I think Einstein is going to step into a big pile of
15 Jun 2006 9:45:54 UTC
Topic 191382
(moderation:
I have a small fear stirring with the oncome of s-5.
The change to the credit system along with lengthing the WU's sounds a lot like what happened over at SETI. Which we all know has turned into a serious problem for the project.
Unlike SETI, it does sound like the app to be used has been optimized and tested well. This would do away with one of the stick points that has happened at SETI, the app was not ready for general use.
But I still believe we may run into the credit screaming as they did, when the longer WU's start making the RAC's fall. I hope not, I hope einstein has stayed up on all the troubled stirred up at SETI over credits and the long WU's.
With fingers crossed, bring some s-5 on,lol.
Come Join us at Hawaiian Beach Bums
I think Einstein is going to step into a big pile of
)
How is this a bug report? Sounds more like a FUD spreading to me.
You can always go hunt credits with akosf powerapps to SIMAP project.
(Which is where I will go too. Not because of credit claims, but because I really like short work units.)
It was not meant as a bug
)
It was not meant as a bug report, yes it was out of context.
It was put here as most users would not look here, but the project people would be.
I was not trying to start a flame, but rather trying to give a heads up to the project people on my thoughts, in a less traveled place.
I brought this up in a thread on s-5 , and got the reaction I figured I would get. Mostly from the same SETI users that stirred up trouble on the SETI board.
Which was what I was trying to avoid, as the SETI board and the project in itself is in serious turmoil right now. Was trying to avoid that type of turmoil here.
And thanks, as I was not aware Akos had optimized the SIMAP app. I run a few machines on SIMAP, so will have to go look into it.
As for me, I am going to stay and see how the new credit routine is going to pan out.
Come Join us at Hawaiian Beach Bums
From what I see, the credit
)
From what I see, the credit claims on S5 work are a fair deal. They grants what official app compute, plus minus few percent.
Because new official app is 4x more efficient than S4 official app, expect drop to 25% of your usual RAC.
As the projects developers
)
As the projects developers work together with each other, you will probably see more and more projects going to a fixed WU crediting system. IMHO I wish they would all do this sooner, than later, as to stop the people from credit shopping and allow the sciences to be the reason people want to go to a project.
Maybe I'm naive... Why are
)
Maybe I'm naive...
Why are points a big deal? Is there a prize or a banquet if your in the top 10 or just bragging rights?
Just bragging rights, but
)
Just bragging rights, but some people are just used to the way things are, and hate change. Once it gets even across the board, then the shopping can stop, and the real science can be looked at.
Thanks man !!! Thought I
)
Thanks man !!!
Thought I was truly missing something.
Been with SETI since Apr 2001, and yeah I've seen things get ugly, but things seem to just cycle through the good and bad
RE: Maybe I'm naive... Why
)
Some feel that the credits are like a return for what they have spent on the machines and the power bill per month. So a large drop upsets them, mostly due to they feel they are not getting as much return on their investment. It is a sad note, but not all crunchers are in it for the science. A good percentage are in it for the competetion. So to that percentage , credits are all the project is to them. So they will go to whatever project has the best return rate per hour crunched. Is this sad, yes from a science point, but not really from a project point. As the work is getting done, and for the most part at a higher rate than the normal cruncher.
So the credit greedy are very good for a project as long as that project is the golden one for credits. Even if they have to put up with a little extra ego stroking to keep them happy.
Average power cruncher turns in around 3K to 5K a day. This compared to the average normal user of about 100 to 300 a day. Does not take much to see how much work is getting done per day more than if the project was just being crunched by normal users.
Does this make the power cruncher more important, no. But it does by his/her standards make him/her in his/her own mind more important.
Just my 2 cents on the credit spin.
Come Join us at Hawaiian Beach Bums
The intention of distributed
)
The intention of distributed computing projects, as far as I know, is that they use up spare cycles on machines which are running primarily for other uses. The people who run processor farms 24/7 for the sole purpose of crunching DC projects are on a frolic of their own. If DC is dependent on stat-heads to make any progress, it is not working as intended.
Dead men don't get the baby washed. HTH
RE: It is a sad note, but
)
I wish to refute this. I believe more are in it for the science. It's the small percentage that come to the boards and read, and see what is happening on the boards that are more apt to have this issue. There are many people out there that are crunchers only. Set it and forget it. Those are doing the science part of it. It's been esitmated that only a small (less than 5%) actually come and read the boards.
I myself read the boards. I ran Seti Classic, and didn't read the boards, because I was a set it and forget it type of person. I am that way with Boinc projects, also. I look at the machines maybe a couple times a week, just to make sure they are alive. A little more during change, so I can see they have not failed the change. I have optimized. I am a little more active with the software, but it's still mostly doing it's own thing. A lot of people just leave there machine crunch, and do not watch the numbers. They may notice a little change, then come to the website, see a change has been truely made, then go on. I have seen messages of people just a day or two ago, who optimized their Seti, and just noticed it had no work. That's a few weeks before they noticed anything. I am betting that same question will be asked months from now.
Yes, there are those in it for the credit. I think a larger percentage of those are actively watching their machines and read the boards, but the ones who crunch for the science are less likely to read the boards, and just let their machines crunch. This is why we see the arguements about credits, and not as many people refuting the crediting.
I personally believe the developers are doing what is good for the science, and wish them all well. I hope that it will continue to grown, and be a very good thing for all our futures.