For anyone that doesn't already know, Ralph is a test project for Rosetta. New programs, and ideas are tested there prior to release to the widest audience on Rosetta. So, if you are an experienced BOINC and/or Rosetta user, and are interested, you may attach to Ralph (with a low resource share) and learn more about what's coming. Otherwise, once any kinks are worked out, the changes will be brought to Rosetta in time.
____________
If having a DC project with BOINC is of interest to you, with volunteer or cloud computing resources, but have no time for the BOINC learning curve,
use a hosting service that understands BOINC projects: http://DeepSci.com
Does look a bit of a daft way to do things. 2 credits per model ? Or is there more to it than that? I've had this machine produce over 90 models for some jobs (think the most I've seen is 99) and 4 or 5 for others at a 4 hour setting.
____________
See this explanation by David Kim, quoted from the Ralph forum:
The version that will eventually run on Rosetta@home will have work unit specific credit per model values that are determined from test runs on Ralph. It will be a requirement for lab members to not only test new work units on Ralph but to also determine the average credit per model value from their test runs for production runs. The credits should remain somewhat consistent with other projects since the average values will be based on the standard boinc crediting scheme. If things look okay on Ralph, Rosetta@home will use the credit per model crediting method while Ralph will switch back to the standard method.
For anyone that doesn't already know, Ralph is a test project for Rosetta. New programs, and ideas are tested there prior to release to the widest audience on Rosetta. So, if you are an experienced BOINC and/or Rosetta user, and are interested, you may attach to Ralph (with a low resource share) and learn more about what's coming. Otherwise, once any kinks are worked out, the changes will be brought to Rosetta in time.
Yeah, I think the 2 credits per model was just for credits on RALPH while they test it. Not the plan for Rosetta. Everyone agrees that some models are worth more then others, because they take 10-30 times longer to crunch then simple proteins. And so they will receive appropriate credit for that work once these benchmarks are established.
____________
If having a DC project with BOINC is of interest to you, with volunteer or cloud computing resources, but have no time for the BOINC learning curve,
use a hosting service that understands BOINC projects: http://DeepSci.com
The version that will eventually run on Rosetta@home will have work unit specific credit per model values that are determined from test runs on Ralph. It will be a requirement for lab members to not only test new work units on Ralph but to also determine the average credit per model value from their test runs for production runs. The credits should remain somewhat consistent with other projects since the average values will be based on the standard boinc crediting scheme. If things look okay on Ralph, Rosetta@home will use the credit per model crediting method while Ralph will switch back to the standard method.
Forgive me if I'm not understanding, but I take this to mean that we are going to basing our credit system to be comparable to BOINC's dysfunctional one? IMHO thats a horrendous strategic blunder. I'm gonna need someone to explain the wisdom behind this, cause all I see are problems.
BOINC cross-project campatability should be the very last item on the punchlist, if at all. Make something that works. Make something that intrinsically attracts members and powerful hardware. Do this and the rest of BOINC will follow (and be comparable). BOINC doesnt work. BOINC attracts optimizations and 6 y.o. with Cyrix chips (passed off to be quad opterons)and makes martyrs out of everyone else. Why on earth would we want to statiscally compare ourselves with such a system, if it was even possible?
Edit: I'd like to thank whomever gave me a negative rating on this post - I'll wear it with pride since it came from some anonymous cowardly prick that has absolutely nothing constructive to say. edit/
ShootStraight, I don't see a negative rating anymore... but edits like that are certainly a good way to earn them.
Could we wait for a definitive description of the new credit system before we dismiss it as a "horrendous strategic blunder"? A number of people have spent considerable time to devise a new, fair, honest, non-horrendous system. They need to run some tests on Ralph to kick the tires and try it out. Once they've reviewed results of the new system, they will be in a better position to explain what they found and how they plan for it work.
If you don't want to connect to Ralph and help (actually, I don't see any WUs there presently anyway), then at least try to give the folks that have been working on this the benefit of the doubt, and some time to study how their ideas are working in practice on Ralph.
I don't see how offering negative comments on a one sentence description of a complex credit system is going to help move this forward or add any additional direction to the work being done.
____________
If having a DC project with BOINC is of interest to you, with volunteer or cloud computing resources, but have no time for the BOINC learning curve,
use a hosting service that understands BOINC projects: http://DeepSci.com
ID: 22038 | Rating: 0.99999999999999 | rate:
/
David E K Forum moderator Project administrator Project developer Project scientist Joined: Jul 1 05 Posts: 660 ID: 14 Credit: 838,217 RAC: 46
The goal is to follow those projects which have abandoned the BOINC credit system and invented a cheating-free one such as climateprediction (and BBC), Seti and Einstein. These projects grant fixed credit per WU of the same length and avoid the broken benchmark approach - that is exactly what Rosetta plans to do. What David Kim meant with BOINC compatibility is that the credit granted for a specific amount of computing should be similar on all BOINC projects. This means one must grant about the same credit per computer second as other projects would do (on the same computer).
____________
These projects grant fixed credit per WU of the same length and avoid the broken benchmark approach - that is exactly what Rosetta plans to do.
Curious - anyone know if this new measuring stick will get applied to past credits as well? Will people using the stock clients see credits jump and people using optimized clients see credits fall?
I don't think that as far as rosetta is concerned that the new system will be bad.
I'm not saying the new system will be bad, I'm just saying it would be better if this got fixed completely (RAC credit and Total credit) instead of just partially (just RAC). I hope that will be considered.
It would be nice if the old credit got fixed, but getting the new credit fixed first is the more important thing! After a month or so the RACs will be nearly 100% reflecting the new system.
____________
It would be nice if the old credit got fixed, but getting the new credit fixed first is the more important thing! After a month or so the RACs will be nearly 100% reflecting the new system.
Indeed it will, however the credit race by "total credit" will be flawed forever. lol Anyone one ever wonder what the leader board would be like without optimized apps?
I havent dismissed the credit system as such, however I feel the premise of cross-project compatibility as a primary requisite (with projects still using the dysfunctional system) is a fundamentally flawed approach . It with profound and deep respect to the amount of work being done to correct this problem and the memory of those that are no longer with us - due to the problem itself or the acrimony that ensued (and persists)- that I feel compelled to speak, lest time and effort be wasted on another approach that doesnt work. We have an opportunity to make significant changes for the better, and its worthwhile doing right.
What is the right way, I dont know. I like the idea of a fixed credit/unit, but simple logic would dictate; parity with something that has no parity, and holds statistical reliability less than a poll in Glamour magazine is something that should be questioned and scrutinized for reasons which should be obvious, and have been discussed ad-nauseum previously.
Lastly my apologies to anyone whos feathers I might have inadvertantly ruffled with my edit. I guess someone else came along with their own input, and I couldnt edit it out.
On the plus side, people who have been using the stock clients all along will get the excitement of clawing our way up through the ranks of people we were never able to catch, before. I think that would be more fun, myself. Especially this fall/winter, when I can really "unleash the hounds"!
Realistically, though, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to fully correct total credit. Some people have never used inflated benchmarks. Others have always used them. Still others have used them sometimes, but not always. This is what would make it difficult to fix total credit, as I see it. You would have to look at each individual work unit, to see what credit was granted for it, what computer ran it, etc. I'm not sure they still keep all of that information (considering you would need to know what those values were, as they were at that time).
The part that concerns me is that I'm sure there will be some people who, seeing that they will soon lose the ability to overclaim, will try to get as much as they can before the new credit system comes out. I'm afraid we might see some unbelievable overclaims, during these next couple days/weeks.
____________
"There are obviously many things which we do not understand, and may never be able to."
Leela (From the Mac game "Marathon", released 1995)
We should also see lots more posts on how to increase actual work done. Tips on when to add memory - how to streamline a system (kill off a few unneccessary memory hog apps), etc.
When I started DF, I had one machine.. and a particular person had around 300,000,000 points. I caught up to them by the time the project ended. Slow and steady (with a buildup of systems) can match those that are incredibly fast and burn out quickly. Early leads just mean you have to work harder, and encourage more to join your team or add their machines to your account, or increase the size of your own pharm.
What about starting it right from zero all over again?
If we get a fair app that puts all on a even playing field and gives credit based on work done, no matter what the points are, why not go from zero?
I think that would make a lot of people happy, both the power users and the guy with his one machine.
Here are what I see as the major points to making this work:
1)Must be "fair" to all major brands of cpu's.Intel,AMD and Mac
2)Must be "fair" to all major OS.XP,Linux and since I'm a mac know-nothing, whatever OS the mac systems use..Last I heard ot was OSX BUT I could be way off!
3)MUST be work based.The faster the machine, the more it crunches in a given time frame, the more "points" it gets..
I'm not a software engineer, just a hardware guy with some software knowledge, so I'll leave the designing to the people with the know-how.
Thanks for your time,
Movieman
____________
What about starting it right from zero all over again?
I've had the same thought, but it would certainly be a DE-motivator for many in the nearterm. I think the way to "SELL" that idea would be to roll your existing credits over in to "Rosetta Classic" credits, and make all credits going forward be the new and improved "Rosetta Opti-Express" credits. Have fun with the names, but you get the idea.
____________
If having a DC project with BOINC is of interest to you, with volunteer or cloud computing resources, but have no time for the BOINC learning curve,
use a hosting service that understands BOINC projects: http://DeepSci.com
What about starting it right from zero all over again?
I've had the same thought, but it would certainly be a DE-motivator for many in the nearterm. I think the way to "SELL" that idea would be to roll your existing credits over in to "Rosetta Classic" credits, and make all credits going forward be the new and improved "Rosetta Opti-Express" credits. Have fun with the names, but you get the idea.
What about starting it right from zero all over again?
I would support this for sure. Separate the old credits from the new ones, don't mix them together. No worrying about converting any old credits too. Announce a rollover date. Do it.
