CPU Time versus Credit

Alinator
Alinator
Joined: 8 May 05
Posts: 927
Credit: 9,352,143
RAC: 0

RE: RE: The reason is

Message 97421 in response to message 97420

Quote:
Quote:

The reason is both ABP and GCE pay somewhat less generally speaking than GW does.

The credit ratios between projects are cpu and architecture dependent...

Agreed.

However when I looked at what I had currently showing for validated work, the outcome was that GW was paying slightly better than ABP or GCE on my hosts currently. Although that difference was less than the previously documented normal variation we see in rate for EAH tasks typically (due to the reasons you mentioned and others).

IOW's it's pretty much a wash which application my hosts are running in the long term, and at any given time any one of the three apps might be paying the best depending on the circumstances at the time.

One thing is for sure, as you said, it's almost always better to be conservative and estimate low then adjust up when it comes to credit than the other way around! ;-)

When it comes to CPP the problem gets even more gnarly, and I'm not 100% sure the proposed new protocol will fix the issue entirely going forward.

Alinator

DanNeely
DanNeely
Joined: 4 Sep 05
Posts: 1,335
Credit: 1,863,369,051
RAC: 1,546,714

RE: When it comes to CPP

Message 97422 in response to message 97421

Quote:

When it comes to CPP the problem gets even more gnarly, and I'm not 100% sure the proposed new protocol will fix the issue entirely going forward.

I haven't paid any attention to it because:

1) it's ultimately, IMO, an insoluable problem.
2) it's not like Dave Anderson actually cares what anyone else thinks.

PS Why're you running so many decade old antiques? UNless your electricities selling for well below market prices pulling the plug on the lot of them and adding a single new system would pay for itself fairl quickly in power saved as well as earning more credits.

Thor
Thor
Joined: 21 Oct 06
Posts: 2
Credit: 686,855
RAC: 0

RE: I'm quite angry right

Quote:
I'm quite angry right at that moment and I think is't rather readable on the lines than between the lines.


I realize that I'm quite new here, but reading your post, I think you might have forgotten why we all let our computers calculate themselves back to the stone age:

To help science.

Don't get me wrong: Stats are a fine motivator to keep going, but the ultimate reason of BOINC is not to enlarge our virtual private parts by having the biggest number below our Name, but to put an idle processor to a good use. Just relax it's not worth ruining your day by getting angry about some stats. ;)

Greetings
Thor

Jord
Joined: 26 Jan 05
Posts: 2,952
Credit: 5,725,162
RAC: 316

RE: 2) it's not like Dave

Message 97424 in response to message 97422

Quote:
2) it's not like Dave Anderson actually cares what anyone else thinks.


Actually, that's not true.

From the BOINC_Projects emailing list, first mention on the subject:

David Anderson, d.d. 11/04/09 wrote:

The design of a new credit system is here:
http://boinc.berkeley.edu/trac/wiki/CreditNew

This design is joint work of me and Kevin Reed from WCG.
It replaces an earlier proposal, now deprecated.
I'm in the process of prototyping it to make sure it works as planned.
Comments welcome.

-- David

Richard Haselgrove has been making comments, John McLeod 7 has been making comments, Raistmer has been making comments, I have been making comments. We're being listened to.

That you don't like the man, that's something you have to live with. That you have no better or worse solution to the problem, is something you have to live with as well. Is it reason enough to attack David then, though?

I don't see you post that, or any other comment on the credits on any of the emailing lists. I don't see you post anything on them. So how is David then going to listen to you? Or is it that he has to drop everything and come read the most obscure of forum posts possible, such as this one? A fine example of why the credit system needs to be turned over. (Or in my very humble opinion, just off. Just turn the damn things off, let's see who stays).

Alinator
Alinator
Joined: 8 May 05
Posts: 927
Credit: 9,352,143
RAC: 0

RE: RE: When it comes

Message 97425 in response to message 97422

Quote:
Quote:

When it comes to CPP the problem gets even more gnarly, and I'm not 100% sure the proposed new protocol will fix the issue entirely going forward.

I haven't paid any attention to it because:

1) it's ultimately, IMO, an insoluable problem.
2) it's not like Dave Anderson actually cares what anyone else thinks.

PS Why're you running so many decade old antiques? UNless your electricities selling for well below market prices pulling the plug on the lot of them and adding a single new system would pay for itself fairl quickly in power saved as well as earning more credits.

Mostly because they all have a primary function for which they are ideally suited for and perform well at. The cost numbers just don't work to replace them with new just because they are old. Running BOINC on them makes sure they are always running "...hot, straight, and normal", except for maintenance. It's one of the reason they ARE a decade old and still run perfect.

Second, since I got most of them as 'orphans' or built them from surplus, it's pretty hard to beat their aquisition cost of zero. I suppose I could if I charged people to take the stuff away, but that's being pretty harsh.

Thirdly, It is never wise to put all your eggs in one or two baskets, even if they are 'big gun' battleships. I have a few of those too, if you've noticed. The most formidable of those don't even run BOINC, since they need everything they've got just to do their primary function. ;-)

Fourth, here in the US, even in upstate NY, electricity IS cheap (in relative terms). I couldn't care less about their carbon footprint as long as they are doing something I care about and am willing to pay the operating cost for. Not that the K6's and G3 burn a lot of electricity even running flat out. I made up for that just by going to all CFL illumination (with watts to spare). The PII and III use somewhat more but still have respectable performance, given their age.

