Printable View
The site is currently down while they make changes to use a new fixed-credit-per-model credit system.
It appears that the anti-optimized-BOINC-client side of the controversy has won.
They also were talking about making this credit change retroactive back to February 2006. That should make some interesting swings in the stats if a significant portion of certain teams were all using optimised clients which supposedly inflated their credits.
Let the gnashing of teeth and screaming begin.
I started reading some of the threads this morning, but they were just way too long to be bothered..
Retroactive application would be just a waste of time I think. Doubt it would change the rankings too much, though someone like 'Housing And Food Services' would benefit from a lot of the top 10 being demoted as I know Ethan ran the standard Boinc client all along.. If they do that, I'll take a snapshot of the stats as they last stood for posterity :)
Bok
So everyone cheated?!?!??! :lmao:
You guys should forget BOINC.
So how do you cheat on eOn, SOB, DPAD, the classic projects? Very difficult, in the math projects you have doublechecking. That's why I hate BOINC, sounds like monopoly of DC projects.
Carlos
BOINC has a lot of good points. It's fairly easy to roll out, it's easy to run lots of different projects with it and is highly configurable. But the scoring is problematic.
Optimised clients did serve a purpose at one point, and in theory they are fine. The problem with them is on projects with no quorum or high caps on work unit values. If you use an optimised client on say... LHC, it doesn't matter (so much anyway).
But on Rosetta, the only way I had of remaining competitive was to use an optimised client. So I end up getting more credit than those who download the standard BOINC client, which isn't fair on them, and I still get less credit on an Athlon XP than I do on an Athlon 64 - even though on Rosetta (which is FPU intensive) they are clock for clock almost identical in performance - all because SSE2 optimisations hugely inflate the benchmark scores. Lack of quorum means they never get balanced out either.
I'd support them backdating the credit change. I'd probably lose some myself, but I'd rather see those who were getting more than is fair be evened out. A fixed credit system works great on Climate Prediction, so I don't see why it shouldn't work on Rosetta.
Same here Biggles, but after spending the last 24 hour's or so running under the new system without using any Optimized Client & taking just what they are giving for Credit it's time to drop the Project for me I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Biggles
There isn't almost any other BOINC Project I couldn't go to and get double or even more Credit without using an Optimized Client than what Rosetta's giving me right now.
All my PC's are 3.06 Ghz in stock configuration & higher, some of them are Overclocked & 4-5 Credits per hour just isn't getting it for me.
If you are just in it for the cross-project stats, then sure the new system isn't as good for you. But even if you are just in it for the stats on Rosetta, you aren't getting any less than anyone else doing the same amount of work.Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorBoy
What they did is basically level the playing field so that everyone gets the appropriate credit for the actual amount of work they have done. Other projects have a way to double check results or some send out WUs multiple times to balance this out but extra WUs is just a waste of CPU on this project.
If seeing 4-5 credits per hour is too low, why don't you ask the project admins to add a 10 or 100 multiplier so that everyone would ge 40-50 or 400-500 credits for the same work. You won't be any further ahead than anyone else but the numbers would look bigger for you if that makes you feel better.
I thought the new credit system was just on RALPH but the news page makes it sounds like it will be on the regular project as well. I guess I will have to watch my credits to see if they change much. For the stats I guess you don't need to update the client at all, it does everyone on the server end to figure out the new credits?Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus
That still has to be proven that they have leveled the playing field, I did a lot of checking on Computers @ the Project last night. I was only looking for Computers like mine, some of them where getting about the same as me & some of them where getting 40-50 Credits Per hour.Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital Parasite
Even if these computers where Overclocked I hardly think that they where putting out 10 times more work to deserve 10 times more Credit ...
Yes of course they will have to make sure the method they are using is actually fair, and I'm sure it will be tweaked over time. Note that each protein is different so the same machine working on two different proteins will generate a different amount of credits. So you need to compare systems that are crunching the same protein. Even then it won't be exactly the same but shouldn't be 10x different.Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorBoy
So, Rosetta has joined the growing number of BOINC projects abandoning the BOINC benchmark for their own scheme. There seems alot of emotion over at the boards at the moment, some folk seem to be crowing about an "anti-cheat credit system". Some pharmers are even pulling their boxen for the time being in protest.
The project admins are very quiet that makes me think they aren't so sure that this new credit system is as good as claimed.
Restating credits? Been here before on FAD. I got lucky, my stats were sorted within a month. Lauren will be able to tell you exactly how long it can take.
The new scoring method must still be broken. It would be a crime to use a broken algorithm to apply retroactively back to Feb.
Supposedly each 'decoy' with a certain WU type will get the same credit. I returned 4 WU last night, all from the same WU type, sequential WU numbers, and got drastically different credit for each one, and the time crunched was virtually the same.
You won't see any change in the actual stats as they are still calculated exactly the same way as they were before. There has just a new column been added to the "Results" pages in your Account named "granted work credit" which reflects the new system. Only when the system works properly for the different machines out there it will become the system to feed the stats pages. And I can see from my results that it is not really exact. The same WU type of the same protein gets between 350 and 120 credits for the same number of decoys in 12 hours.Quote:
Originally Posted by Digital Parasite
A Long Time It took about a year + to reclaim the (I Think) 60,000 missing Jobs:rock:Quote:
Originally Posted by Petey
Here's one of my credits which resulted in 0 "granted work credit". Seems like a normal one -- 6K cputime, outcome success -- when I compare with other WUs, makes me wonder about that new system of theirs... :looney: :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Christoph_Jansen
Result ID 33278505
Name t383__CASP7_JUMP14_JUMPRELAX_SAVE_ALL_OUT_BARCODE_hom003__1035_7089_2
Workunit 26983484
Created 18 Aug 2006 4:51:20 UTC
Sent 18 Aug 2006 4:55:08 UTC
Received 18 Aug 2006 11:34:24 UTC
Server state Over
Outcome Success
Client state Done
Exit status 0 (0x0)
Computer ID 57352
Report deadline 25 Aug 2006 4:55:08 UTC
CPU time 6038.28604
stderr out
<core_client_version>5.2.14</core_client_version>
<stderr_txt>
Graphics are disabled due to configuration...
# random seed: 2612382
# cpu_run_time_pref: 7200
# DONE :: 1 starting structures built 4 (nstruct) times
# This process generated 4 decoys from 4 attempts
BOINC :: Watchdog shutting down...
BOINC :: BOINC support services shutting down...
</stderr_txt>
Validate state Valid
Granted credit 20.8765330929665
Granted work credit 0
application version 5.25
Please post these on the R@H message board. . it's just the type of data they are looking for.
{Chuckle} that's a good one. I'll consider it, not, whilst I lower my Rosetta allocation. I hear the party over at WCG is warming up! They welcome Linux and SSE2 crowds there. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Exci
Rosetta is native to linux and doesn't use SSE2, the new work credits should reflect that. . . given bugs are reported.