Are you using Credit New for the Credits, I'm not sure but it appears you are but I could be wrong. I started out getting 30-35 Credits Per Hr & now am only getting 10-15 & many times less than 10 Credits Per Hr ...

I suggest you set the Credits to a fixed Credit Per Hr system because Credit New will driver many from the Project. 30-35 Per Fixed Credit isn't a lot but better than 10 or less Per Hr ... Thanks

Hello!

We have see that credit is related to time of cpu and also time of completion the entire task, counting also upload the file to the server for example. We are working on generate workunits that will give the credit based on the cpu time.

Thanks for the suggestion! Your help is really useful!

Are you using Credit New for the Credits, I'm not sure but it appears you are but I could be wrong. I started out getting 30-35 Credits Per Hr & now am only getting 10-15 & many times less than 10 Credits Per Hr ...

I suggest you set the Credits to a fixed Credit Per Hr system because Credit New will driver many from the Project. 30-35 Per Fixed Credit isn't a lot but better than 10 or less Per Hr ... Thanks

+1

From what little I know about Credit New, it looks like a good idea. I couldn't care less what the absolute numerical value is, as long as it proportional to the actual work done and more or less comparable across projects. Actually, I prefer the smaller numbers that Credit New will give. The increase in numbers due to hardware improvements over the years makes the current system silly and a bit cumbersome.

I will gravitate to projects that use the new system.

how this computer gets credits ?

http://denis.usj.es/denisathome/results.php?hostid=1867&offset=0&show_names=0&state=4&appid=

run time 14 sec, 20 credits ? o_o

---

--
I crunch for Ukraine

how this computer gets credits ?

http://denis.usj.es/denisathome/results.php?hostid=1867&offset=0&show_names=0&state=4&appid=

run time 14 sec, 20 credits ? o_o

We are trying to isolate those result and see what happen. It may be a bug in x86 windows version of the app. We will also check the validator.

Thanks for the info, we will try to solve it as fast as we can.

Regards, Joel.

thanks!

---

--
I crunch for Ukraine

I like this project ... if the credit were higher. Right now it is very low. I look for projects around 36 credits per hour (one percent of seconds)on my i7 920.

The increase in numbers due to hardware improvements over the years makes the current system silly and a bit cumbersome.

I disagree. The old better paying system gave incentive to upgrade equipment.

Use Credit New if you want old computers running your project. If you want fast new computers then pay better credit.

If you want to speed up your research to get results sooner, you need more computers running. If you want to take a long time, say for job security, then keep the credit low.

I will return when credit is better.

Are you crunching for scientific results or points?!

how this computer gets credits ?

http://denis.usj.es/denisathome/results.php?hostid=1867&offset=0&show_names=0&state=4&appid=

run time 14 sec, 20 credits ? o_o

The owner of those tasks did post about it in the wasteland of the "questions and answers" forum, which nobody ever looks at (http://denis.usj.es/denisathome/forum_thread.php?id=34).

Don't know why BOINC still has the split forums, they are a stupid idea. I know it's possible to combine them, perhaps a server-side expert could provide a solution?

Are you crunching for scientific results or points?!

Is there some reason I can't do both?

The reason I posted was to help the project do better. If they want to do "Average", then they need to boost the credit up to average. If they want to do better then average they need to pay better than average.

If you don't want them to excel, tell them to continue as they are.

Right now they are new and have lots of crunchers trying to reach a certain Milestone. After reaching that Milestone they will move to another project and another milestone.

how this computer gets credits ?

http://denis.usj.es/denisathome/results.php?hostid=1867&offset=0&show_names=0&state=4&appid=

run time 14 sec, 20 credits ? o_o

We are trying to isolate those result and see what happen. It may be a bug in x86 windows version of the app. We will also check the validator.

Thanks for the info, we will try to solve it as fast as we can.

Regards, Joel.

Looks like you've got another one ... and it's not fixed in V1.03
http://denis.usj.es/denisathome/results.php?hostid=1389&offset=0&show_names=0&state=4&appid=

Hi!

We have seen that 2 host have a bugish behaviour. We are going to blacklist them and put in contact with him to see where is the problem.

Are you crunching for scientific results or points?!

Is there some reason I can't do both?

The reason I posted was to help the project do better. If they want to do "Average", then they need to boost the credit up to average. If they want to do better then average they need to pay better than average.

If you don't want them to excel, tell them to continue as they are.

Well said!!

Right now they are new and have lots of crunchers trying to reach a certain Milestone. After reaching that Milestone they will move to another project and another milestone.

That has already happened and will continue to happen the longer CreditNew is in place. I have a very modest target and I'm really close to it. Then, if CreditNew is still in place, I'll be off, sadly, just as OSX arrives.

