Bruce,
I wouldn't do any comparison's with Seti at the moment. They have not done a stats output for three days, due to server problems. And as they are also doing a credit realignment you will be comparing to out of date data.
I've watched this ratio (Einstein@Home credit per CPU hour/SETI@Home credit per CPU hour) for a number of weeks now. It has not fluctuated much, though it is now slowly decreasing due to the Einstein@Home credit adjustments.
So I think that the comparison to SETI@Home is reasonable, even if their stats are a few days old. Do you know if their credit realignment will increase or decrease the average credit per CPU hour?
The proposal is to decrease it overall by about 15%. Instead of having other projects move up to meet them, they have decided to move down to meet the other projects.
I'd also encourage you to read through Alinator's 64,000 cobblestone questions post... Perhaps you could provide some feedback for points 1 through 3.
Bruce,
I wouldn't do any comparison's with Seti at the moment. They have not done a stats output for three days, due to server problems. And as they are also doing a credit realignment you will be comparing to out of date data.
I've watched this ratio (Einstein@Home credit per CPU hour/SETI@Home credit per CPU hour) for a number of weeks now. It has not fluctuated much, though it is now slowly decreasing due to the Einstein@Home credit adjustments.
So I think that the comparison to SETI@Home is reasonable, even if their stats are a few days old. Do you know if their credit realignment will increase or decrease the average credit per CPU hour?
As Brian Said Seti is looking to decrease by about 15%.
Eric Korpela's post is here, in which he states the reasons and his method of achieving it.
I wouldn't do any comparison's with Seti at the moment. They have not done a stats output for three days, due to server problems. And as they are also doing a credit realignment you will be comparing to out of date data.
I've watched this ratio (Einstein@Home credit per CPU hour/SETI@Home credit per CPU hour) for a number of weeks now. It has not fluctuated much, though it is now slowly decreasing due to the Einstein@Home credit adjustments.
So I think that the comparison to SETI@Home is reasonable, even if their stats are a few days old. Do you know if their credit realignment will increase or decrease the average credit per CPU hour?
As Brian Said Seti is looking to decrease by about 15%.
Eric Korpela's post is here, in which he states the reasons and his method of achieving it.
Thanks -- that link is very helpful. I've seen Eric's recent credit adjustment checkins to the BOINC code. I'll have a look at these and talk with Eric if needed, just to be sure that I understand how it works and what the potential impact will be on Einstein@Home.
Well, my P4 has finally processed one of the newer tasks and it is now in the 8-9 cr/hr range instead of the 7-8 from before. No surprise. That's what the math indicated should happen from the adjustment.
I do not know if SETI's loophole of the optimized applications still exists. I have not been participating there. When I left this morning, they were still having work generation problems. I may try to see if I can snag a few tasks to process to see if I'm still in the 17-22 cr/hr range there... If so, then the fact that they chose to not include full optimization in their standard-issue apps could be something that attracts credit chasers, and that is what I term a "loophole advantage" over other projects...
Well, my P4 has finally processed one of the newer tasks and it is now in the 8-9 cr/hr range instead of the 7-8 from before. No surprise. That's what the math indicated should happen from the adjustment.
I do not know if SETI's loophole of the optimized applications still exists. I have not been participating there. When I left this morning, they were still having work generation problems. I may try to see if I can snag a few tasks to process to see if I'm still in the 17-22 cr/hr range there... If so, then the fact that they chose to not include full optimization in their standard-issue apps could be something that attracts credit chasers, and that is what I term a "loophole advantage" over other projects...
But where Einstein has _0, _1 and _2 selected apps Seti would have to issue the equivalent of _3, _s3 and _4.1 apps as well and be preparing _4.2 (Nehalem's or i7 extensions) and of course there would be demands from a certain camp wanting _5 version for their cpu.
Of course this could also happen to any other project that has open source code.
Well, my P4 has finally processed one of the newer tasks and it is now in the 8-9 cr/hr range instead of the 7-8 from before. No surprise. That's what the math indicated should happen from the adjustment.
I do not know if SETI's loophole of the optimized applications still exists. I have not been participating there. When I left this morning, they were still having work generation problems. I may try to see if I can snag a few tasks to process to see if I'm still in the 17-22 cr/hr range there... If so, then the fact that they chose to not include full optimization in their standard-issue apps could be something that attracts credit chasers, and that is what I term a "loophole advantage" over other projects...
But where Einstein has _0, _1 and _2 selected apps Seti would have to issue the equivalent of _3, _s3 and _4.1 apps as well and be preparing _4.2 (Nehalem's or i7 extensions) and of course there would be demands from a certain camp wanting _5 version for their cpu.
Of course this could also happen to any other project that has open source code.
"SETI" would not "have to" do anything, other than provide the detection. People like Jason, JD, Joe (why is it all J's???) are responsible enough adults to where I have faith that they'd say "no" to something that didn't have enough "ROI" in it... That way it would be kept as "open source", but support would be upon the volunteer community.
If you want to come up with any number of different "nightmare scenarios" where the volunteer developers abandon ship, all I can really say in return is that having one's cake and eating it too is not exactly "Cross-Project Parity" vis-a-vis the effort that has been put in here and perhaps at other projects as well.
If SETI is "not able to support" things because of "lack of funding", then I would suggest that David Anderson, figurehead or no, stops focusing on things that really aren't problems when so many other problems really do exist..both with the SETI project and with BOINC itself...
Well, my P4 has finally processed one of the newer tasks and it is now in the 8-9 cr/hr range instead of the 7-8 from before. No surprise. That's what the math indicated should happen from the adjustment.