ID: 22081 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/
Keith Akins Joined: Oct 22 05 Posts: 176 ID: 6022 Credit: 71,779 RAC: 0
Why should the users who have been using stock managers, clients and stock-clocked machines have to start at 0? It's not wise to punish the innocent.
____________
Why should the users who have been using stock managers, clients and stock-clocked machines have to start at 0? It's not wise to punish the innocent.
I agree! I am proud of the honest effort I have put into obtaining my score, and to lose it through no fault of my own would be very frustrating. These many months for naught! I would probably go to another project where I would not be "cancelled". :)
Why should the users who have been using stock managers, clients and stock-clocked machines have to start at 0? It's not wise to punish the innocent.
I agree! I am proud of the honest effort I have put into obtaining my score, and to lose it through no fault of my own would be very frustrating. These many months for naught! I would probably go to another project where I would not be "cancelled". :)
As long as they separate the old from the new I don't see how it would "punish" those who've ran stock, you would still be recognized for your previous work. It would actually be beneficial as it would put everyone on a level playing field and ranking would be as it should, based on the actual work done. Integrating the new credit system with the current would in my opinion be impossible, as things may be dramatically different in terms of actual work being done vs the synthetic estimate currently being used, that and the numerical range of credits.
Inter-BOINC credit shouldn't even be thought about as it has a different basis, just consider it another DC project not based on the boinc platform. Consider it like comparing the results of two separate benchmark applications(like the different boinc projects), for example the time it takes to encode a certain movie with two different applications, the time it takes to complete with one program might be faster on one machine, but the other program may end up being slightly slower than the other machines compared to...
ID: 22085 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/
Keith Akins Joined: Oct 22 05 Posts: 176 ID: 6022 Credit: 71,779 RAC: 0
Just curious. Would Rosetta's total project points have to be separated as well? How would this display on Rosetta's Serverstats "Total Credits" and how would Boinc Stats be affected? I assume that "Boinc Stats" reporting would still show only total credits.
____________
Just curious. Would Rosetta's total project points have to be separated as well? How would this display on Rosetta's Serverstats "Total Credits" and how would Boinc Stats be affected? I assume that "Boinc Stats" reporting would still show only total credits.
I am probably getting too complicated, but given the difference of opinions here maybe it is worth at least floating this idea:
Have two playing fields: One would be to leave the existing credits as is and the new credit system would build on that (Call this Option A); and the second option (Option B) would be an option for the user to switch to the level playing field while keeping the old credits as an historical record, much as rcofell suggests below.
I realize then you would really have two credit systems for the same project, but whichever one felt more comfortable with is the one that one could choose.
Just curious. Would Rosetta's total project points have to be separated as well? How would this display on Rosetta's Serverstats "Total Credits" and how would Boinc Stats be affected? I assume that "Boinc Stats" reporting would still show only total credits.
I'm sure they could just add a new listing for the new credit system and rename the old to reflect the differences.
Regarding my last post, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be any attempts to normalize the new credit system to the old, but it should just be something like finding a global multiplier/ratio that affects all results the same regardless of cpu architecture or OS, as I thought that the new credit system will be based on actual models crunched, which is the actual work done.
I'm curious for the new credit system, but I'm afraid the whole thing is sadly going to cost a lot of members...
(Warning: Percentage used below are just a wild estimation of my own, and are used as example)
* Only 1% of the members is real cheating. These can be found very easely.
* Other people are using optimized clients, to give the diffent cpu's a more fair creditsystem like the normal of BOINC.
* Others who aren't interested in credits use a normal standard client.
I want to warn you before changing the credit system:
- Personally I don't like cheating in credits. That's for sure! The discussion of using optimized clients is being held several times. I don't want to start it over again. Is this a so big prolem?
- As learnt from the past, changes in credits systems leaded often to losses in memberbase. See Seti, see TSC, see D2OL, ...
- Resetting the credits will cause more users to retire. I can guarantee that I'm sure that lots of the current members will leave the project if that's the case!!
- If there is a new credit system, fine. But see to it, that no-one will have less credits than the current system.
- Last point: As said, I don't like real cheaters, but the discussions here are also to much, and will new people away!
My 2 cents
As a representative of team Du
____________
Member of Dutch Power Cows
It would be nice if the old credit got fixed, but getting the new credit fixed first is the more important thing! After a month or so the RACs will be nearly 100% reflecting the new system.
Indeed it will, however the credit race by "total credit" will be flawed forever. lol Anyone one ever wonder what the leader board would be like without optimized apps?
No not really as XS would still be on top.
Do you ever stop your bleating ? Your like a broken record.
____________
It would be nice if the old credit got fixed, but getting the new credit fixed first is the more important thing! After a month or so the RACs will be nearly 100% reflecting the new system.
Indeed it will, however the credit race by "total credit" will be flawed forever. lol Anyone one ever wonder what the leader board would be like without optimized apps?
That is an easy one, something that you should have figured out before even posting this absurdity....
The leading teams would still be leading, in the same positions, albeit with lower total score. In terms of sheer tera-flops the top 3 teams kick the remaining teams in the promordial soup.
Just because SETI fell to pieces does not give the ET-lovers the right to come to this project and attempt to undermine the REAL science being achieved with this project. Go home ET....
____________
This discussion is totally going in the wrong direction. Just because we have a few whiners who spend more cpu cycles complaining about the credit system than crunching science, we have to have a new credit system, and then wipe out the old credits?
In a true democracy, this issue would be resolved by a vote, with voting rights earned by amount of science done. I have no doubt in my mind about the outcome.
Why should the users who have been using stock managers, clients and stock-clocked machines have to start at 0? It's not wise to punish the innocent.
As one of those "innocent" users myself, I would support this idea if the total credit score cannot be adjusted to be realistic under the new system. Fix total credits too so we don't have to consider this and everyone is happy.
Is any information which shows claimed credits are modified attached to submitted results eg client version?
____________
ID: 22114 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/
Jose Joined: Mar 28 06 Posts: 820 ID: 69098 Credit: 48,297 RAC: 0
It would be nice if the old credit got fixed, but getting the new credit fixed first is the more important thing! After a month or so the RACs will be nearly 100% reflecting the new system.
Indeed it will, however the credit race by "total credit" will be flawed forever. lol Anyone one ever wonder what the leader board would be like without optimized apps?
It will remain the same. First the top people crunch Rosetta 24/7 and seconf the top people tend to have the top computers.
Tony are you suggesting that a P4 based system will beat a Kentfield based system or a Conroe Based System or a Power Mac Based System or an AMD Opty Based System? Or are you insinuating that a single machine (Not a Cray) can overcome a "Farm"of atl east 150 computers which the top crunchers (1&2) in total credits have, or a single P4 beat an 8 Mother Board Cluster....
You are being disingenious if you are suggesting that: the top teams will remain the same, the top crunchers by credit will remain the same and the top computers will remain the same ( that is until the first Woodcrests arrive). The only thing that will prevent that is if those that keep harping on the isue get the top teams, top crunchers and top computers to abandon the project.
BTW for those who like to play the "Boinc Stats Game": please refer to the day when XtremeSystems asked 3.9 million credits to be erased from its total at Rosetta. See what happened to the total credits for Rosetta that day.
It would be nice if the old credit got fixed, but getting the new credit fixed first is the more important thing! After a month or so the RACs will be nearly 100% reflecting the new system.
Indeed it will, however the credit race by "total credit" will be flawed forever. lol Anyone one ever wonder what the leader board would be like without optimized apps?
It will remain the same. First the top people crunch Rosetta 24/7 and seconf the top people tend to have the top computers. Tony are you suggesting that a P4 based system will beat a Kentfield based system or a Conroe Based System or a Power Mac Based System or an AMD Opty Based System?
I think he's insinuating that the leaderboard has more than 10 teams and 20 computers, and that my 8x 3.0GHz actually has done more total work than a single Athlon 64 X2 3800 that has been on for the same amount of time - contrary to what it tells us now, and will tell us 6 months from now if the total credit doesn't get fixed.
Hope that clarification helps.
Movieman from XS sounds like he's onboard with the idea of fixing this too, as the owner of the fastest machine on the project. Hopefully more people will see the value in it.
so you seti guys really think if they erase everyone points and put the new credit system we XS wont be at the top again by a huge margin like we are now?
i think the problem you fail to see we arent doing this for points, at least me, we are doing this because is this the most promissing project in comunity we are looking for answers and you guy complaining because you POS machine doesnt make points are diverting efforts to make a new credit system when things will remaing the same?
so you seti guys really think if they erase everyone points and put the new credit system we XS wont be at the top again by a huge margin like we are now?
i think the problem you fail to see we arent doing this for points, at least me, we are doing this because is this the most promissing project in comunity we are looking for answers and you guy complaining because you POS machine doesnt make points are diverting efforts to make a new credit system when things will remaing the same?
N1:)
Crunchers of XtremeSystems have participated in this project for long time.
They never said that the credit system shouldn't/needn't be changed. They said it should be changed anyway, at least. Actually fair system can prove their innocence. Also, everyone will be unpleasant if his/her credit would be erased without reasons.
But, it is you Leviathan18 that use the client:(
____________
so you seti guys really think if they erase everyone points and put the new credit system we XS wont be at the top again by a huge margin like we are now?
If you're referring to my position on moving existing credits to another newly named project, and starting the credit race all over on a "fair credit system" (whatever that is/may be), then I have to say I'm undecided on the issue. At first I was all for it(but haven't ever said so in this thread), but then I remember my feelings against doing just that when seti switch to enhanced(fpops based credit system). I can see a fresh start here can be a good thing since the existence of third party Boinc Clients have ruined the credit race when measured by total credit. When measured by RAC it's not as important since time will level that back out. I was leaning in favor of a fresh start when I first read about it in this thread, but the more I think about it, I just don't know if that would be best. I guess I have more thinking to do on it.
