Posts by [B^S] suguruhirahara

1) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 2102)
Posted 16 Aug 2006 by [B^S] suguruhirahara
Post:
Unless I\'m mistaken this new credit system has developed in three stages. The 2 credits/model stage, some calculated credit method stage used until roughly 14 August, and now some calculated credit method with a correction factor after that one. If you want to compare the 2 CR/Model stage my chart is here for the same puters as below. All are from standard boinc clients. From what I see, this new system needs to go through yet another stage prior to release, as my credit is still \"all over the map\", although is is closer to cross project parity than previous stages. I\'ve changed the colors between stages two and three for easier viewing.

Nice work, but could you explain the points which separated 2nd and 3rd stage in detail more?
It is being proposed here that ROSETTA credits get back dated to Feb and reflect work done.
Just to make sure, does it mean that credits won\'t be deleted at all, and eveluate all of the credits granted with the new method and award again?
Thanks for reading,
2) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 2084)
Posted 16 Aug 2006 by [B^S] suguruhirahara
Post:
Right. My fault for not using the right terminology. So we\'re on the same page now? Does this mean you agree or disagree with my points?
Basically I\'m agree with Ethan\'s viewpoint.
3) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 2082)
Posted 16 Aug 2006 by [B^S] suguruhirahara
Post:
I mean that with SETI, they have optomized science applications (in your terminology). These \"applications\" are machine specific. They actually improve the efficiency of the machines.
http://ralph.bakerlab.org/forum_reply.php?thread=233&post=2081#2074

the term \"science application\" is widely used
eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOINC
4) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 2079)
Posted 16 Aug 2006 by [B^S] suguruhirahara
Post:
No. You are wrong. Witht with SETI (and Einstein too if I understand correctly) the optomized clients actually do the job faster because they are optomized for the machine architecture. I know this for a fact for SETI and Macs.

It is you that are wrong. What really compute is the science application. The client is just a manager.
5) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 2077)
Posted 16 Aug 2006 by [B^S] suguruhirahara
Post:
...

I\'m not sure I understand your point. I think you are saying \"But it should be okay to change the rules going forward, right?\" If so, I agree 100%. In fact, I am a *huge* fan of the way SETI is doing it. And optomized clients mean exactly that...they crunch the SAME job in less time. More work = more credit = more science! Who can argue with that?


I think your argument is based on a misunderstanding - An optimised client (i.e., a drop-in replacement manager) does no more science work than the original manager it replaced.

(add: R@H serves no optimised science application, unlike S@H and SIMAP, for example. Be careful not to confuse the client and the science app.)
6) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 2069)
Posted 16 Aug 2006 by [B^S] suguruhirahara
Post:
If not everyone is taking equal advantage of the rules, and the powers that be want it to be less \"customizable\" , then change the rules to prevent it going forward. That\'s what we\'re doing here, right? Perhaps we\'re late in implementing chanes to those rules. That\'s our own fault, not those who took advantage of it. Punishing people for breaking no rules is unfair at best.
However it cannot become the reason that prevents us from not applying the rules and leaving them as they\'ve been, right? Moreover many participants are agree with that rules will be changed.
7) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 2062)
Posted 16 Aug 2006 by [B^S] suguruhirahara
Post:
People joined this project based on the scoring method

Probably some will be same as you, but keep in mind others crunch this project just for science development. For them it doesn\'t matter whether the way in which their work will be evaluated again is changed.
8) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 2002)
Posted 12 Aug 2006 by [B^S] suguruhirahara
Post:
ty
9) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 2000)
Posted 12 Aug 2006 by [B^S] suguruhirahara
Post:
Hello,

I noticed that two sorts of value, \"Recent average work credit\" and \"Total work credit\", have been added to the list of my computers. Could anyone explain what they are?

