Posts by kevint

1) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 2112)
Posted 16 Aug 2006 by kevint
Star Trek references aside :)

The governement makes you accountable for false claims on past returns. . why should people be given passes on clients that granted more credits than the standard one? Because they were the first to use it they should be given amnesty? What do they have against a level scoring system? If they are number one in the current credit system, they should still be number one when the actual work is calculated. . right?


Ethan, these are not false claims, in this case these claims are allowed under the current credit system. The IRS could not go back and make current laws retroactive. Neither should Rosetta.
If caught cheating the credits have been adjusted, and removed and in some cases removed from the project. And they have the right to do that, but to go back at this time and \"adjust\" the credits for everyone is simply bad managment.
2) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 2111)
Posted 16 Aug 2006 by kevint
Where on Rosetta\'s homepage did it say to download a different client to receive more credits? Users who read the Associated Press article who had no idea of other projects. . they should be punished because they didn\'t research things they had never heard of?

Just like in the real world (especially in the investment world), you must research before you play. The more you know, the better you will do. Know the game in which you play, before you join. This is universal. Even a brief scan of the message boards would clue in a newbie.

How does an apples to apples comparison hurt anyone? If you did the work, you get the credit. . if you did the work faster than the other guy, you get more credit. I\'m not sure how this hurts anyone.

I agree. So going forward, make it so (number one). Changing the rules backwards is wrong. Some people (had they known) would have never participated to begin with.

And worse of all, they have now lost out on accumulating credit on other projects. Rosetta@home is unable to make that right. The people will have been played by R@H, used and discarded like a spent condom. Nice.

I sincerely hope it doesn\'t work out that way, as I don\'t believe that is anyone\'s intention.

I agree with your idea\'s of not back dating credits. It is wrong, no reason to \"fine\" or remove credits from past crunching. Just move forward. If rules are changed then these should not be grandfatherd backwards. I love the 401K analogy. Why take away what was given freely in the past. That is distastfull and could hurt the science as there would be an exoudus from the project, and bad press for the project. I for one would not join a project if it had been known in the past to remove credits because of some new fangled credit granting system.
It has not been done with other projects, when SETI changed the way it granted credits - they did not remove credits that had been granted, neither has any other DC project. I feel it would prove destructive to the project.
3) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 2057)
Posted 16 Aug 2006 by kevint
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?

Totally against backdating the changes. Not nessesary nor needed - Time to fix the problems and just go forward from here.
Not a wise move in my mind - you risk loosing many crunchers should you decide to do this.
4) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 2025)
Posted 12 Aug 2006 by kevint
So far only one result from my host:

In this case it seems granted credit is a bit high. I suppose a host with my specs (Athlon 64@2.4 GHZ = Athlon 64 3800+) would get around 14-24 credits but I got even >25. This would even top Einstein which grants currently the most credit/hour.

Not so bad - as long as credit is granted equally across the board. Should Rosetta, grant more credit per hour than other projects it would have the tendancy to draw in more crunchers.
Anything from 19-25 credits per hour per core(based on Pent D 920 ) is about correct for correct cross project equality.
I have several Pent D 920\'s and running non-optimized I get an average of 23 credit per hour per core on SETI, QMC, SIMAP, Currently Rosetta is a bit higher than that averaging about 28, E@H is around 30 but have not crunched that for a couple of weeks to test.

Currently there are talks at E@H for project optimization apps that will would increase the current credit per hour about 20%-30%(faster WU\'s more credit per hour). And SETI 5.17 is suppose to incorporate a higher muliplier to match E@H, and further optimization on SETI would allow for even a greater credit per hour.
I know that in prelimiary testing of highly optimized SETI 5.15 apps I was seeing 1700-1800 credit a day on a Pent D 930. On Rosetta that same machine gets around 1200-1300.

My fear is that should Rosetta not at least be equal to these other projects - there will be an exodus to these other higher yielding projects and the Rosetta Project as a whole would suffer as \"credit whores\" gravitate to the projects that yield the most bang for the buck.
5) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 1998)
Posted 12 Aug 2006 by kevint
which he believes will only get about 1 credit an hour if the 2 credit per decoy is used. if by extending the WU time then that may solve his problem by generating more decoys and hence more credit.
I am still having trouble uploading completed WU\'s to Ralph at the moment so I have yet to have any of the new credit awarded to me yet, to see how it compares.

I understand that this is only a test and that the production WU\'s may be different. My response was based upon a comment made about anyone having problems releasing this to the production side. As is, yes I do have issues with it, if the credit per decoy remains the same in production.
However, even upping the WU time would not solve this issue, if the machine can do a decoy every 1 hour, that is what it can do, increasing the WU crunch time would only grant more credits per WU, not more credit per hour.

However - to oblige I will test and crunch some 6 or 8 hour WU\'s on the older machines to see if there is a difference. I would like a 24 hour session as is, 2 hour WU\'s first for a baseline, then I will change it to a 8 hour WU and let that run for 24 hours to verify the credit per hour.
6) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 1983)
Posted 12 Aug 2006 by kevint
does anyone object to rolling this out to Rosetta@home?

I just crunched a few WU\'s for beta and I do object -

I have several WU that did 5 decoys, a couple WU that did 6 decoys, most WU has 3 or fewer. WU\'s crunched in about the same time frame.

If we were to look at cross project equalization of credits - Rosetta would be sitting at or very near the bottom. Granting the fewest credit per CPU hour out there. This could in fact hurt the project as many crunchers will seek out the project that grants higher credits per hour. Or is at least more consistant on granting credits per CPU hour.

I have some old PIII that sometimes will crunch for 2-3 hours with only returning a single decoy - Given this credit system, those machines would do about 1 credit per hour, even seti enhanced is not that low on these guys, as I am seeing about 15 an hour from them with SETI, and 18 and hour with them at E@H. This credit system would make these machines nearly worthless IMO for returning any benifit in running them.
7) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Crashed WU\'s (Message 641)
Posted 25 Feb 2006 by kevint
[quote]All 5 of the WU\'s on that host are the v4.87 & show that they have been Canceled already. That is the reason they crash after they complete. Those WU\'s were supposed to be Aborted per the Developers instructions if they already showed that they were canceled.

Ahh, I did not get the TPR report - thank you
8) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Crashed WU\'s (Message 639)
Posted 25 Feb 2006 by kevint
This computer

looks like the WU runs for about 8 hours give or take, then then crashes.

©2019 University of Washington