I don't want this thread to degrade into a credit discussion. My purpose here was simply to demonstrait how easily BOINC's numbers are modified and credits effected. It seems the simplicity with which it is done is unclear to some folks, and so I hope that by review of this, they can better understand why some new method of establishing credit claims is desireable.

I did the following, all on this system, which is a dual core Windows P4.

Ran two WUs for 20hrs in to a 24hr target time.

Ran benchmarks from BOINC Manager.

Edited client_state.xml file found in /program files/BOINC
original contents of the file:
<client_state>
<host_info>
<timezone>-21600</timezone>
<domain_name>IBM-XIOR34ZXO2U</domain_name>
<ip_addr>9.10.54.138</ip_addr>
<host_cpid>c2b6ed128b9f00a4cd22b5241dc3378e</host_cpid>
<p_ncpus>2</p_ncpus>
<p_vendor>GenuineIntel</p_vendor>
<p_model> Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.00GHz</p_model>
<p_fpops>1284961240.310078</p_fpops>
<p_iops>1198067125.658179</p_iops>
<p_membw>1000000000.000000</p_membw>
<p_calculated>1156173189.089874</p_calculated>
<os_name>Microsoft Windows XP</os_name>
<os_version>Professional Edition, Service Pack 2,

(05.01.2600.00)</os_version>
<m_nbytes>2674896896.000000</m_nbytes>
<m_cache>1000000.000000</m_cache>
<m_swap>5188567040.000000</m_swap>
<d_total>80031514624.000000</d_total>
<d_free>52115275776.000000</d_free>
</host_info>
.... that's the top of the file, which continues
============== changed entries, add a 1 in front
<p_fpops>11284961240.310078</p_fpops>
<p_iops>11198067125.658179</p_iops>

Both WUs ended in computation error
8/21/2006 10:15:19 AM|rosetta@home|Computation for task
1ptq__BOINC_BACKBONE_O_PENALTY_ABRELAX_SAVE_ALL_OUT__1176_130_0 finished

8/21/2006 10:15:39 AM|rosetta@home|Computation for task
4ubpA_BOINC_BACKBONE_O_PENALTY_ABRELAX_SAVE_ALL_OUT__1176_694_0 finished

19 new WUs came down (way more then the 14 possible to crunch before the 1 week deadline... but BOINC assumes my PC can crunch faster now).
Estimated runtimes went from 24hrs to 2:44.

=======================
The 2 failed WUs were uploaded:
33549552 29116470 20 Aug 2006 0:00:07 UTC 21 Aug 2006 15:17:42 UTC Over Client
error Compute error 67,740.38 881.37 ---

33437061 29011302 19 Aug 2006 5:42:12 UTC 21 Aug 2006 15:17:42 UTC Over Client
error Compute error 72,037.97 937.29 ---

I believe each of these will eventually be awared the 500 point (whatever it is) maximum credit for an errored WU.

======= compare to my prior two 24hr WUs.
33385320 28961891 19 Aug 2006 0:00:06 UTC 21 Aug 2006 0:00:27 UTC Over Success
Done 86,441.19 120.10 136.19

33263753 28846659 18 Aug 2006 5:46:02 UTC 21 Aug 2006 0:00:27 UTC Over Success
Done 86,130.13 119.66 137.65

Should have been worth about 194 credits for 40 hrs of work, but it claimed 1,818.66 credits
======================
Let the new WUs crunch just over 4 hrs, change Rosetta preference to 4hrs so they will end and report normally. They each completed the model they were working on, and were reported.

33675010 29233799 21 Aug 2006 0:00:27 UTC 21 Aug 2006 20:45:30 UTC Over Success Done 16,116.42 209.69 23.19

33582288 29147070 20 Aug 2006 5:25:54 UTC 21 Aug 2006 20:45:30 UTC Over Success Done 16,093.91 209.40 23.89

I then reran BOINC benchmarks and set my WU runtime preference low enough that I can crunch and report all of those WUs before their deadlines.

You can see the WUs with just over 4hrs of work on them each claimed over 200 credits. That's more then the 120 or so that the same box was granted for 24hrs of crunching.

But when you compare the "granted work credit" (which is from the new system), they each received 23 credits, which is just under 4 credits per hour, which is consistent with the rates that were earned by this box previously.

Under the existing system, my modified credit claims are granted, because Rosetta trusts BOINC to measure the machine's ability and time spent.

Under the new system, I get credit for the work I've actually completed in those 4 hours.

---