The actual move to a fresh start would either require the project to make a new project (including new URL's for attachment, work requests, reporting, etc). This would mean many would suddenly be unable to get work as the old Urls wouldn't be any good. This IMO would seriously affect the amount of results returned and the project would lose many of those who just attach and forget it (the vast majority of users).
On the other hand, they could port the old credit to a different project and keep the existing urls, but then they'd have to coordinate with EVERY stats site to have them change the url they get the "stats dump" from. There are other concerns I'm sure, but it won't be easy either way. There are more concerns than I've just listed.
I agree, this thread seems to have gotten a bit off topic. I wish everyone would present there ideas about the new system, what they think might be best and to give examples. Not just complain and not offer up a solution, but if all some users have are complaints, then they should be able to voice there opinions as well, they're just not as productive in finding a solution.
so you seti guys really think if they erase everyone points and put the new credit system we XS wont be at the top again by a huge margin like we are now?
No. Read the thread.
I thought they were talking about me, but who knows. Might not be me, see sig below.
Notice how I didn't respond to what looked like flame bait, but stuck to a related topic?????
____________
I wish everyone would present there ideas about the new system, what they think might be best and to give examples. Not just complain and not offer up a solution, but if all some users have are complaints, then they should be able to voice there opinions as well, they're just not as productive in finding a solution.
I offered my opinion (not a complaint) that it will be better if total credit gets fixed too and have clarified for the people who take this the wrong way. I can't offer a solution to fix it having no clue how they store total credit. However, knowing that they have a new measuring stick being developed I hope they can just apply that to past models that have already been submitted.
End of story. Whether it gets fixed or not I will continue to stick around.
CPDN's RAC's were really inflated across the board before their new credit system went into affect.
Note that CPDN had fixed credit per model since the very begining, IIRC. It was Einstein that somehow followed years later (SETI uses different method).
AMD_is_logical - what you say is logical :-)
The thing is - where is the assigning credit fairly method...
A server driven credit estimation a-la Einstein can be considered quite fair, IMO.
(we can't simple old & good one from CPDN due to quite numerous result types).
____________
I offered my opinion (not a complaint) that it will be better if total credit gets fixed too and have clarified for the people who take this the wrong way. I can't offer a solution to fix it having no clue how they store total credit. However, knowing that they have a new measuring stick being developed I hope they can just apply that to past models that have already been submitted.
End of story. Whether it gets fixed or not I will continue to stick around.
I think I didn't express myself clearly, sorry. You have offered up ideas, unlike some other posts before an after yours which didn't. Sorry, you thought I was talking about you. Keep on thinking up stuff. :)
1)Moviemans idea is most relevant. Start afreash if we like and archive the old credit system and all its failings.
2)Make credit system fair and to be SEEN to be fair.
3)The complaints will fade with time and the SETI people will be left as a fainting squeek in the distance of their own blubberings in their 'primordial soup'. Ahhh that was terrible, but you guys really love causing trouble. you basically wreck your own project and then try and wreck ours. The whole world knows what you are trying to do... including the god dammit ET's.
4) The leader board would not really change if this was enacted retrospectively. What an absurd postulation. Almost as absurd as the avatar of its origimal author ;)
Maybe at XS we should ask our credits to be removed so that we can keep passing the other teams. Particularly some of the ones on this thread.
5)Comparisons to other Boinc projects and credit systems are totally irrelevent and the time thinking about this would be better used elsewhere.
Thats me for now....
____________
I love Mr. Smith. He keeps us safe from Alien Scum. He's probably good a Rosetta too.
The biggest problem I see with "zeroing out" everyone existing credits is that is becomes a "standard".
What happens on the next new version? What if someone does some great optimization on some existing code and it changes the relative credit/hour on different processors? Basically, any PERCEIVED change in someone's credits/hour is going to result in cries of "zero the credits out again".
Remember, the Rosetta software is constantly changing and evolving by design. You have to take that into account too. Some people may have had an advantage running one particular version at some given time frame, but that particular advantage may disappear with the next release.
The subject has been talked to death but it has brought out one thing that has needed to be said and said plainly: It appears to the members of the XtremeSystems team that there are people here that either are or were ascoiated with the SETI teams whose posts here seem to be trying to drive a wedge into the project.
Gentleman, We will NOT go away just because you want us too. Let me repeat that for the hearing impaired: We will NOT go away.
We came to this project because it looked to be a worthwhile use of our machinery, was managed well,had excellent goals and had communication from the people running the project.
There is the issue of the optimised clients. We and most of the top teams use them.
Is it a quest for higher points? NO! It is the awarding of points on a percentage FAIRLY between the different types of cpu's used. That's it, plain and simple. We will not change just because you want us to.
I suggested zeroing the points as a way to try and settle down the issues here.
Giving in to a vocal minority who contribute very little overall to the project in terms of WU crunched is a mistake and should not happen.
My feelings to the project managers are this, ignore all the rhetoric, the charts that are made to satisfy one mans distorted view of how things should be, all the comments..Just ignore them..Work from what your hearts and minds tell you is fair and go from there.
Thanks for your time,
Movieman
besides all the quarrel about the best credit system one thing is clear: the vast majority including the project staff is very greatful to xtremesystems for supporting this project so vigorously. That being said, it might happen that some people disagree with some of your posts from time to time. ;-)
In the end I'm sure we will find a good solution with which everyone can live. :-)
____________
besides all the quarrel about the best credit system one thing is clear: the vast majority including the project staff is very greatful to xtremesystems for supporting this project so vigorously. That being said, it might happen that some people disagree with some of your posts from time to time. ;-)
besides all the quarrel about the best credit system one thing is clear: the vast majority including the project staff is very greatful to xtremesystems for supporting this project so vigorously. That being said, it might happen that some people disagree with some of your posts from time to time. ;-)
In the end I'm sure we will find a good solution with which everyone can live. :-)
Your probably right on all counts. Keep in mind that the guys from XS with the exception of Jose and myself never posted here until the rantings about the optimised files started.
I will admit that the guys at XS are very vocal in their feelings and sometimes go "across the line" but it is the deep commitment to the project that brings out these feelings. If it was just a points thing, why would we care so?
Passion for the project brings passioniate responses when we see others whose comments appear to be made to drive that wedge I mentioned into the project.
Let us hope that what the final outcome is will be something that all can embrace without the bickering.
Thanks for your time,
Movieman
____________
ID: 22149 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/
Keith Akins Joined: Oct 22 05 Posts: 176 ID: 6022 Credit: 71,779 RAC: 0
I'll Second That!
____________
ID: 22150 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/
Jose Joined: Mar 28 06 Posts: 820 ID: 69098 Credit: 48,297 RAC: 0
Why should the users who have been using stock managers, clients and stock-clocked machines have to start at 0? It's not wise to punish the innocent.
Why should the people taht spend their ressources in getting the new CPUS , the best motherboards and that have the knowhow on ovrclocking and optimizing cpu, memopry and ocerall performance be pinished?
Or are you suggesting that Rosetta be only oppened to low end machines?
ID: 22161 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/
Keith Akins Joined: Oct 22 05 Posts: 176 ID: 6022 Credit: 71,779 RAC: 0
No. Not in the least. Infact I'm not crazy about anyone's total credits being reset to zero in light of a new system. Other people's claims of overclaiming due to optimised BOINC managers is what brought on this new credit system to begin with.
As far as overclocked hardware is concerned, I say if you want to then do it. If actual work increases then great.
If I could afford it, I would have a 20 machine farm. As far as overclocking, I have my own personal reasons for not doing it that have nothing to do with this whole credit issue.
____________
What about starting it right from zero all over again?
If we get a fair app that puts all on a even playing field and gives credit based on work done, no matter what the points are, why not go from zero?
I think that would make a lot of people happy, both the power users and the guy with his one machine.
I do hope you are joking here. I have not spent the time and $$$$ on crunchers and power to have credits zeroed out. That would turn me as well as many others away from the project permantly, never to return.
I do agree on a fair credit system, something like Seti, or E@H would work fine with most of the crunchers I believe. But credit per decoy ? It would have to be more than 2 credits per decoy or it would chase crunchers away, I have several old machines like many others here do, that crunch for 2 hours or more with only 1 decoy, maybe 2. Currently on Seti or E@H that same amount of crunch times returns about 40-50 credits on average.
R@H would have to be compatible with other projects or risk the possible loss of crunchers.
When SETI went to the new credit system, they did not zero out the old credits, neither did they create some stupid old or enhanced credit totals, neither has E@H, and neither should R@H.
SETI has seen the error of thier way in granting too little credit per FPOP, the new release 5.17 coming out is going to have a larger credit muliplier.
...
There is the issue of the optimised clients. We and most of the top teams use them.
Is it a quest for higher points? NO! It is the awarding of points on a percentage FAIRLY between the different types of cpu's used.
...
What do you mean? IMHO using the optimised client, which applys CPU extensions to its benchmark system, is a form of overclaiming, unless science applications also apply the same extension. It's no problem to use both optimised client and application at the same time. Does Rosetta's application use any extention like SSE?
What about starting it right from zero all over again?
If we get a fair app that puts all on a even playing field and gives credit based on work done, no matter what the points are, why not go from zero?
I think that would make a lot of people happy, both the power users and the guy with his one machine.
I do hope you are joking here. I have not spent the time and $$$$ on crunchers and power to have credits zeroed out. That would turn me as well as many others away from the project permantly, never to return.
I do agree on a fair credit system, something like Seti, or E@H would work fine with most of the crunchers I believe. But credit per decoy ? It would have to be more than 2 credits per decoy or it would chase crunchers away, I have several old machines like many others here do, that crunch for 2 hours or more with only 1 decoy, maybe 2. Currently on Seti or E@H that same amount of crunch times returns about 40-50 credits on average.
R@H would have to be compatible with other projects or risk the possible loss of crunchers.
When SETI went to the new credit system, they did not zero out the old credits, neither did they create some stupid old or enhanced credit totals, neither has E@H, and neither should R@H.
