My workunits were a little bit bigger than yours. Therefore they got a little bit more credit than yours. At the moment I'm crunching smaller workunits which will get 170.83 credits.
As long as you are crunching the same workunits you will get the same credit.
Regards,
Carsten
Ahh ... so file size is where the consistency lies. It is a flat rate per kilobyte. Thanks Carsten.
Yeah, I see my next batch of shorties are crunching ~200 seconds less and have dropped to 19.90 from 20.02.
My Comp is also Intel ...
and is screaming at an RAC of 1,123.96
... and a WU every 19,600 secs!!
I am happy!
:-)))
But then you should complain to AC,Inc. My RAC is ~350 so - per the 5x advertising - yours should be up to at least 1,750, if not more given that mine is only 1.7GHz :-) A nice box anyway. :-)
Due to time I have not been able to read all posts so if what I say has already been covered somewhere, then I am sorry.
I have a P4 2.53 GHz @ 2.75 GHz computer running Windows, that started the whole BOINC thing for me back in mid 2005 when I started Einstein.
It has been going fine with the S4 and any previous WUs including some Beta WUs recently, getting through them in a time of 3 to 8 hours (depending on WU). I was happy with this averaging 50 to 60 credits a day.
With the introduction of S5 WUs things have changed. The new WUs now take 39 hours or over 140,000 seconds. This is just too long and not fair on others who complete their workunits quicker then have to wait days for me to finish (I also run Seti on this machine).
I have stopped all further units from Einstein and will now do Rosetta (<5 hours).
I will keep doing Einstein on my AMD machines as these are much faster (even with slower clock speed).
There was a time when a Intel P4 machine was fast, obviously not as fast as I thought. Will keep crunching, just with 1 less computer.
I have a P4 2.53 GHz @ 2.75 GHz computer running Windows....
I have an Asus laptop - P4 2.66 GHz, not overclocked running Windows
Quote:
The new WUs now take 39 hours or over 140,000 seconds....
On mine "long" results returning 179 credits take 13.6 hours or 49,000 seconds
Quote:
There was a time when a Intel P4 machine was fast, obviously not as fast as I thought. Will keep crunching, just with 1 less computer.
Older P4's are still quite adequate. There has got to be something drastically wrong with the way yours is setup. It just shouldn't be that slow. Here is some data for "long" results returning 170+ credits on a number of other PIII and P4 machines in my possession.
HP PIII 1GHz/256MB/20GB - 86,000 secs or 23.9 hours
Dell PIII 1GHz/256MB/20GB - 89,000 secs or 24.7 hours
HP P4 1.6GHz @ 2.0GHz/256MB/20GB - 65,000 secs or 18.0 hours
As you can see, these are much lower clocked machines than yours and are virtually twice as fast as yours. Yours doesn't have any form of thermal throttling by any chance? There has got to be something wrong.
I have a P4 2.53 GHz @ 2.75 GHz computer running Windows....
I have an Asus laptop - P4 2.66 GHz, not overclocked running Windows
Quote:
The new WUs now take 39 hours or over 140,000 seconds....
On mine "long" results returning 179 credits take 13.6 hours or 49,000 seconds
Quote:
There was a time when a Intel P4 machine was fast, obviously not as fast as I thought. Will keep crunching, just with 1 less computer.
Older P4's are still quite adequate. There has got to be something drastically wrong with the way yours is setup. It just shouldn't be that slow. Here is some data for "long" results returning 170+ credits on a number of other PIII and P4 machines in my possession.
HP PIII 1GHz/256MB/20GB - 86,000 secs or 23.9 hours
Dell PIII 1GHz/256MB/20GB - 89,000 secs or 24.7 hours
HP P4 1.6GHz @ 2.0GHz/256MB/20GB - 65,000 secs or 18.0 hours
As you can see, these are much lower clocked machines than yours and are virtually twice as fast as yours. Yours doesn't have any form of thermal throttling by any chance? There has got to be something wrong.
Thanks Gary, I will do some spam and virus checking. No thermal throttling that I know of.
When comparing run times for work units you should bear in mind that BOINC runs at a very low priority and so slows up if your computer is also doing something else at the time. Even during the night, virus scans, maintenance programs etc can significantly slow down work units. Obviously this is more marked the slower the processor but, even on relatively fast machines, it can have an effect. My X2 4200 normally completes the new work units in the range of 25,000 to 32,000 sec. However I recently experimented with a TV card and found that the work unit times rose to about 56,000 sec. whilst using it.
