be addressed.

If your RAC increased by zero, it is because the other users crunching those WU have not yet returned their results. It's not the validator which is slow in responding -- it's the host computers of other users! The project can't address this.

But, as you know, you will eventually get credit for correct results, and your RAC will jump up when that happens.

Director, Einstein@Home

Shaktai
Shaktai
Joined: 8 Nov 04
Posts: 183
Credit: 426,451
RAC: 0

RE: Is claiming 13,444.62

Quote:

Is claiming 13,444.62 fair?

Just one line to show that it is a feked result ...

24 Jan 2006 17:15:15 UTC 1 Mar 2006 1:07:37 UTC Over Success Done 3,052,342.00 13,444.62 0.00 3 millions of seconds is 35 days, and 35 days do not match with a Pentium-D

Edit: It is a Pentium-D, not a Pentium-IV :-( Sorry.

Could be a lot of things. But no matter what he claimed, he received zero. If it took that long for the work unit on that machine, it is likely he had other processes running that were competing for the CPU and winning. He missed the deadline and he received no points based upon what you showed. Might have even been a stuck work unit and he/she wasn't paying attention for a month. Who knows. Still awarded credit is 00.00. Nothing.

Comment viewing options

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