SETI has seen the error of thier way in granting too little credit per FPOP, the new release 5.17 coming out is going to have a larger credit muliplier.
Kevin:
I said that in a delusional moment and I'm sorry I said it. I was thinking what can we do to end this seemingly endless discussion on the optimised clients and that came to me as a way to do so. It was a mistake and I'm sorry I said it.
I agree, like you I have a great deal of time effort and money involved in this. Off the top of my head I have maybe $15,000.00US in parts here crunching 24/7 and I'm far from the top in terms of dollars spent.
I know what we have invested in VNS to make 25,000 points a day and you are doing double that.( Didn't think I noticed did you?<BG>)
What is most likely to happen is like tossing a coin: one side the big contributers will be happy, the other side and the ones that are currently so outspoken against the optimised files will be happy and if the coin lands on it's edge everyone will be happy..
How often have you seen a coin tossed and land on it's edge?<VBG>
To be totally honest, I would not want to be the person(s) digesting all this and trying to come up with a solution that will keep all the players.
I just don't think thats possible.
Thanks for your time,
Movieman
____________
Movieman, thank you for your reply, I am glad you corrected yourself because it would be a big mistake IMO for Rosetta to zero out credits.
I have a huge investment in this project, and well, several other BOINC projects. I have not always crunched Rosetta as you can tell from Boincstats - I just recently moved here after reaching my goal of 3 million on SETI.
I do have my machines hidden because of my business - as a mortgage broker the banking industry can be picky, but I do have close to 50 machines 24/7, still a long way off from some of the bigger guys out there but the small farm I have is growing. (watch your back :) ) The power bill I have incurred to reach the spot I am in so far is not pocket change, and by removing the earned credits would mean that the project managers do not care about what we have done in the past for them.
I would go somewhere else and crunch, and I am sure there would be many others that would do the same.
When SETI released the enhanced version, they had a similar issue with credits - because of the optimization of 4.18 many became disenchanted with the project. Credit dropped by about 20% for non-optimized crunchers and 30-50% or highly optimized crunchers. My personal credit dropped from 32,000 a day to 22,000 a day, but the science was improved.
From what I can tell, the only reason for the change here is because of what we call - ZERO RACers - the ones that complain the most it seems are the ones that do not have dedicated investments into the projects and somehow think that those of us who spend our money on the projects are getting away with something.
And for Haltech to say "SETI people mind your own business and go back to your alien project.
Love
Haltech"
ABSURD! - He is telling me to go away and mind my own business ?? He is a member of your team XS Put a leash on him if you can, we don't need that attitude here.
Ok first of all I really dont like seeing SETI and Rosetta in the same sentance. They are 2 different projects and point systems so leave the sepprate.
I honestly dont understand why starting from scratch is a problem. We know you did the points, we know we can do them again. This is not costing you anymore money in any way. I myself love the competition.. Go ahead zero me and keep your points cuz you know what... I'll pass you again and again. I am getting really tired of all the compaining from you guys just crunch the project and get on with your life. Stop looking at the top computers and what client they are running and worry about yourself. Xtremesystems is a very dedicated team and we spend more money than you can imagine to get where we are today. I am not saying non of you guys are spending any money... But my biggest issue here is all the bitching and complaining. Did you see us complain when we had to remove 3.5mil points cuz we knew it was the right thing. NO. We just crunched harder and got more members. Do you SETI guys go on their official website and complain that you dont like this or that or someone's computer is faster so they must be cheating.... Just face the fact that we are faster and always will be optimized or not!
____________
Two things that I'm not sure if anyone has thought of (trying to bring a fresh idea to the table).
First, people other than crunchers see the stats pages. I'm sure that, when grants are being considered, the board looks at things like which project seems the most popular (They wouldn't want to grant $50,000 to a DC project that nobody crunches for, right?). They probably look at a site like BoincStats or similar to see how the various project totals compare.
Now, this could go one of two ways, and I'm not sure which is more likely. (Hey, I'm not a psychologist...)
1. They see that Rosetta has a really low credit total, compared to other projects, and decide that it might not be worthy of a grant. This one doesn't seem particularly likely, to me (with all of the attention Rosetta has gotten, lately, in the scientific community), but it's a possibility to consider.
2. They dig a little deeper to find out why the Rosetta project credits are low. Seeing that it's actually very popular, but zeroed the credits in the interest of statistical fairness, might make it seem like it's more "user-focused", which is critical for a DC project. Thus, they might be more comfortable throwing money at it, since it is trying to treat its users well.
There is one thing, though, which would definitely be beneficial about re-starting the credits. (This works even better, with the recent publicity campaign going on here!)
Okay, let's say I'm brand-new to this whole DC thing, and I'm a fairly competitive person (The stats wouldn't be such a big deal if people didn't care about them, right?). So, I look at all of the other well-established projects, out there. Everyone else already has a massive lead, on me, and it'll take years for me to catch up with other people that have similar hardware to mine.
But then I read about this "Rosetta" project, and how its results will be helpful in my own lifetime. So, I check it out. Hey, I start right about even with everyone else! So, I attach.
So, yes, we might lose some people by zeroing the totals, but we also stand to gain a lot of new crunchers, as well.
Although my personal preference is to not zero the totals, there are compelling arguments, either way. I'm about 60/40 on the issue, myself. Honestly, I'll still be here crunching, regardless. It's a highly worthwile project, and my computers double as space-heaters in my house!
____________
"There are obviously many things which we do not understand, and may never be able to."
Leela (From the Mac game "Marathon", released 1995)
Movieman, thank you for your reply, I am glad you corrected yourself because it would be a big mistake IMO for Rosetta to zero out credits.
I have a huge investment in this project, and well, several other BOINC projects. I have not always crunched Rosetta as you can tell from Boincstats - I just recently moved here after reaching my goal of 3 million on SETI.
I do have my machines hidden because of my business - as a mortgage broker the banking industry can be picky, but I do have close to 50 machines 24/7, still a long way off from some of the bigger guys out there but the small farm I have is growing. (watch your back :) ) The power bill I have incurred to reach the spot I am in so far is not pocket change, and by removing the earned credits would mean that the project managers do not care about what we have done in the past for them.
I would go somewhere else and crunch, and I am sure there would be many others that would do the same.
When SETI released the enhanced version, they had a similar issue with credits - because of the optimization of 4.18 many became disenchanted with the project. Credit dropped by about 20% for non-optimized crunchers and 30-50% or highly optimized crunchers. My personal credit dropped from 32,000 a day to 22,000 a day, but the science was improved.
From what I can tell, the only reason for the change here is because of what we call - ZERO RACers - the ones that complain the most it seems are the ones that do not have dedicated investments into the projects and somehow think that those of us who spend our money on the projects are getting away with something.
And for Haltech to say "SETI people mind your own business and go back to your alien project.
Love
Haltech"
ABSURD! - He is telling me to go away and mind my own business ?? He is a member of your team XS Put a leash on him if you can, we don't need that attitude here.
Kevin:
We agree on the ZERO RACers totally.
I used the line that "little dogs bark the loudest because thats all they can do" and it is very fitting here.
As to Haltech, I think you got lumped in to that group by accident as it appears that most of the group that was doing the complaining came from SETI to Rosetta. He's a strong personality but the guy is as dedicated as any I know to DC.
As to me and SETI,I have no issues with it. The first DC I did was on the old SETI app, maybe for 18 months in it's early days.
I tend to try and put the DC apps in an order of importance and to me, a medical app is tops on my list and Rosetta tops the medical list to me personally.
That's not degrading the others, I think the climatology apps are very worthwhile especially seeing whats been happenning in the earths climate the past 24 months.
Like I said earlier, lets hope this coin lands on "edge"
Yes, I've noticed your growth recently and taken to wearing old shirts so the tire tracks from when you roll past VNS won't hurt as much!
Thanks for your time,
Movieman
____________
After carefully reading this thread I have come to a few conclusions that many of you seem to elude too.
1. People have a lot of time and money invested in this project and to zero out the credits would leave many people disenchanted. What I feel would really hurt this project is NEGATIVE publicity. Please remember that Dr. Baker and many other researchers have dedicated a lot of time to this project and to lose people over credits and not science would be foolish. I have done research with my professor and know the pain and glory that comes with research.
2. The staff here at Rosetta have the cruncher's best interest in mind from what I have observed thus far. I am sure the Rosetta staff have looked and the mistakes of Seti and will definitely make the necessary adjustments to prevent a reoccurrence.
****Sorry if I am off topic. I felt these points were important to mention****
My Suggestions:
I would have to agree with Tralala that it would be best to give each workunit a fixed credit value so that optimized clients that attempt to artificially adjust the benchmarks are thwarted. Many of you as well as I am wondering what kind of values will be assinged to each workunit and how R@H will determine them.
I think they should base the credit on the number of flops needed to complete the workunit as was previously mentioned. I would suggest looking a past work submitted to get a benchmark idea of the amount of credit that should be issued (pun not intended).
As far as how to deal with the current credit accumulated, I feel the Rosetta staff should NOT issue a new set of credits and freeze the old ones like what was done with BOINC classic. I feel this way because everyone will still be on a level playing field. Creating a new credit category will just be more uneccessary work for the staff. Those with few credits (such as myself) probably will not be affected that much because we do not compete for credit on an individual basis and will never be on the leaderboard (nor do I care whether I am or not). Those with high credit scores are way ahead of people like me who only have one computer and will stay that way. The users that are cheating now will either slowly drop back or find another way to beat the system.
From what little ralph data I have we can now start to get an idea about where the 2 credits/decoy is. All data displayed is from standard boinc software and no optimized apps are involved. [edit]I've seperated old ralph and "ralph-new". Oh, and CC is claimed credit/hour, GC is granted credit/hour. I've highlighted Rosetta, ralph, and ralph new for easier location. All data was updated last night, so this is current.