This will affect the number of credits/hour, especially for servers and work computers, and may explain why some people are coming up with different figures for apparently comparable machines. dAVE.
When comparing run times for work units you should bear in mind that BOINC runs at a very low priority and so slows up if your computer is also doing something else at the time. Even during the night, virus scans, maintenance programs etc can significantly slow down work units. Obviously this is more marked the slower the processor but, even on relatively fast machines, it can have an effect. My X2 4200 normally completes the new work units in the range of 25,000 to 32,000 sec. However I recently experimented with a TV card and found that the work unit times rose to about 56,000 sec. whilst using it.
This will affect the number of credits/hour, especially for servers and work computers, and may explain why some people are coming up with different figures for apparently comparable machines. dAVE.
hm, the priority is low, thats right but.. most other programs dont use much of the CPU. If you want to know how much the CPU does for einstein and how much for other programs you can look at the "Average CPU efficiency" on the summary page. i have here:
athlon 64 3500+, SuSe Linux 10.1 64bit:
Average CPU efficiency 0.969846 thats 3% of CPU for other things only...
athlonx XP 2200+, SuSe Lunux 10.1
Average CPU efficiency 0.997991 that one is doing nothing else
When comparing run times for work units you should bear in mind that BOINC runs at a very low priority and so slows up if your computer is also doing something else at the time. Even during the night, virus scans, maintenance programs etc can significantly slow down work units. Obviously this is more marked the slower the processor but, even on relatively fast machines, it can have an effect. My X2 4200 normally completes the new work units in the range of 25,000 to 32,000 sec. However I recently experimented with a TV card and found that the work unit times rose to about 56,000 sec. whilst using it.
This will affect the number of credits/hour, especially for servers and work computers, and may explain why some people are coming up with different figures for apparently comparable machines. dAVE.
hm, the priority is low, thats right but.. most other programs dont use much of the CPU. If you want to know how much the CPU does for einstein and how much for other programs you can look at the "Average CPU efficiency" on the summary page. i have here:
athlon 64 3500+, SuSe Linux 10.1 64bit:
Average CPU efficiency 0.969846 thats 3% of CPU for other things only...
athlonx XP 2200+, SuSe Lunux 10.1
Average CPU efficiency 0.997991 that one is doing nothing else
You are absolutely correct, I just didn’t want people to become dispirited, or believe that something was wrong just because they were not getting times as fast as others. dAVE.
PS. Playing music has the same effect, although not as severe. dAVE.
I've a question regarding the ridiciously high credits I get for the new S5 WUs.
Here's my result page of now:
36097230 10629448 6 Jul 2006 16:32:02 UTC 9 Jul 2006 4:39:52 UTC Over Success Done 30,003.89 176.83 176.83
35936599 10554820 4 Jul 2006 18:13:52 UTC 6 Jul 2006 20:55:31 UTC Over Success Done 30,135.70 176.83 176.83
35662821 10428384 1 Jul 2006 8:35:00 UTC 5 Jul 2006 5:09:43 UTC Over Success Done 30,285.45 176.83 176.83
33903912 9698198 14 Jun 2006 15:16:14 UTC 16 Jun 2006 13:24:11 UTC Over Success Done 19,439.95 27.04 44.44
That's an average of 21 credits/h for S5 and 5 credit/h for S4.
It's all on the same machine, all with the same setup, all with stock application, so per definition all should get the same credit/h.
The amount for the S4 is in the same ballpark as my other projects (5 +/- 0.5), the S5 is far off target.
This kind of extreme credit inflation will lead to more "competitive" crunchers, but I can't see any justification for it, and it will harm the other projects. What's the reason for this glitch and when will it be stopped?
RE: Hi,RE: he was getting
)
Ahh ... so file size is where the consistency lies. It is a flat rate per kilobyte. Thanks Carsten.
Yeah, I see my next batch of shorties are crunching ~200 seconds less and have dropped to 19.90 from 20.02.
And to Ray: my box is also Intel ;(
Cheers.
My Comp is also Intel ... and
)
My Comp is also Intel ...
and is screaming at an RAC of 1,123.96
... and a WU every 19,600 secs!!
I am happy!
:-)))
RE: My Comp is also Intel
)
But then you should complain to AC,Inc. My RAC is ~350 so - per the 5x advertising - yours should be up to at least 1,750, if not more given that mine is only 1.7GHz :-) A nice box anyway. :-)
Cheers
Due to time I have not been
)
Due to time I have not been able to read all posts so if what I say has already been covered somewhere, then I am sorry.
