Can the RAC decay be activated so that we can see an accurate picture of who is doing what in regards to Participants, Computers and Teams.

if Boinc will hang next time, go to "..Boincslots*minirosetta_database" and delete all read-only files in the subdirectories. (Actually just in "...svn" subdirectories, but maybe it is the same, if just one Rosetta mini WU was running.) Boinc will immediately continue its work.

Peter

First time I've seen one and wish I'd had more time and do a screen capture, but this unit http://ralph.bakerlab.org/result.php?resultid=509878 displayed the freaky blue dot syndrome.

What's the blue dot syndrome?

Can someone please turn on RAC decay for RALPH?

Solution : The Rosetta core application should do it's own benchmarking, and assign encrypted scoring values inside each workunit. BOINC level scoring systems could be bypassed on a per project basis, or per workunit basis even if you wanted to. The validator could be changed to decrypt these values on the fly, and everyone is happy. Although now that I think about it, you don't -have- to give this responsibility to the validator, you could require some background communication from Rosetta core whenever it needs to send in these values. It could send them in to the scheduler if you prefer.

I agree with your idea's of not back dating credits. It is wrong, no reason to "fine" or remove credits from past crunching.

From what I have gathered at the Rosetta Project there will be no Back Dating of the Credits & all the testing that is being done here with the WU's & Credit Revision is to be eventually for the Rosetta Project, so if theres going to be no Credit Back Dating there where the most blatant Cheating was going on then why should it be done here ...

dekim
Forum moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project scientist

I'm extracting the archived data and will see what I can do. What do other users think about trying to backdate the credits using the new work based system?

I can't sway myself from thinking that we have the opportunity to make the credit system fairly accurate based entirely on work done. I'm fairly sure everyone agrees credit should be based on work done. We have the opportunity to back date this to make the credit system consistent and fair throughout. If you've crunched more than me, you'll have more credit than me. If not, you won't. We know that's not the case at the moment, and I don't see how anyone can logically be against that.

I'm extracting the archived data and will see what I can do. What do other users think about trying to backdate the credits using the new work based system?