From what little ralph data I have we can now start to get an idea about where the 2 credits/decoy is. All data displayed is from standard boinc software and no optimized apps are involved. [edit]I've seperated old ralph and "ralph-new". Oh, and CC is claimed credit/hour, GC is granted credit/hour. I've highlighted Rosetta, ralph, and ralph new for easier location.
Not sure why you are posting this here, Tony. Just to avoid any confusion: the 2 credits/decoy system that currently runs on Ralph is just for preliminary software tests and will never run on Rosetta, neither will it be used on Ralph after the end of the software testing phase (presumably in a couple of days or so ??). See this explanation of the new credit system by Rosetta developer David Kim that was posted on the Ralph forum:
The version that will eventually run on Rosetta@home will have work unit specific credit per model values that are determined from test runs on Ralph. It will be a requirement for lab members to not only test new work units on Ralph but to also determine the average credit per model value from their test runs for production runs. The credits should remain somewhat consistent with other projects since the average values will be based on the standard boinc crediting scheme. If things look okay on Ralph, Rosetta@home will use the credit per model crediting method while Ralph will switch back to the standard method.
Hoelder1in he just wants another chance to post the unoptimized bs spreadsheet he came up with. Thats all! I honestly dont think he even cares about Rosetta at all!
____________
Some users don't have a Ralph account, and can't see/participate in the new credit systems development. I posted it here so everyone can see what's happening and get involved. There are many posts earlier than this where users are "speculating" on what it might look like. Well, this is what it looks like so far.
From what little ralph data I have we can now start to get an idea about where the 2 credits/decoy is. All data displayed is from standard boinc software and no optimized apps are involved. [edit]I've seperated old ralph and "ralph-new". Oh, and CC is claimed credit/hour, GC is granted credit/hour. I've highlighted Rosetta, ralph, and ralph new for easier location. All data was updated last night, so this is current.
Please, in future if you start posting more charts could you link to them, this one is ok but a lot of the other threads have become a problem. I and many others are on slow connections and once two or more large pictures get into a thread they become unreadable.
Keep the small filesize pictues up but the larger ones please just post the link
thanks, i'll have a read of it now :-)
P.S. PNG files generally work better for 'text' pictures
Please, in future if you start posting more charts could you link to them, this one is ok but a lot of the other threads have become a problem. I and many others are on slow connections and once two or more large pictures get into a thread they become unreadable.
Keep the small filesize pictues up but the larger ones please just post the link
thanks, i'll have a read of it now :-)
P.S. PNG files generally work better for 'text' pictures
Most my pictures are in thread started by me for the purpose. I see your point though and will limit my pics to links (when outrageously huge) when I post to threads started by others.
Please, in future if you start posting more charts could you link to them, this one is ok but a lot of the other threads have become a problem. I and many others are on slow connections and once two or more large pictures get into a thread they become unreadable.
Keep the small filesize pictues up but the larger ones please just post the link
thanks, i'll have a read of it now :-)
P.S. PNG files generally work better for 'text' pictures
Most my pictures are in thread started by me for the purpose. I see your point though and will limit my pics to links (when outrageously huge) when I post to threads started by others.
thanks
tony
Thanks, the thing is I do like pictures to be posted in a post (lol), just on dial-up/slow connections it is an absolute pain (so blanket switching off of pictures in preferences is a problem)
One idea that became popular at other places is
post the thumbnail picture they provide at the image host sites but put the link to the larger picture with the thumbnail.
i.e. [ url ][ img ]link_to_thumbnail[ /img ]link_to_main_picture[ /url ]
(I was trying to test it out, but I'm having to wait for my photobucket passwrod to be sent to me :-)
____________
Team mauisun.org
I have a better idea mmciastro stop making those stupid spreadsheets so you wont have to post them anywhere. I really dont think anyone cares for them anyway! you spend more CPU cycles making them and I really dont want to see your big RAC go down. Sorry I am just trying to help you out.
____________
without wanting to stir up the situation any more, I think it would be fairly straight forward to back-date the new credit system to all past jobs. The only info needed is the average run time for each target on a particular spec machine, and then that can be used to determine the number of credits assiged to each model completed. I assume there are numerous machines out there that have crunched at least one work unit of each type that's been released so far?
I would think that everyone would be happy with that as a system???
(I'm not hugely bothered what decision is taken, but I would like to see a level playing field - I think this would make the competition a lot more intense which can only be good for the project!)
Going back to the zeroing out credit discussion and after hearing both positives and negatives to it wouldn't it be easier to just have 2 databases?
One database where the current stats could continue with the credits from the new credit system added on but also have a new database of credit from when the new system is put in place starting form zero.
This way all old credit is acknowledged, kept on record and continued but there is also a fresh database with the so called "fair" new credit system.
The only info needed is the average run time for each target on a particular spec machine.......
I would think that everyone would be happy with that as a system???
Hi Danny,
That sounds very good, but what happens when an AMD64 @ over 2.6Ghz is reported as a Sempron 3100+ as happened to me, until I changed the OS ? Or some of the massively overclocked systems on some teams that are reported as standard speed ?
Would probably cause another huge row, at a cost to the project.
I dont mean to have a go at you though Danny by saying that.
[Edit] BTW, even after I changed the OS, Rosetta/BOINC still did'nt report the true speed the 64 was running at. It just reported the model, which would'nt really give a true reflection of the work it has been doing.[/Edit]
____________
Going back to the zeroing out credit discussion and after hearing both positives and negatives to it wouldn't it be easier to just have 2 databases?
One database where the current stats could continue with the credits from the new credit system added on but also have a new database of credit from when the new system is put in place starting form zero.
That's a great idea in my opinion. I'm sure we can agree that everyone would get what they wanted if they could see both sides of the coin - just the new system on one set of graphs and combined new/old on another set.
Not sure if it's easy/difficult to implement though.
ID: 22196 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/
Jose Joined: Mar 28 06 Posts: 820 ID: 69098 Credit: 48,297 RAC: 0
I am reaching a very high level of frustration with this type of thread.
I have been working with a friend on a statistical analysis tool that could help pointing out the most egergious deviations in credit claims across the type of client being used, the actual work per credit claimed and the ammount of time crunched per credit and per model. Given the situation here , I have decided it is not worth continuing the testing. To put it mildly , I am having serious doubts about the undersatnding of statistical methods by some people here and I am worried at what is being passed as statistical analysis. To be even more blunt: I am having doubts about the intelectual honesty and the motivation of some of the main posters in this thread.
I am tired of the erroneous comparison of the nature aof the work units in the different projects. THEY ARE NOT COMPARABLE as the projects themselves are not comparable. That is the fallacy that Boinc perpetuates: that differnt in nature projects can be measured by the same standards.
I am tired of the whole optimized vs non optimized clients thing. specially the continuous use of the word cheating. This is the last time you are going to hear me say this: AS LONG AS THE USE OF OPTIMIZED CLIENTS IS NOT EXPLICETLY PROHIBITED IN A PROJECT , THEIR USE IS NOT CHEATING. Specially since the open nature of the BOINC code allows for changes and modifications in the code.
I am tired on the editorializing done in some of the statistics to back up claims that some teams, what the hell, a specific team is cheating. It is a known fact that I am a member of that team. I KNOW that the cheater tag that some of the people here are trying to tag on us is unfair and borders on the slanderous. I am giving fair warning: Attempt to flame my team and my team members at your own peril... Flame and you will be roasted. If you flame us, do not expect us to take your slanders lying down. I AM NOT THE MOST GENTLE OF PEOPLE , AND I AM NOT THE MOST SUAVE OF PEOPLE... this BS against my team has to STOP. Fair warning again: Flame at your own risk.
If you dont like the fact that in my team we crunch for Rosetta as if Rosetta were our wife, lover or best friend and that we only know one speed: full blast and that level dedication (including the investment in state of the art cpus, mobos and memory ) yields the numbers we are getting and THAT WE WILL GET REGARDLESS OF THE CREDIT SYSTEM used; I have news for you: tough noogies.... our team is commited to Rosetta because we believe in the project worth so if you thing we are going to fade out because your baiting and jealousy driven harping ..think again...We will not go away.
As to the tracking of cheats..the real ones... we are still doing it...
So if you are offended by what I have said... I really dont care. I am going back to work in what it ismportant: the crunching of models. But I have given fair warning...dont act surprised if you ontinue to question the integrity of my team (or for what it is worth the top teams in this project) if you dont get a cool reaction. We have tried reason: obviously your agenda in attacking the top teams doesnt allow for reason.
I am tired of the whole optimized vs non optimized clients thing. specially the continuous use of the word cheating. This is the last time you are going to hear me say this: AS LONG AS THE USE OF OPTIMIZED CLIENTS IS NOT EXPLICETLY PROHIBITED IN A PROJECT , THEIR USE IS NOT CHEATING. Specially since the open nature of the BOINC code allows for changes and modifications in the code.
So why don't project leaders prohibit the use of the optimised client?
According to posts on seti@home forum, at least the source code of the 5.5.0 was not available, which means that no one except the code writer cannot know what the application does. Even more without publishing source code distributing the software violates GPL. I'm not sure whether even using the software violate it or not, though.
____________
I am tired of the whole optimized vs non optimized clients thing. specially the continuous use of the word cheating. This is the last time you are going to hear me say this: AS LONG AS THE USE OF OPTIMIZED CLIENTS IS NOT EXPLICETLY PROHIBITED IN A PROJECT , THEIR USE IS NOT CHEATING. Specially since the open nature of the BOINC code allows for changes and modifications in the code.
So why don't project leaders prohibit the use of the optimised client?
According to posts on seti@home forum, at least the source code of the 5.5.0 was not available, which means that no one except the code writer cannot know what the application does. Even more without publishing source code distributing the software violates GPL. I'm not sure whether even using the software violate it or not, though.
