Now that I have a few R2 results back, I would be interested in comparing them with another user with a similar CPU - Athlon64 3200+ or a Pentium of a roughly comparable capability. The first 3 jobs returned yielded 10.54pts/hr, 10.93pts/hr, and
11.07pts/hr. All 3 produced 205.04 pts and I have no idea why the times are progressively lower.
An average of several R1s on the same machine resulted in approx. 17.50 pts/hr.
As I'm sure everyone probably knows by now.
IT'S BROKE.
And with this much of a discrepancy, I think I'll run Rosetta for a while on machines that don't have an inventory of R1s remaining.
Gary
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.....Douglas Adams
It has a column on the 'Hosts' tab for estimated credits/hour for each host, but no equivalent on the 'Projects' tab for a 'per project' credit estimate (not even an optional column missing from the default display). I suppose the assumption is that any given host will earn the same credit/hour on each project that it crunches - which tends to be an assumption which all these discussions about credit touch on in their life-cycle.
At the moment, BOINCView is estimating, for the hosts it's monitoring:
Time so far : 4d 8h 3m
To completion : 1d 8h 3m
Total : 5d 16h 6m ( that estimate has come down by about an hour during the last 3 hours )
so ~ 79% done as we speak.
I think that you need to treat 'time to completion' estimates with a certain amount of caution, too - especially during the 'running in' period for a new app.
Better to read the CPU time so far, and the %age done, directly off the viewer/manager, and extrapolate the finishing time from there yourself: especially in a project like Einstein, which seems to have a very steady progress through the WUs in %age terms.
Time so far : 4d 8h 3m
To completion : 1d 8h 3m
Total : 5d 16h 6m ( that estimate has come down by about an hour during the last 3 hours )
so ~ 79% done as we speak.
I think that you need to treat 'time to completion' estimates with a certain amount of caution, too - especially during the 'running in' period for a new app.
Better to read the CPU time so far, and the %age done, directly off the viewer/manager, and extrapolate the finishing time from there yourself: especially in a project like Einstein, which seems to have a very steady progress through the WUs in %age terms.
I just got the results on the 5th job on my Athlon 64 3200+ and it was the worst to date 10.51 credits/hr. Roughly 60.1% of the credit for a comparable time running an R1.
I think I'll run Rosetta for a while until they figure out what a level playing field is going to look like.
Gary
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.....Douglas Adams
Now that I have a few R2 results back, I would be interested in comparing them with another user with a similar CPU - Athlon64 3200+ or a Pentium of a roughly comparable capability. The first 3 jobs returned yielded 10.54pts/hr, 10.93pts/hr, and
11.07pts/hr. All 3 produced 205.04 pts and I have no idea why the times are progressively lower.
An average of several R1s on the same machine resulted in approx. 17.50 pts/hr.
As I'm sure everyone probably knows by now.
IT'S BROKE.
And with this much of a discrepancy, I think I'll run Rosetta for a while on machines that don't have an inventory of R1s remaining.
Gary
I found my AMD 3500+ had about 11.5pts/hr, which is about comparable with what I do on Rosetta. So that works for me.
R1 was higher, but I don't see why that should stay higher than Rosetta.
So as the debugging concludes, and the optimisation begins, expect substantial speed increases on newer processors.
While that's all well and good, the fact still remains that this level of debug code has an appropriate place, and that is called a beta test. Beta tests are conducted with users who are fully aware that they are involved in a beta and have been told that there may be failures as the code is tested.
Yes, I realize that we're just going to have to make the best of this situation, but I don't want my point to be missed / mistaken in all of this.
R1 was higher, but I don't see why that should stay higher than Rosetta.
Perhaps Rosetta should increase instead...
I could be in error but I don't think there is any direct connection between Rosetta "points" and "points" given by any other project connected with BOINC.
Gary
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.....Douglas Adams
I could be in error but I don't think there is any direct connection between Rosetta "points" and "points" given by any other project connected with BOINC.
Gary
There is an effort underway to make all projects on the BOINC system, which includes Rosetta, award the same amount of credit/hr (or whatever other unit of time you wish to use). The idea put forth by the Einstein staff is that they were giving "too much". The alternative view is that the other projects were giving "too little".
Both of these viewpoints accomplish the same thing. Hypothetical example:
Einstein offers 10. Rosetta offers 8. Einstein is granting 2 more than Rosetta.
Einstein offers 8. Rosetta offers 8. Einstein and Rosetta offer the same.
Einstein offers 10. Rosetta offers 10. Einstein and Rosetta offer the same.
Edit: My objection to lowering EAH credits is because I feel that other projects have not put as much time into their application or credit system as EAH. EAH should be considered the "leader", meaning that the other projects should strive to bring up their application performance or credit levels rather than the hard work that the staff here have put in be continually "devalued".
I could be in error but I don't think there is any direct connection between Rosetta "points" and "points" given by any other project connected with BOINC.
