Why Such Low Credit On New WU's ?

JT Labs
JT Labs
Joined: 1 Mar 06
Posts: 3
Credit: 347,272
RAC: 0

ok, heres one for you.. q6600

ok, heres one for you.. q6600 stock approx 32000 seconds to crunch, and its claiming a credit of 67, then... a q9300 also stock, roughly same time to crunch, claiming 237 credits ?!?!?! machines were both added weekend of 8/3.

q6600 machine 32,799.41 62.88 pending
q9300 machine 34,636.95 237.50 237.50

anyone have any ideas? i have set the q6600 to get no new work...

Bikeman (Heinz-Bernd Eggenstein)
Bikeman (Heinz-...
Moderator
Joined: 28 Aug 06
Posts: 3,516
Credit: 485,689,078
RAC: 1,446

RE: ok, heres one for you..

Message 83591 in response to message 83590

Quote:

ok, heres one for you.. q6600 stock approx 32000 seconds to crunch, and its claiming a credit of 67, then... a q9300 also stock, roughly same time to crunch, claiming 237 credits ?!?!?! machines were both added weekend of 8/3.

q6600 machine 32,799.41 62.88 pending
q9300 machine 34,636.95 237.50 237.50

anyone have any ideas? i have set the q6600 to get no new work...

Second one looks like a S5R2 result, 1st one is a S5R4 result, and the granted credit will be much higher than the claimed one. See [url=http://einsteinathome.org/node/193821]Bernd's post "Credit Adjustment"[url] in this forum.

RandyC
RandyC
Joined: 18 Jan 05
Posts: 4,258
Credit: 111,139,797
RAC: 0

RE: RE: ok, heres one for

Message 83592 in response to message 83591

Quote:
Quote:

ok, heres one for you.. q6600 stock approx 32000 seconds to crunch, and its claiming a credit of 67, then... a q9300 also stock, roughly same time to crunch, claiming 237 credits ?!?!?! machines were both added weekend of 8/3.

q6600 machine 32,799.41 62.88 pending
q9300 machine 34,636.95 237.50 237.50

anyone have any ideas? i have set the q6600 to get no new work...

Second one looks like a S5R2 result, 1st one is a S5R4 result, and the granted credit will be much higher than the claimed one. See Bernd's post "Credit Adjustment" in this forum.

That would be an S5R3 WU, not S5R2.

Oh, and I fixed your link.

Seti Classic Final Total: 11446 WU.

Bikeman (Heinz-Bernd Eggenstein)
Bikeman (Heinz-...
Moderator
Joined: 28 Aug 06
Posts: 3,516
Credit: 485,689,078
RAC: 1,446

Oh yes, thanks :-).

Oh yes, thanks :-).

JT Labs
JT Labs
Joined: 1 Mar 06
Posts: 3
Credit: 347,272
RAC: 0

Thank you, I spend most of

Thank you, I spend most of my time at s@h, so not too familiar with all that goes on over here. guess i need to spend more time reading?? thanks again.. John

Gerry Rough
Gerry Rough
Joined: 1 Mar 05
Posts: 102
Credit: 1,847,066
RAC: 0

Hope this has not been

Hope this has not been discussed already (I tried to check), but I just noticed that the new WUs I recieved recently are runing 1/2 as fast as they should, meaning that one second of stated CPU time from the WU equals two seconds of wall clock time for other WUs on other projects. So, the 14.5 hours of stated WU runtime is really something like 28. Any ideas?

Of course there is also the possibility that I've found the warp signature of the first detected gravity wave, so perhaps one of the admins can confirm my findings. Just remember that Gerry is spelled with a G! :-)


(Click for detailed stats)

Winterknight
Winterknight
Joined: 4 Jun 05
Posts: 528
Credit: 208,170,214
RAC: 166,385

RE: Hope this has not been

Message 83597 in response to message 83596

Quote:

Hope this has not been discussed already (I tried to check), but I just noticed that the new WUs I recieved recently are runing 1/2 as fast as they should, meaning that one second of stated CPU time from the WU equals two seconds of wall clock time for other WUs on other projects. So, the 14.5 hours of stated WU runtime is really something like 28. Any ideas?

Of course there is also the possibility that I've found the warp signature of the first detected gravity wave, so perhaps one of the admins can confirm my findings. Just remember that Gerry is spelled with a G! :-)


The initial estimated time for your fist S5R4 unit was calculated using the task Duration Correction Factor (DCF) for S5R3, but they are attempting to get the DCF to move to 1.000. But this attempt from reported observations has moved to DCF to approx 1.4.

So its best to ignore estimates and calculate from time done, precentage completed.

If you used the default application for S5R3 the time to complete will be approx 20% longer. If you used power apps it could be twice as long.

The new S5R4 run is doing twice as much science but the application is much more efficient, because the optimisations tested in the power apps have been incorporated.

The change in DCF has been done so so new users will see an estimate that is much closer to reality and therefore not be put off.

edit] There is also a credit adjustment going on to bring Einsteins cr/time in line with Seti, because Einstein was reported to be paying ~28% more. But Seti are at the moment are also doing an adjustment.

MarkJ
MarkJ
Joined: 28 Feb 08
Posts: 437
Credit: 125,613,569
RAC: 205,958

RE: edit] There is also a

Message 83598 in response to message 83597

Quote:
edit] There is also a credit adjustment going on to bring Einsteins cr/time in line with Seti, because Einstein was reported to be paying ~28% more. But Seti are at the moment are also doing an adjustment.

Going off-topic for a second, I wonder if they will share the results of Astropulse with Einstein as they both search for pulsars (but by different means/data)?

Back on-topic, Matt mentioned over on Seti about Astropulse doing something like 17.85 credits/hour in order to maintain parity with other projects.

roadrunner_gs
roadrunner_gs
Joined: 7 Mar 06
Posts: 94
Credit: 3,369,656
RAC: 0

WTF? Intel Pentium M 1600

WTF?

Intel Pentium M 1600 w/ CentOS 5.2; Result: h1_0167.45_S5R4__31_S5R4a_1; Claimed Credit: 62.21; Runtime: 50775.68 s

Intel Pentium M 2000 w/ Windows XP SP3; Result: h1_0383.65_S5R4__134_S5R4a_2; Claimed Credit: 65.50; Runtime: 57388.6 s

Is Windows that lame or is the CPU of that monster size as the Claimed Credit hints at? The granted credit is somewhat low showing 191.52, seems to be non-adjusted...

Bikeman (Heinz-Bernd Eggenstein)
Bikeman (Heinz-...
Moderator
Joined: 28 Aug 06
Posts: 3,516
Credit: 485,689,078
RAC: 1,446

RE: WTF? Intel Pentium M

Message 83600 in response to message 83599

Quote:

WTF?

Intel Pentium M 1600 w/ CentOS 5.2; Result: h1_0167.45_S5R4__31_S5R4a_1; Claimed Credit: 62.21; Runtime: 50775.68 s

Intel Pentium M 2000 w/ Windows XP SP3; Result: h1_0383.65_S5R4__134_S5R4a_2; Claimed Credit: 65.50; Runtime: 57388.6 s

Is Windows that lame or is the CPU of that monster size as the Claimed Credit hints at? The granted credit is somewhat low showing 191.52, seems to be non-adjusted...

Just ignore the claimed credit. All that counts is the granted credit ..
CU
Bikeman

Comment viewing options

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