Using software produced by GPL-breakages is not illegal - but probably immoral. Producing code without supplying source-code is definitely a breach of contract, the producer of such code is breaking the law, even if he/she/it/they are not gaining anything from doing so, since part of the GPL is that the source code must be made available to anyone, and it must also be available for another three years ...
Ok first of all I really dont like seeing SETI and Rosetta in the same sentance. They are 2 different projects and point systems so leave the sepprate.
I honestly dont understand why starting from scratch is a problem. We know you did the points, we know we can do them again. This is not costing you anymore money in any way. I myself love the competition.. Go ahead zero me and keep your points cuz you know what... I'll pass you again and again. I am getting really tired of all the compaining from you guys just crunch the project and get on with your life. Stop looking at the top computers and what client they are running and worry about yourself. Xtremesystems is a very dedicated team and we spend more money than you can imagine to get where we are today. I am not saying non of you guys are spending any money... But my biggest issue here is all the bitching and complaining. Did you see us complain when we had to remove 3.5mil points cuz we knew it was the right thing. NO. We just crunched harder and got more members. Do you SETI guys go on their official website and complain that you dont like this or that or someone's computer is faster so they must be cheating.... Just face the fact that we are faster and always will be optimized or not!
EXCACLY my point - you appear to have started Rosetta a few months ago, have a total RAC of 120, and what - a total of 80 credits -
Yes, you would not care - - you are what we call a ZERO RACer.
You have not spent not even a single dollar, euro, etc.. on the project. you have not investment in time nor money. Therefore you would not care if you are zeroed out.
And as for doing the credits again.. I don't WANT to do them again- that is the most stupid thing I have heard in a long time.
On the other hand - there are those that have invested time and money into the project and to just toss out those accomplishments are not only absurd but could very well be project damning. As I know that I would not be back, and there are others, many others that would just leave and go crunch for SIMAP or QMC or something else.
As far as SETI and Rosetta being different projects I agree - but there MUST be a cross project equalization of credit systems. That is one of BOINC's features, the abilty to crunch several projects and be granted similar credit for these project.
Don't be negative towards other project team, if SETI.USA were to turn focus to Rosetta - it would stomp and in no time be the number 1 team here. People crunch what interests them. I am interested in many things so I crunch many projects. And a fair cross project equalized credit system is important.
Are you new to DC ? I have been crunching DC since May of 1999 -
____________ SETI.USA
So if you are offended by what I have said... I really dont care.
Not offended, just annoyed to see interesting ideas buried in more long angry posts full of noise. Argh...
To get back to point, resetting everyone to zero is not an option. Too many people don't like that idea and threaten to leave. I don't support that anymore.
What about the 2 graphs idea? One for new system only, one for total in both systems? If there are objections to this - what are they and why? I would like this. Can it be done?
there MUST be a cross project equalization of credit systems. That is one of BOINC's features, the abilty to crunch several projects and be granted similar credit for these project.
Same here. A few adjustments can go, but the completely different system cannot as far as this project applys BOINC framework at least, since the new system could change the relationship between crunching and 1 credit granted.
just annoyed to see interesting ideas buried in more long angry posts full of noise. Argh...
Me too. Moderators should do something here...
____________
The word 'cheaters' was used in a lot of threads and most of the time misused. I think many people want to point out the fact that if some use an optimized client and others not, they cannot compare their score to others (especialy when they are low in credits ;-)).
To summarize:
- The cheaters is the guy how do something somewhere to multiply his credits by a few zillions.
- The optimized clients are there, available, free and the projects don't care if you use it or not, so everybody is free to use them (or not).
- Projects like CPDN, Seti, Seti Beta, Einstein, Rieselsieve have a fixed and standard credits system, so no problem with optimized client
- Projects like Predictor, Sztaki, LHC, Simap, Primegrid, ... have a quorum of three results (sometime two), so no problem either.
- Rosetta project team is working on a new credit system.
- Finally QMC is the only project where the optimized client use can be discussed.
So it's maybe the time to stop all those silly discussions/lists/...
Or we can start new flame threads in the QMC forum for those who are interested by flaming (I'm sure there are some).
Cudgel your brains about the new credit system, visit RALPH's forum, and write your ideas down on that thread. Rosetta project team offers you all to post suggestions here.
edit: not only thierry@home but others should go there
____________
Ok first of all I really dont like seeing SETI and Rosetta in the same sentance. They are 2 different projects and point systems so leave the sepprate.
I honestly dont understand why starting from scratch is a problem. We know you did the points, we know we can do them again. This is not costing you anymore money in any way. I myself love the competition.. Go ahead zero me and keep your points cuz you know what... I'll pass you again and again. I am getting really tired of all the compaining from you guys just crunch the project and get on with your life. Stop looking at the top computers and what client they are running and worry about yourself. Xtremesystems is a very dedicated team and we spend more money than you can imagine to get where we are today. I am not saying non of you guys are spending any money... But my biggest issue here is all the bitching and complaining. Did you see us complain when we had to remove 3.5mil points cuz we knew it was the right thing. NO. We just crunched harder and got more members. Do you SETI guys go on their official website and complain that you dont like this or that or someone's computer is faster so they must be cheating.... Just face the fact that we are faster and always will be optimized or not!
EXCACLY my point - you appear to have started Rosetta a few months ago, have a total RAC of 120, and what - a total of 80 credits -
Yes, you would not care - - you are what we call a ZERO RACer.
You have not spent not even a single dollar, euro, etc.. on the project. you have not investment in time nor money. Therefore you would not care if you are zeroed out.
And as for doing the credits again.. I don't WANT to do them again- that is the most stupid thing I have heard in a long time.
On the other hand - there are those that have invested time and money into the project and to just toss out those accomplishments are not only absurd but could very well be project damning. As I know that I would not be back, and there are others, many others that would just leave and go crunch for SIMAP or QMC or something else.
As far as SETI and Rosetta being different projects I agree - but there MUST be a cross project equalization of credit systems. That is one of BOINC's features, the abilty to crunch several projects and be granted similar credit for these project.
Don't be negative towards other project team, if SETI.USA were to turn focus to Rosetta - it would stomp and in no time be the number 1 team here. People crunch what interests them. I am interested in many things so I crunch many projects. And a fair cross project equalized credit system is important.
Are you new to DC ? I have been crunching DC since May of 1999 -
Ok I asked the rest of my team to stop coming here and fighting with you children and I am going against my own word. But, if your going to talk to me this way I just cant resist....
Let me just tell you that what RAC that you see there was a long time ago and I crunch for VNS. I am the one with the Kentsfield at 3.5ghz and Conroe at 4ghz. http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=270793
I am not new to DC and if you want to show whos toys are better lets go right ahead cuz YOU WONT WIN!!
If you think that SETI guys want to come to Rosetta and stomp all over XS man, your crazy... But, if you think you can do it bring it kid!
So dont sit here and tell me that I am nobody cuz from the 30th page where your comps are keep clicking the back button till you get to page one then look at the top. Thats why my team call him Clark Kent.
Gawd here we go again, back to the old pissin contest! Why don't you all just wait and see what Dr Baker's choice is, instead of trying to outguess what they will eventually choose to do.
____________
Hmm, this thread is getting way off topic. May I ask that we focus on the new credit system as best we can so that when the Baker lab reads this post they can better address our concerns.
Thanks mmciastro for your information. Keep us posted on what gooes on RALPH as I do not have time to keep up with it and like periodic updates!
Jose, I would suggest talking with the Rosetta @ home staff about your statistical tool. I would agree with you that most of the users on the boards here (including myself) do not have the necessary tools to perform some of the statistical analysis that you seem to be eluding to. I have a hard enough time applying standard deviation. Its a great idea and if the staff is willing to work with you on it, I think it would be an asset to this project.
What does everyone else think about using statistics to catch dishonest crunchers? If so, do you have any suggestions on a system so that honest people do not get upset when they are mislabled as dishonest?
____________
The only info needed is the average run time for each target on a particular spec machine.......
I would think that everyone would be happy with that as a system???
Hi Danny,
That sounds very good, but what happens when an AMD64 @ over 2.6Ghz is reported as a Sempron 3100+ as happened to me, until I changed the OS ? Or some of the massively overclocked systems on some teams that are reported as standard speed ?
Would probably cause another huge row, at a cost to the project.
I dont mean to have a go at you though Danny by saying that.
[Edit] BTW, even after I changed the OS, Rosetta/BOINC still did'nt report the true speed the 64 was running at. It just reported the model, which would'nt really give a true reflection of the work it has been doing.[/Edit]
Yeah - its a good point, but I don't think we'd need to know specifically what speed the computers run at - just that their config hasn't been changed during the time they've been running rosetta. It might be possible to calibrate the old jobs from when they were run on the inhouse computers, although I'm sure a fairly large sample of computers could be put together that have been running from very early on which would give a fairly accurate measure. I'd have a go myself, but i've not got the spare time at the moment.
I think it'd just be a case of taking a pool of (say 20) computers, and then for each job type that's been released we just need to know the number of models produced and the time taken so the average time per model can be calculated for each computer. The new jobs can then be run on these computers and the average time taken per model calculated again.
Then it's just a case of working the following out for each computer: A new job
New job total time = 13900
New job number of decoys = 32
Average CPU time per decoy (Xnew) = 434.4
Credits awarded per decoy (CA) = 2.00
calculating the credit for an old job
Job ABC123 total time = 14400s
Job ABC123 number of decoys = 32
Average CPU time per decoy (Xold) = 450
Credits awarded per decoy = (CA / Xnew * Xold) = 2.07
Obviously you need to take an average over, say, 20 computers, but from this we can (even now) award credits fairly accurately right back to the start of rosetta.
If those that are claiming 10 times or more the RAC for that cpu - are being flagged by Jose, and their models/hour is equal to the standard for that cpu - then I don't see any problem with presenting that quietly to Dr. Baker and letting the Rosetta team deal with it. They've got the records for each of the major WUs and can tell what the "average" credit/model for each of the major WUs is; and see how out of line potential problem systems are reporting. But it should be kept quiet and not the public lynching that has been going on for the past few months.