I do not know if SETI's loophole of the optimized applications still exists. I have not been participating there. When I left this morning, they were still having work generation problems. I may try to see if I can snag a few tasks to process to see if I'm still in the 17-22 cr/hr range there... If so, then the fact that they chose to not include full optimization in their standard-issue apps could be something that attracts credit chasers, and that is what I term a "loophole advantage" over other projects...
But where Einstein has _0, _1 and _2 selected apps Seti would have to issue the equivalent of _3, _s3 and _4.1 apps as well and be preparing _4.2 (Nehalem's or i7 extensions) and of course there would be demands from a certain camp wanting _5 version for their cpu.
Of course this could also happen to any other project that has open source code.
Under your suggestion Seti would then have to be the download host for the optimised apps. That I do not think is in Seti's plans at all for several reasons.
Also you might not have noticed but quite a lot of optimisers have left, probably not permanently, but more because other things have happened in their lifes and they can no longer donate the time required. Where is Simon, TMR is still around but not optimising although he does do a little assisting, etc, etc.
"SETI" would not "have to" do anything, other than provide the detection. People like Jason, JD, Joe (why is it all J's???) are responsible enough adults to where I have faith that they'd say "no" to something that didn't have enough "ROI" in it... That way it would be kept as "open source", but support would be upon the volunteer community.
If you want to come up with any number of different "nightmare scenarios" where the volunteer developers abandon ship, all I can really say in return is that having one's cake and eating it too is not exactly "Cross-Project Parity" vis-a-vis the effort that has been put in here and perhaps at other projects as well.
If SETI is "not able to support" things because of "lack of funding", then I would suggest that David Anderson, figurehead or no, stops focusing on things that really aren't problems when so many other problems really do exist..both with the SETI project and with BOINC itself...
If SETI is "not able to support" things because of "lack of funding", then I would suggest that David Anderson, figurehead or no, stops focusing on things that really aren't problems when so many other problems really do exist..both with the SETI project and with BOINC itself...
I would be interested if you could make an ordered list of what, in your opinion, are the most important problems with BOINC, SETI, and distributed computing projects. The BOINC community will be meeting in France in a couple of weeks and this would be an interesting thing for me to bring to that discussion.
Ran an S5R4 task under the old credit adjustment.
Ran an S5R4 task under the new credit adjustment.
Time wise it doesn't matter much. 95,000 - 97,000 seconds on this P4 3.0GHz HT.
Credits for the first one, claimed 64.69; granted 188.89
Credits for the second one, claimed 66.18; granted 221.71
RE: RE: Bruce, I wouldn't
)
The proposal is to decrease it overall by about 15%. Instead of having other projects move up to meet them, they have decided to move down to meet the other projects.
I'd also encourage you to read through Alinator's 64,000 cobblestone questions post... Perhaps you could provide some feedback for points 1 through 3.
Thanks...
RE: RE: Bruce, I wouldn't
)
As Brian Said Seti is looking to decrease by about 15%.
Eric Korpela's post is here, in which he states the reasons and his method of achieving it.
RE: RE: RE: I wouldn't
)
Thanks -- that link is very helpful. I've seen Eric's recent credit adjustment checkins to the BOINC code. I'll have a look at these and talk with Eric if needed, just to be sure that I understand how it works and what the potential impact will be on Einstein@Home.
Cheers,
Bruce
Director, Einstein@Home
Well, my P4 has finally
)
Well, my P4 has finally processed one of the newer tasks and it is now in the 8-9 cr/hr range instead of the 7-8 from before. No surprise. That's what the math indicated should happen from the adjustment.
I do not know if SETI's loophole of the optimized applications still exists. I have not been participating there. When I left this morning, they were still having work generation problems. I may try to see if I can snag a few tasks to process to see if I'm still in the 17-22 cr/hr range there... If so, then the fact that they chose to not include full optimization in their standard-issue apps could be something that attracts credit chasers, and that is what I term a "loophole advantage" over other projects...
RE: Well, my P4 has finally
)
But where Einstein has _0, _1 and _2 selected apps Seti would have to issue the equivalent of _3, _s3 and _4.1 apps as well and be preparing _4.2 (Nehalem's or i7 extensions) and of course there would be demands from a certain camp wanting _5 version for their cpu.
Of course this could also happen to any other project that has open source code.
RE: RE: Well, my P4 has
)
"SETI" would not "have to" do anything, other than provide the detection. People like Jason, JD, Joe (why is it all J's???) are responsible enough adults to where I have faith that they'd say "no" to something that didn't have enough "ROI" in it... That way it would be kept as "open source", but support would be upon the volunteer community.
If you want to come up with any number of different "nightmare scenarios" where the volunteer developers abandon ship, all I can really say in return is that having one's cake and eating it too is not exactly "Cross-Project Parity" vis-a-vis the effort that has been put in here and perhaps at other projects as well.
If SETI is "not able to support" things because of "lack of funding", then I would suggest that David Anderson, figurehead or no, stops focusing on things that really aren't problems when so many other problems really do exist..both with the SETI project and with BOINC itself...
RE: RE: RE: Well, my P4
)
RE: If SETI is "not able to
)
I would be interested if you could make an ordered list of what, in your opinion, are the most important problems with BOINC, SETI, and distributed computing projects. The BOINC community will be meeting in France in a couple of weeks and this would be an interesting thing for me to bring to that discussion.
Cheers,
Bruce
Director, Einstein@Home
Ran an S5R4 task under the
)
Ran an S5R4 task under the old credit adjustment.
Ran an S5R4 task under the new credit adjustment.
Time wise it doesn't matter much. 95,000 - 97,000 seconds on this P4 3.0GHz HT.
Credits for the first one, claimed 64.69; granted 188.89
Credits for the second one, claimed 66.18; granted 221.71
RE: snip...The BOINC
)
France? I thought it was the University of Delaware on the 29th of August. http://gcl.cis.udel.edu/EastCoast08/