I really do not understand. Fixed points per Hr means that I coukd create VM with 100 almost useless cores and have a lot of points doing almost no work, right? That's simply stupid.

Since we have GPU's (not mentioning bullshit like BU) comparing points between projects is also pointless.

So what is your point exactly?

Faster CPU = more usefull work done = more points. That makes sense, at least for me.

Since we have GPU's (not mentioning bullshit like BU) comparing points between projects is also pointless.

It's been a long time since comparing points across projects was meaningful.

So what is your point exactly?

Faster CPU = more usefull work done = more points. That makes sense, at least for me.

That does make sense but that's the exact opposite of how CreditNew works. In fact, same CPU with longer WUs = same amount of work done per hour but CreditNew awards less points.

So what happens is that the faster CPUs move away to proper paying projects where more work done = more points and the people who stay have slow machines resulting in the project getting much less work done.

That's the point.

how this computer gets credits ?

http://denis.usj.es/denisathome/results.php?hostid=1867&offset=0&show_names=0&state=4&appid=

run time 14 sec, 20 credits ? o_o

We are trying to isolate those result and see what happen. It may be a bug in x86 windows version of the app. We will also check the validator.

Thanks for the info, we will try to solve it as fast as we can.

Regards, Joel.

Looks like you've got another one ... and it's not fixed in V1.03
http://denis.usj.es/denisathome/results.php?hostid=1389&offset=0&show_names=0&state=4&appid=

I am just curious as to how the WUs get validated, runs for 2 seconds but gets full points, is the returned result correct? Or is it really a validator problem? This one host has over 40,000 valid results, 8,000 pending, a RAC of over 60,000 and only a few errors.
That one host makes my 4 look very poorly, even if I am not running just DENIS but a mix of projects.

Conan

Hi!

We are improving our validator. We just checked that the output file was well formated. But it seems to be insufficent.

The problem of that WUs is the results appears to be valid. Because it's the same result than a previous WU. So we are now doing one that checked the similarities between the two files with certain number of tolerance.

We spect to have it this week.

Best regards, Joel.

how this computer gets credits ?

http://denis.usj.es/denisathome/results.php?hostid=1867&offset=0&show_names=0&state=4&appid=

run time 14 sec, 20 credits ? o_o

We are trying to isolate those result and see what happen. It may be a bug in x86 windows version of the app. We will also check the validator.

Thanks for the info, we will try to solve it as fast as we can.

Regards, Joel.

Looks like you've got another one ... and it's not fixed in V1.03
http://denis.usj.es/denisathome/results.php?hostid=1389&offset=0&show_names=0&state=4&appid=

I am just curious as to how the WUs get validated, runs for 2 seconds but gets full points, is the returned result correct? Or is it really a validator problem? This one host has over 40,000 valid results, 8,000 pending, a RAC of over 60,000 and only a few errors.
That one host makes my 4 look very poorly, even if I am not running just DENIS but a mix of projects.

Conan

Well I hope you fix something up, as this 2 core Pentium D processor has now increased from 765,000 points to over 1,200,000 in one day.

With the RAC going up from 60,000 to over 96,000 and processed results have moved from 48,000 to 79,000.

A very impressive processor taking less than 3 seconds per work unit.

It is also bringing down my credit due to the low claims this Host makes, so when I am paired with it I get lower credit.

Conan

how this computer gets credits ?

http://denis.usj.es/denisathome/results.php?hostid=1867&offset=0&show_names=0&state=4&appid=

run time 14 sec, 20 credits ? o_o

We are trying to isolate those result and see what happen. It may be a bug in x86 windows version of the app. We will also check the validator.

Thanks for the info, we will try to solve it as fast as we can.

Regards, Joel.

Looks like you've got another one ... and it's not fixed in V1.03
http://denis.usj.es/denisathome/results.php?hostid=1389&offset=0&show_names=0&state=4&appid=

I am just curious as to how the WUs get validated, runs for 2 seconds but gets full points, is the returned result correct? Or is it really a validator problem? This one host has over 40,000 valid results, 8,000 pending, a RAC of over 60,000 and only a few errors.
That one host makes my 4 look very poorly, even if I am not running just DENIS but a mix of projects.

Conan

Well I hope you fix something up, as this 2 core Pentium D processor has now increased from 765,000 points to over 1,200,000 in one day.

With the RAC going up from 60,000 to over 96,000 and processed results have moved from 48,000 to 79,000.

A very impressive processor taking less than 3 seconds per work unit.

It is also bringing down my credit due to the low claims this Host makes, so when I am paired with it I get lower credit.

Conan

It looks like there is another very fast 2 core host Host 2617
Between 6 and 40 seconds per work unit.

Conan