Regardless, it's a short term problem - since it'll disappear when we move to the new credit system.
Since the Rosetta labs has mentioned several times that the various optimized boinc clients were okay to use - it's a little late to normalize their scores for running the client with Rosetta. Once you've handed out a bowl of crisps/chips and given the crowd permission to eat them - once they've eaten the bowl of crisps/chips you can't ask for them back. (Although it's been pointed out that some here might actually attempt that..) It's time to forget about the war of the benchmarks and move on to the upcoming War of Model Production.
The most interesting bit will be finding which cpus produce better than they benchmarked with the old system.. in which case, if we have the benchmarks being done by the best benchmarking cpus under the old system, some cpus will get a really nice boost in scores if they can outproduce the benchmarking cpus.
Take a look at the credit system thread, and post your suggestions for possible improvements.
____________
Just a couple of general thoughts about a new credit system from someone new to R@H, if I may. My theme will be Equity.
Although no credit system is likely to make everyone happy achieving some level of Credit Equity within the Rosetta community would be very beneficial. Judging by some of the views expressed in this thread I’d say such an attempt is appropriate.
However the most important potential gain to be made by a new credit system would be with one that attempted to create better Cross-Project Equity.
BoincStats and similar sites make competition across projects inevitable. People are less likely to join any project that is not at least on a par with others and we all know how important more participation is here. Also, just a guess but I’m thinking some current Rosetta participants might consider increasing their share if points were awarded with something approaching equity. I for one would.
My point is that I hope that any new credit system would specifically address these two issues.
After reading through all the comments and ideas, I'd be interested in knowing exactly how many WU are actually getting "crunched" on the average day/week,etc..
Not points, but actual work units..
Is there a moderator or someone who can find this info for us?
Might be interesting to see the breakdown.
Thanks for your time,
Movieman
After reading through all the comments and ideas, I'd be interested in knowing exactly how many WU are actually getting "crunched" on the average day/week,etc..
Not points, but actual work units..
Is there a moderator or someone who can find this info for us?
Might be interesting to see the breakdown.
Thanks for your time,
Movieman
I think the number you are looking for is actually listed on the homepage under server status: Successes last 24h: 132,647. If I am not mistaken these would be the number of WUs crunched in the last 24 hours, but please note that a WU takes anywhere from 3 to 24 hours to complete, depending on the user's preferences. Perhaps structures per day would be a more meaningful number. If David Kim's estimate of 2 credits/decoy that he uses for his Ralph tests is approximately right than the structures per day would be roughly 'credits last 24 hours' divided by 2 or about 2,000,000 structures per day. I hope this helps, -H.
Ralph seems to have stopped giving out work. I don't know if "round one" is over or not, but thought some of you who aren't participating might like to see what I've gotten for work. Note: claimed credit is based on the benchmark calculations, Granted credit is what the server gives based on models. It appears from the few I recieved that the number of models varies greatly on the same processor.
Gosh, I hope I shrunk the pic enough.
Jose Joined: Mar 28 06 Posts: 820 ID: 69098 Credit: 48,297 RAC: 0
Ok first of all I really dont like seeing SETI and Rosetta in the same sentance. They are 2 different projects and point systems so leave the sepprate.
I honestly dont understand why starting from scratch is a problem. We know you did the points, we know we can do them again. This is not costing you anymore money in any way. I myself love the competition.. Go ahead zero me and keep your points cuz you know what... I'll pass you again and again. I am getting really tired of all the compaining from you guys just crunch the project and get on with your life. Stop looking at the top computers and what client they are running and worry about yourself. Xtremesystems is a very dedicated team and we spend more money than you can imagine to get where we are today. I am not saying non of you guys are spending any money... But my biggest issue here is all the bitching and complaining. Did you see us complain when we had to remove 3.5mil points cuz we knew it was the right thing. NO. We just crunched harder and got more members. Do you SETI guys go on their official website and complain that you dont like this or that or someone's computer is faster so they must be cheating.... Just face the fact that we are faster and always will be optimized or not!
EXCACLY my point - you appear to have started Rosetta a few months ago, have a total RAC of 120, and what - a total of 80 credits -
Yes, you would not care - - you are what we call a ZERO RACer.
You have not spent not even a single dollar, euro, etc.. on the project. you have not investment in time nor money. Therefore you would not care if you are zeroed out.
And as for doing the credits again.. I don't WANT to do them again- that is the most stupid thing I have heard in a long time.
On the other hand - there are those that have invested time and money into the project and to just toss out those accomplishments are not only absurd but could very well be project damning. As I know that I would not be back, and there are others, many others that would just leave and go crunch for SIMAP or QMC or something else.
As far as SETI and Rosetta being different projects I agree - but there MUST be a cross project equalization of credit systems. That is one of BOINC's features, the abilty to crunch several projects and be granted similar credit for these project.
Don't be negative towards other project team, if SETI.USA were to turn focus to Rosetta - it would stomp and in no time be the number 1 team here. People crunch what interests them. I am interested in many things so I crunch many projects. And a fair cross project equalized credit system is important.
Are you new to DC ? I have been crunching DC since May of 1999 -
njkid32 is the owner of the only Kentfield based cruncher at this moment in Rosetta. He is also the owner of one of the fastest Conroes in XtremeSystems ( His rigs are lovingly called Clark (as in Clark Kent and Louise) That Kentfield based rig is the top ranked computer in the project. If you dont see his credits under his njkid name it is because his machines crunch mostly for one of the subteams at XtremeSystems.
ID: 22234 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/
Jose Joined: Mar 28 06 Posts: 820 ID: 69098 Credit: 48,297 RAC: 0
I am tired of the whole optimized vs non optimized clients thing. specially the continuous use of the word cheating. This is the last time you are going to hear me say this: AS LONG AS THE USE OF OPTIMIZED CLIENTS IS NOT EXPLICETLY PROHIBITED IN A PROJECT , THEIR USE IS NOT CHEATING. Specially since the open nature of the BOINC code allows for changes and modifications in the code.
So why don't project leaders prohibit the use of the optimised client?
According to posts on seti@home forum, at least the source code of the 5.5.0 was not available, which means that no one except the code writer cannot know what the application does. Even more without publishing source code distributing the software violates GPL. I'm not sure whether even using the software violate it or not, though.
You know what I find interesting : everybody whines about a certain type of optimized client but no one speaks about the Mac optimized clients and there are mac clients and MAC clients.
ID: 22236 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/
Jose Joined: Mar 28 06 Posts: 820 ID: 69098 Credit: 48,297 RAC: 0
there MUST be a cross project equalization of credit systems. That is one of BOINC's features, the abilty to crunch several projects and be granted similar credit for these project.
Same here. A few adjustments can go, but the completely different system cannot as far as this project applys BOINC framework at least, since the new system could change the relationship between crunching and 1 credit granted.
just annoyed to see interesting ideas buried in more long angry posts full of noise. Argh...
They say the best ideas are sometimes the easiest to implement.
I think Jose just said it well...
Stop using BOINC and many of the problems just disappear..
The cross project issue goes immediately. The people that crunch other projects that are interested in helping Rosetta can then do so without there being any effect on their BOINC scores and the people that just crunch Rosetta wouldn't care as the other projects are of no concern to them.
Rosetta could then be treated just as Folding at Home is, a separate project on it's own.
That isn't the only answer, but it is surely one that addresses a lot of the issues here.
Any solution that brings more people to Rosetta and also kills the complaints on all sides I am for.
As to how many would leave rosetta if BOINC were abandoned, that's something to consider. In the short term(0-30 days) there may well be a loss of total computing power, but I beleive that once word got out that here is a project with excellent goals, good manangement and a prioritized app, there are thousands that would come to Rosetta.
Something to think on anyway.
Thanks for your time,
Movieman
PS: Kevin: I should have mentioned that NJKID32 was on VNS. That was my oversight.
He runs that Kentsfield system, a conroe system and 2 others for us 24/7 and is a good friend of mine.
Unfortunately he has my Irish temper but a few less years than I have had to let it mellow some.
As I mentioned before, Deep Passions bring passionate responses so i hope you'll understand that when you read his posts.
Now as to what would happen if all of SETI USA came to Rosetta, now thats a confrontation that I'd like to see.
Remember one small point, XtremeSystems has over 28,000 registered members and only 200 or so that run Rosetta regularly. Many others there are involved in other projects but they all have one thing in common: They are the most driven group you have ever seen with more computing power than many nations.<BG>
____________
ID: 22246 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/
Avi Joined: Aug 2 06 Posts: 58 ID: 102956 Credit: 95,381 RAC: 7
They say the best ideas are sometimes the easiest to implement.
I think Jose just said it well...
Stop using BOINC and many of the problems just disappear..
The cross project issue goes immediately. The people that crunch other projects that are interested in helping Rosetta can then do so without there being any effect on their BOINC scores and the people that just crunch Rosetta wouldn't care as the other projects are of no concern to them.
If they want their scores to be unaffected, then don't share that account id and use a different name. But then they aren't getting any credit on boinc stats for time spent computing. I think another concern would be if they wanted to do some on the other boinc programs and some rosetta, how to do the time sharing?
____________
ID: 22249 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/
Keith Akins Joined: Oct 22 05 Posts: 176 ID: 6022 Credit: 71,779 RAC: 0
Now that I'd love to see. Infact I would love to see ALL teams go head-to-head with 100% resources on rosetta.
regardless of which team wins, we all know who the big winner would be; ROSETTA! We just might reach that 150 tera-flop goal.
Now that I'd love to see. Infact I would love to see ALL teams go head-to-head with 100% resources on rosetta.
regardless of which team wins, we all know who the big winner would be; ROSETTA! We just might reach that 150 tera-flop goal.
