Non-homogenous redundency.

adrianxw
adrianxw
Joined: 21 Feb 05
Posts: 224
Credit: 262,294,641
RAC: 212,306
Topic 190583

From the FAQ...

Quote:
Each machine that does work will claim a slightly different amount of credit. For fairness and uniformity, we have adopted the BOINC/SETI standard way to determine how much credit to award. Since each unit of work is done by more than one machine, we use the credit claims of all these machines to determine how much credit to award. Every valid result for a given unit of work is then awarded exactly the same amount of credit.

... yes, there can be a slight difference between machines, however, I was investigating why my pending was going up and up and happened to look at the machines that are also receiving the same units as me. Oddly my system seems to be being paired up with PowerMacs, which we all know fly through E@H, and to a lesser extent, AMD's. Net result when I do eventually get credit, I will get a lot less then I claimed, not the "slight difference" stated in the FAQ.

3195953

Is an example.

AMD chips and Macs turn these things out much faster than Intel's, perhaps Intel owners should look to other projects which do use HR, or do not use redundency?

If it were to be fair, then you'd expect to see as many results "rounded up" as "rounded down" when in fact, every result I have on my page at the moment is rounded down.

Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.

Paul D. Buck
Paul D. Buck
Joined: 17 Jan 05
Posts: 754
Credit: 5,385,205
RAC: 0

Non-homogenous redundency.

Which is why I asked Bruce to look into changing Einstein@Home over to the new FLOPS counting. He said he would, but, no indication if this is going to become something on their to-do list.

We can but hope ... but you are correct. This is an issue that is of fairly high significance to many of the participants. But, to this point I have not seen much interest from the projects. I know it means more work for them. But ...

Winterknight
Winterknight
Joined: 4 Jun 05
Posts: 482
Credit: 178,960,824
RAC: 181,664

I also seem to suffering

I also seem to suffering recently, from this problem, and now albert is here the problem only seems to have got worse. When I started here I got what I claimed within 10% or so now I always seem to get granted about 15% below claim.

Michael Karlinsky
Michael Karlinsky
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 888
Credit: 22,245,334
RAC: 0

RE: I also seem to

Message 23952 in response to message 23951

Quote:
I also seem to suffering recently, from this problem, and now albert is here the problem only seems to have got worse. When I started here I got what I claimed within 10% or so now I always seem to get granted about 15% below claim.

I seem to benefit :) [example]

(I'am the one with the lowest claim.)

Michael

Stick
Stick
Joined: 24 Feb 05
Posts: 790
Credit: 4,459,822
RAC: 2,376

RE: RE: I also seem to

Message 23953 in response to message 23952

Quote:
Quote:
I also seem to suffering recently, from this problem, and now albert is here the problem only seems to have got worse. When I started here I got what I claimed within 10% or so now I always seem to get granted about 15% below claim.

I seem to benefit :) [example]

(I'am the one with the lowest claim.)

Michael

Michael,

Just curious - have you ever tried an optimized Linux BOINC client? I use one of the Windows optimized BOINC clients mainly because it "normalizes" my Seti "Claimed credits" (since I also run an optimized Seti app). A side effect is that my Einstein "Claimed credits" are dramatically skewed to the upside. Since the standard Linux BOINC seems to yield lower "Claimed credits" than Windows BOINC's, an optimised client help might even things up.

Stick

Michael Karlinsky
Michael Karlinsky
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 888
Credit: 22,245,334
RAC: 0

RE: Just curious - have

Message 23954 in response to message 23953

Quote:

Just curious - have you ever tried an optimized Linux BOINC client?

I consider this cheating, because it inflates claimed credit.

Michael

PS: Before I get flamed. I'am not accusing anyone using an optimised BOINC
client of cheating. I just don't like it. I decided to use only stock
clients. This includes the SETI optimised science application. And yes, I'am
aware of all the pro's and con's.

Stick
Stick
Joined: 24 Feb 05
Posts: 790
Credit: 4,459,822
RAC: 2,376

RE: I consider this

Message 23955 in response to message 23954

Quote:

I consider this cheating, because it inflates claimed credit.

Michael

PS: Before I get flamed. I'am not accusing anyone using an optimised BOINC
client of cheating. I just don't like it. I decided to use only stock
clients. This includes the SETI optimised science application. And yes, I'am
aware of all the pro's and con's.

I certainly understand your point of view. I am not particularly "into" counting credits anyway. I am more interested in crunching WU's - which is why I run the optimised Seti application. (And I run the opt BOINC client just because I don't like being the one to "bring down" my Seti quorum.)

Comment viewing options

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