Gary
There is an effort underway to make all projects on the BOINC system, which includes Rosetta, award the same amount of credit/hr (or whatever other unit of time you wish to use). The idea put forth by the Einstein staff is that they were giving "too much". The alternative view is that the other projects were giving "too little".
Both of these viewpoints accomplish the same thing. Hypothetical example:
Einstein offers 10. Rosetta offers 8. Einstein is granting 2 more than Rosetta.
Einstein offers 8. Rosetta offers 8. Einstein and Rosetta offer the same.
Einstein offers 10. Rosetta offers 10. Einstein and Rosetta offer the same.
It is kind of funny when you stop and think about it. Why do they have to spend all the time and money in order for "volunteers" to make some kind of a contest out of it?
I suspect, that just maybe, possibly, no probably, almost without a doubt, it's just the nature of the Beast.
Gary
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.....Douglas Adams
Now that I have a few R2
)
Now that I have a few R2 results back, I would be interested in comparing them with another user with a similar CPU - Athlon64 3200+ or a Pentium of a roughly comparable capability. The first 3 jobs returned yielded 10.54pts/hr, 10.93pts/hr, and
11.07pts/hr. All 3 produced 205.04 pts and I have no idea why the times are progressively lower.
An average of several R1s on the same machine resulted in approx. 17.50 pts/hr.
As I'm sure everyone probably knows by now.
IT'S BROKE.
And with this much of a discrepancy, I think I'll run Rosetta for a while on machines that don't have an inventory of R1s remaining.
Gary
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.....Douglas Adams
I use BOINCView too -
)
I use BOINCView too - currently v1.4.2
It has a column on the 'Hosts' tab for estimated credits/hour for each host, but no equivalent on the 'Projects' tab for a 'per project' credit estimate (not even an optional column missing from the default display). I suppose the assumption is that any given host will earn the same credit/hour on each project that it crunches - which tends to be an assumption which all these discussions about credit touch on in their life-cycle.
At the moment, BOINCView is estimating, for the hosts it's monitoring:
Celeron 400MHz - 2.83 Credits/hour [too high]
Pentium 4 2GHz - 9.98 Credits/hour [about right]
Xeon 5320 1.86GHz - 59.64 Credits/hour [7.5/core/hour - too low]
All machines run Einstein and the relevant flavour of Chicken's optimised SETI app: the Xeon also runs SETI Beta (currently Astropulse) and CPDN.
RE: Time so far : 4d 8h
)
I think that you need to treat 'time to completion' estimates with a certain amount of caution, too - especially during the 'running in' period for a new app.
Better to read the CPU time so far, and the %age done, directly off the viewer/manager, and extrapolate the finishing time from there yourself: especially in a project like Einstein, which seems to have a very steady progress through the WUs in %age terms.
RE: RE: Time so far : 4d
)
I just got the results on the 5th job on my Athlon 64 3200+ and it was the worst to date 10.51 credits/hr. Roughly 60.1% of the credit for a comparable time running an R1.
I think I'll run Rosetta for a while until they figure out what a level playing field is going to look like.
Gary
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.....Douglas Adams
RE: Now that I have a few
)
I found my AMD 3500+ had about 11.5pts/hr, which is about comparable with what I do on Rosetta. So that works for me.
R1 was higher, but I don't see why that should stay higher than Rosetta.
RE: R1 was higher, but I
)
Perhaps Rosetta should increase instead...
RE: So as the debugging
)
While that's all well and good, the fact still remains that this level of debug code has an appropriate place, and that is called a beta test. Beta tests are conducted with users who are fully aware that they are involved in a beta and have been told that there may be failures as the code is tested.
Yes, I realize that we're just going to have to make the best of this situation, but I don't want my point to be missed / mistaken in all of this.
Brian
RE: RE: R1 was higher,
)
I could be in error but I don't think there is any direct connection between Rosetta "points" and "points" given by any other project connected with BOINC.
Gary
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.....Douglas Adams
RE: I could be in error
)
There is an effort underway to make all projects on the BOINC system, which includes Rosetta, award the same amount of credit/hr (or whatever other unit of time you wish to use). The idea put forth by the Einstein staff is that they were giving "too much". The alternative view is that the other projects were giving "too little".
Both of these viewpoints accomplish the same thing. Hypothetical example:
Einstein offers 10. Rosetta offers 8. Einstein is granting 2 more than Rosetta.
Einstein offers 8. Rosetta offers 8. Einstein and Rosetta offer the same.
Einstein offers 10. Rosetta offers 10. Einstein and Rosetta offer the same.
Edit: My objection to lowering EAH credits is because I feel that other projects have not put as much time into their application or credit system as EAH. EAH should be considered the "leader", meaning that the other projects should strive to bring up their application performance or credit levels rather than the hard work that the staff here have put in be continually "devalued".
RE: RE: I could be in
)
It is kind of funny when you stop and think about it. Why do they have to spend all the time and money in order for "volunteers" to make some kind of a contest out of it?
I suspect, that just maybe, possibly, no probably, almost without a doubt, it's just the nature of the Beast.
Gary
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.....Douglas Adams