I have a P4 2.53 GHz @ 2.75 GHz computer running Windows, that started the whole BOINC thing for me back in mid 2005 when I started Einstein.
It has been going fine with the S4 and any previous WUs including some Beta WUs recently, getting through them in a time of 3 to 8 hours (depending on WU). I was happy with this averaging 50 to 60 credits a day.
With the introduction of S5 WUs things have changed. The new WUs now take 39 hours or over 140,000 seconds. This is just too long and not fair on others who complete their workunits quicker then have to wait days for me to finish (I also run Seti on this machine).
I have stopped all further units from Einstein and will now do Rosetta (<5 hours).
I will keep doing Einstein on my AMD machines as these are much faster (even with slower clock speed).
There was a time when a Intel P4 machine was fast, obviously not as fast as I thought. Will keep crunching, just with 1 less computer.
RE: I have a P4 2.53 GHz @
)
I have an Asus laptop - P4 2.66 GHz, not overclocked running Windows
On mine "long" results returning 179 credits take 13.6 hours or 49,000 seconds
Older P4's are still quite adequate. There has got to be something drastically wrong with the way yours is setup. It just shouldn't be that slow. Here is some data for "long" results returning 170+ credits on a number of other PIII and P4 machines in my possession.
HP PIII 1GHz/256MB/20GB - 86,000 secs or 23.9 hours
Dell PIII 1GHz/256MB/20GB - 89,000 secs or 24.7 hours
HP P4 1.6GHz @ 2.0GHz/256MB/20GB - 65,000 secs or 18.0 hours
As you can see, these are much lower clocked machines than yours and are virtually twice as fast as yours. Yours doesn't have any form of thermal throttling by any chance? There has got to be something wrong.
Cheers,
Gary.
RE: RE: I have a P4 2.53
)
Thanks Gary, I will do some spam and virus checking. No thermal throttling that I know of.
Comparing apples and
)
Comparing apples and pears.
When comparing run times for work units you should bear in mind that BOINC runs at a very low priority and so slows up if your computer is also doing something else at the time. Even during the night, virus scans, maintenance programs etc can significantly slow down work units. Obviously this is more marked the slower the processor but, even on relatively fast machines, it can have an effect. My X2 4200 normally completes the new work units in the range of 25,000 to 32,000 sec. However I recently experimented with a TV card and found that the work unit times rose to about 56,000 sec. whilst using it.
This will affect the number of credits/hour, especially for servers and work computers, and may explain why some people are coming up with different figures for apparently comparable machines. dAVE.
RE: Comparing apples and
)
hm, the priority is low, thats right but.. most other programs dont use much of the CPU. If you want to know how much the CPU does for einstein and how much for other programs you can look at the "Average CPU efficiency" on the summary page. i have here:
athlon 64 3500+, SuSe Linux 10.1 64bit:
Average CPU efficiency 0.969846 thats 3% of CPU for other things only...
athlonx XP 2200+, SuSe Lunux 10.1
Average CPU efficiency 0.997991 that one is doing nothing else
RE: RE: Comparing apples
)
You are absolutely correct, I just didn’t want people to become dispirited, or believe that something was wrong just because they were not getting times as fast as others. dAVE.
PS. Playing music has the same effect, although not as severe. dAVE.
I've a question regarding the
)
I've a question regarding the ridiciously high credits I get for the new S5 WUs.
Here's my result page of now:
36097230 10629448 6 Jul 2006 16:32:02 UTC 9 Jul 2006 4:39:52 UTC Over Success Done 30,003.89 176.83 176.83
35936599 10554820 4 Jul 2006 18:13:52 UTC 6 Jul 2006 20:55:31 UTC Over Success Done 30,135.70 176.83 176.83
35662821 10428384 1 Jul 2006 8:35:00 UTC 5 Jul 2006 5:09:43 UTC Over Success Done 30,285.45 176.83 176.83
33903912 9698198 14 Jun 2006 15:16:14 UTC 16 Jun 2006 13:24:11 UTC Over Success Done 19,439.95 27.04 44.44
That's an average of 21 credits/h for S5 and 5 credit/h for S4.
It's all on the same machine, all with the same setup, all with stock application, so per definition all should get the same credit/h.
The amount for the S4 is in the same ballpark as my other projects (5 +/- 0.5), the S5 is far off target.
This kind of extreme credit inflation will lead to more "competitive" crunchers, but I can't see any justification for it, and it will harm the other projects. What's the reason for this glitch and when will it be stopped?
Grüße vom Sänger