Fifth, they serve to show the shortcomings of any Credit System which uses a normalization of a select sample of the population to set the basis for the Cobblestone.

Finally, it's fun to keep them soldiering on just for the sake of doing it! :-)

Alinator

Mike Hewson
Mike Hewson
Moderator
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 6,149
Credit: 129,319,001
RAC: 15,211

Cross-project credit

Cross-project credit allocation is insoluble - not technically, but sociologically. You just won't get agreement on the scientific or other relative merit of the utility of the investigations that different projects perform.

It's paradoxical ( good old human nature .... ) but you'll find no shortage of people who will demonise a virtue. So what some will view as a terrific range of choice of enterprises to enjoin - currently quite a smorgasbord really - others will bemoan the lack of 'parity' between them.

Quote:
Aside : My pet peeve, as a moderator, is the 'hostage taker' paradigm - "I'll take my valuable farm/team/services/battlecruisers elsewhere, and your project will suffer, if the following demands aren't met .....". Sharp punters may note the number of times, in reply, I've had to obfuscate the phrase "go on, p*** off then". :-) :-)


Cheers, Mike.

I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter. Blaise Pascal

Alinator
Alinator
Joined: 8 May 05
Posts: 927
Credit: 9,352,143
RAC: 0

RE: Cross-project credit

Message 97427 in response to message 97426

Quote:

Cross-project credit allocation is insoluble - not technically, but sociologically. You just won't get agreement on the scientific or other relative merit of the utility of the investigations that different projects perform.

It's paradoxical ( good old human nature .... ) but you'll find no shortage of people who will demonise a virtue. So what some will view as a terrific range of choice of enterprises to enjoin - currently quite a smorgasbord really - others will bemoan the lack of parity between them.

Quote:
Aside : My pet peeve, as a moderator, is the 'hostage taker' paradigm - "I'll take my valuable farm/services/battlecruisers elsewhere, and your project will suffer, if the following demands aren't met .....". Sharp punters may note the number of times, in reply, I've had to obfuscate the phrase "go on then, p*** off". :-) :-)

Cheers, Mike.

LOL...

Regarding you're Quip-of-the-Day, yes, I noted that! ;-)

As far as the other observation goes, that's the fallacy that indicates a lot of people can't be objective about the credit subject, and that includes technical types.

The question has nothing to do about the relative merits or value of the science, either technically, socially, or morally. A fundamental principle of BOINC is that all science is created equal in terms of credit.

It's simply a matter of how much work did the computer do. Unfortunately, there is no way to directly read out the amount of computational work a computer does (an OPometer). The best we can do is to infer the amount of work from its derived quantity, power. That's when all the fun starts. :-D

Of course, we had a very nice discussion about virtually every aspect of the subject back during the summer of '08 here in NC. Not much has changed since then. ;-)

Alinator

Mike Hewson
Mike Hewson
Moderator
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 6,149
Credit: 129,319,001
RAC: 15,211

RE: that's the fallacy that

Message 97428 in response to message 97427

Quote:
that's the fallacy that indicates a lot of people can't be objective about the credit subject, and that includes technical types.


I think it's fascinating as to why people contribute such a valuable resource for nought exchange in material terms. With E@H I'm pretty sure it's largely the cachet of the Einstein name per se, however that is backed up by the very real continuation of his work born over a century ago.

Quote:
Aside : For my particular behaviour as a mod, I've tried to allow people to surf/sail close to the line of moderation action, if they appear to be genuinely attempting to feedback their intent and difficulties. After all, I know full well why I contribute to the project, but what of others? We ain't going to know about people's unhappiness about E@H, and their motives generally, if we plonk 'em purely on the basis that they are criticising us ( as distinct from the phrasing of the delivery of such a message ). Of course there are those ( fairly readily spotted ) who simply complain because they can - which is more revelatory of them than the project itself.


Cheers, Mike.

I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter. Blaise Pascal

Jord
Joined: 26 Jan 05
Posts: 2,952
Credit: 5,725,162
RAC: 316

RE: Of course there are

Message 97429 in response to message 97428

Quote:
Of course there are those ( fairly readily spotted ) who simply complain because they can - which is more revelatory of them than the project itself.


In pseudo-code:
[pre]If postcount == low {
and n_earlier_complaints == high {
and ncredits == extremely high
}}
do plonk
else
give benefit of doubt
[/pre]
:-)

Mike Hewson
Mike Hewson
Moderator
Joined: 1 Dec 05
Posts: 6,149
Credit: 129,319,001
RAC: 15,211

RE: In pseudo-code: [pre]If

Message 97430 in response to message 97429

Quote:
In pseudo-code:
[pre]If postcount == low {
and n_earlier_complaints == high {
and ncredits == extremely high
}}
do plonk
else
give benefit of doubt
[/pre]
:-)


Now that's what I'm talking about! :-) :-)

Clearly we need to kick off a mod-bot project, open source naturally. PHP/Drupal/Perl anyone? :-)

Cheers, Mike.

I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter. Blaise Pascal

Comment viewing options

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