Thanks,
10) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 1955)
Posted 11 Aug 2006 by [B^S] suguruhirahara
Post:
Thanks for your brief explanation:) Now I\'ve understood the system, I\'m for it.
11) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 1947)
Posted 9 Aug 2006 by [B^S] suguruhirahara
Post:
http://ralph.bakerlab.org/result.php?resultid=238822
One of mine:

BOINC Alpha 5.5.9
Result ID: 238822
Name: 1enh__BOINC_ABRELAX_SAVE_ALL_OUT_flatss__1111_596_0

CPU Time: 3301sec = around 55min
Claimed credit: 4.88809081678063
Granted credit: 7(models)x2 = 14
Average credit: 12.83/h

12) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 1940)
Posted 9 Aug 2006 by [B^S] suguruhirahara
Post:
but in any case I like the idea of throwing out 10% of the highest standard deviation.

Could you tell me why do you think the value of the deviation should be 10%, the constant?


Just a rough number thrown out. The actual cut-off would depend on how many copies are sent out and what percentage of misclaiming hosts we have on RALPLH.

Thanks.
Has the formula which determines the value submitted already or not yet?

edit: the issue is argued also on the Rosetta\'s thread. I think it should be combined with this thread.
13) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 1938)
Posted 9 Aug 2006 by [B^S] suguruhirahara
Post:
but in any case I like the idea of throwing out 10% of the highest standard deviation.

Could you tell me why do you think the value of the deviation should be 10%, the constant?
14) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 1935)
Posted 8 Aug 2006 by [B^S] suguruhirahara
Post:
Does granting credits on how long each computer was running the application separate how much they worked? I mean, does the server give the same amount of credits both to the machine which has Pentium and to that which has Conroe, if they run applications for the same length while Conroe can crunch more?
15) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 1926)
Posted 8 Aug 2006 by [B^S] suguruhirahara
Post:
Okay here is one proposal:

Send each type of WU to at least 60 hosts. Discard the results with the lowest and highest 10% claimed credit and take the arithmetic average of the remaining hosts as fixed credit/model for production runs on Rosetta.

But doesn\'t this way cut fair highest and lowest results at high rate? There may be some people who runs R@H on Pentium(I, II) or Kentsfield now. Especially a few users use genuine Kentsfield as testing already.

If the way would be applied, how about distributing WUs to same/similar spec\'s machine? This way could help the server to distinguish original claimed results from ones modified. Using coefficients figured of machine\'s spec, etc. I fear, however, this might be issue of client frameworks.

If thinking realistically, changing \"quorum\" from 1 to 3 is the easiest and more effective way applied overall. changing it to 5 isn\'t good:(
16) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Bug reports for Ralph 5.25 (Message 1903)
Posted 24 Jul 2006 by [B^S] suguruhirahara
Post:
Isn\'t it almost same one with a little configuration change?

Wait for answer until developers finish the work on CASP.
17) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : German / zu wenig arbeit (Message 1900)
Posted 24 Jul 2006 by [B^S] suguruhirahara
Post:
Dieses Project schickt arbeit, neuen Funktion mit WUs zu versuchen. Dafür kann Sie keine Arbeit holen, wenn sie schickt keine WUs zu versuchen. Wenn Sie mehr arbeit machen möchten, dann anhängen Sie Rosetta@home.
18) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Project down? (Message 1898)
Posted 22 Jul 2006 by [B^S] suguruhirahara
Post:
I hope so.
Actually, it\'s natural because the deadline of CASP is around one week later;p
19) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Project down? (Message 1896)
Posted 22 Jul 2006 by [B^S] suguruhirahara
Post:
Almost one month is passing since the first WU of version 5.25 was released, and it seems that this project has no special problem, with releasing WUs.

I know project isn\'t down, but how about developers? Rhiju didn\'t post comments from the day when he posted one on another thread, the 5.25\'s bug reporting thread, about 20 days ago. I hope he and the rest of the developers have no problem...
20) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Bug reports for Ralph 5.25 (Message 1890)
Posted 13 Jul 2006 by [B^S] suguruhirahara
Post:
same thing happened here:
http://ralph.bakerlab.org/result.php?resultid=216029
http://ralph.bakerlab.org/result.php?resultid=216028

Both contain:
WARNING! attempt to gzip file .\\xxt319.out failed: file does not exist.


Next 20



©2019 University of Washington
http://www.bakerlab.org