I say "Let the race begin"!
You and I both and we agree totally but why think of a paltry figure like 150 tera-flops..
I heard a line once and can't remember the author and it's possible that I'm not quoting him 100% but the point is the same:
"Set impossible goals for yourself so that when you've reached them you know you've done something meaningfull"
That's stuck with me for years and the older I get the more relevant it becomes..
They say the best ideas are sometimes the easiest to implement.
I think Jose just said it well...
Stop using BOINC and many of the problems just disappear..
The cross project issue goes immediately. The people that crunch other projects that are interested in helping Rosetta can then do so without there being any effect on their BOINC scores and the people that just crunch Rosetta wouldn't care as the other projects are of no concern to them.
If they want their scores to be unaffected, then don't share that account id and use a different name. But then they aren't getting any credit on boinc stats for time spent computing. I think another concern would be if they wanted to do some on the other boinc programs and some rosetta, how to do the time sharing?
Same way you'd do it if you wanted to crunch some of the time on Folding at home. Split the time however you want. Turn on BOINC sun,tues,thurs, Rosy the other days, or sun-wes on one and thurs-sat on the other..many options. Or run them together with the cpu limits set to 50% on each..
Thanks for your time,
Movieman
____________
Although this thread is way off topic now, I want to reply to this. The idea behind BOINC is excellent - rather than every lab having to re-invent the wheel in order to set up a DC project there is a ready made, free DC platform available. If it weren't for BOINC, Rosetta@home and the other BOINC projects would either not exist, or would have been a huge drain on resources to set up and maintain. I agree that BOINC isn't perfect, but we are seeing regular improvements. It can only help the small projects tap the huge (and growing) computer power that DC offers.
Let the scientists get on with the science...
____________
Although this thread is way off topic now, I want to reply to this. The idea behind BOINC is excellent - rather than every lab having to re-invent the wheel in order to set up a DC project there is a ready made, free DC platform available. If it weren't for BOINC, Rosetta@home and the other BOINC projects would either not exist, or would have been a huge drain on resources to set up and maintain. I agree that BOINC isn't perfect, but we are seeing regular improvements. It can only help the small projects tap the huge (and growing) computer power that DC offers.
Let the scientists get on with the science...
You have some good points and I agree, the idea behind boinc is excellent, it's the implementation that is bad. Anything that uses a artifical benchmark instead of the actual work done by the machine is a mistake. So it may be a platform but it doesn't accomplish what is needed from the platform except in an artificial way and badly at that.
If it was so good, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
To address your point of some of the projects not existing with out something like BOINC, I won't disagree, but we're talking unknown start-ups and Rosetta at this stage of the game certainly isn't in that category. Maybe BOINC or something like it is usefull to get projects off the ground until they have a large enough following and financial backing but that time has passed for Rosetta.I think Rosetta is out of the childhood stage and time to spread her winds and fly as an adult on her own.
Thanks for your time,
Movieman
____________
ID: 22262 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/
Jose Joined: Mar 28 06 Posts: 820 ID: 69098 Credit: 48,297 RAC: 0
Now that I'd love to see. Infact I would love to see ALL teams go head-to-head with 100% resources on rosetta.
regardless of which team wins, we all know who the big winner would be; ROSETTA! We just might reach that 150 tera-flop goal.
I say "Let the race begin"!
Let the race beging!!!!!!!!!!! YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That is a rumble I would like to see. Yes the winner would be Rosetta.
BTW it could be a lot of fun too.. Challenges, taunts, team mascots, cheerleaders ( I would like to bring out my Braveheart costume and start practicing my Freeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedoooooom shout .)
mmciastro wrote:
Gosh, I hope I shrunk the pic enough.
If you save the image in .png format instead of .jpg and use indexed color palette optimized for internet the file would be even lot smaller. Also you could provide just link to the image and not use the img tags, but url tags.
XS_Vietnam_Soldiers wrote:
I think Rosetta is out of the childhood stage and time to spread her winds and fly as an adult on her own.
Thanks for your time,
Movieman
I disagree. BOINC is the best thing ever happened to distributed computing. It's like one stop shopping mall for new people interested in scientific DC projects. Every time one of the projects gets promoted on the media and new people come to see what's this all about they see the whole list of projects available and might get interested in other projects too. Projects not under BOINC (like folding at home) will likely miss this free advertising.
There are estimated 700 million PCs worldwide. It's a huge potential.
Jose Joined: Mar 28 06 Posts: 820 ID: 69098 Credit: 48,297 RAC: 0
XS_Vietnam_Soldiers wrote:
I think Rosetta is out of the childhood stage and time to spread her winds and fly as an adult on her own.
Thanks for your time,
Movieman
I disagree. BOINC is the best thing ever happened to distributed computing. It's like one stop shopping mall for new people interested in scientific DC projects. Every time one of the projects gets promoted on the media and new people come to see what's this all about they see the whole list of projects available and might get interested in other projects too. Projects not under BOINC (like folding at home) will likely miss this free advertising.
There are estimated 700 million PCs worldwide. It's a huge potential.
Boinc open source is the reason whe are having all the issues here. Also it is the origin of the basic misconception that all DC projects are comparable and can be fit into an uniform results/credit cross referenceable standard.
Boinc open source is the reason whe are having all the issues here. Also it is the origin of the basic misconception that all DC projects are comparable and can be fit into an uniform results/credit cross referenceable standard.
I think the fact that it's open source is great, with the exception of the benchmark which is the root of the discontent. Fortunately this isn't going to be open source for much longer on Rosetta :D
Whether it's possible to award the same type of credits between different types of projects - I think it is possible, assuming all projects are CPU intensive, but it certainly isn't that way at the moment and needs some thought and work.
____________
XS_Vietnam_Soldiers wrote:
I think Rosetta is out of the childhood stage and time to spread her winds and fly as an adult on her own.
Thanks for your time,
Movieman
I disagree. BOINC is the best thing ever happened to distributed computing. It's like one stop shopping mall for new people interested in scientific DC projects. Every time one of the projects gets promoted on the media and new people come to see what's this all about they see the whole list of projects available and might get interested in other projects too. Projects not under BOINC (like folding at home) will likely miss this free advertising.
There are estimated 700 million PCs worldwide. It's a huge potential.
Actually the orginal SETI is the best thing ever to happen to distributed computing, at least in my opinion.
Your right that when new people go to BOINC's website they do see a list of projects that are available and yes, they might get interested in other projects also. What we disagree on is that the BOINC website will be the only one that people will go to. A simple google search by the DC n00b will bring up other options. Your right, projects not under BOINC will likely miss this free advertising so by that logic how do you account for the HUGE amount of people that DO run Folding at home? Last time I looked they were doing pretty good for themselves. Why? If you have a good product with good goals, people will find you. Just like a good restraunt, word of mouth will do your advertising for you.
I'll take your word on the 700 million PC's worldwide, but if that number includes every P1 and AMD K6 still in existance it gives a false impression of the computing power available to DC projects.
I suspect if you were able to do a count of the PC's that are:
1)online
2)available,IE: Not government,or private business
3)usefull for more than a boat moring for a very small boat.
IE: a modern computer of at least P4-2000 or it's AMD equal.
So lets guess that 700 million number is closer to what?
I can't even guess, not even enough info to make an educated guess but we can say that it's substantially less than 700 million.
I'm not trying to be picky on this one point just trying to show that commonly accepted numbers can be misleading when you go to actually use that figure for anything in the real world.
Thanks for your time,
Movieman
____________
My apologies to NJKID32 - it is just when I see someone (as shown by their stats) that has not crunched or someone that by stats appears they have not invested anything into the project stating it is ok by them to zero out the credits and start over – it gets me worked up – I appreciate dedication to projects, and passionate responses show that dedication. But like I mentioned – I was unaware of his machines crunching on a different account, shows my newness to this project. I have on recently started crunching Rosetta after coming here from SETI.
As a team to team head on challenge it would be interesting to see - but since most of my team are dedicated SETI crunchers I don’t think it will happen. But as it stands – our two teams are nearly neck and neck for total BOINC daily credits – and many of our big power crunchers like Lazy and Larry have shut down most of their crunchers for the summer, when we were going full bore with SETI our top 5 crunchers alone were generating 400,000 credits a day. And I am not in those top 5, I am just a small fish in a big pond when it comes to SETI.USA.
I have on order 2 Kentsfield crunchers and 2 more Conroe’s, as well as a couple of the good ole standby boxes Pent D 950’s. I try to 3 or 4 crunchers a month as I find room to put them. My basement is getting kind of crowded nowdays, and my power bill is nearing the $1500 US a month mark due to the power consumption of the crunchers and air conditioning required.
However, I don’t think that stop using BOINC is a good idea, I like the idea of being able to crunch other projects that interest me and being able to manage them all from a single interface.
The fix would be to just correct the way credits are granted – correct it if necessary to be comaparible and compatible with the other BOINC DC projects. This can not be rocket science, and should not be that difficult. I.e. if E@H grants 1 credit for one FLOP(I am not sure of the calculation here) – so should Rosetta, so should SETI, so should Chess or any of the other projects out there.
About 2.5 years ago I was doing Folding@Home and was not impressed. Back then I was still doing classic seti and it was a pain in the ass to be shutting down one project to let the other run and then doing it again and again. Finally I just said to hell with folding. Now that I run several projucts under Boinc for the last 2 years I would not even consider running a project if it did not run under Boinc. And I don't give a damn about credits, they are not good for anything in the material world. But I do like to see the increase in credits because it allows me to see that I'm doing valid work. I will never understand why anyone would get so worked up over these bloody credits, they are just numbers!!!
____________
98SE XP2500+ @ 2.1GHz Boinc v5.8.8
And God said"Let there be light."But then the program crashed because he was trying to access the 'light' property of a NULL universe pointer.
ID: 22288 | Rating: 2 | rate:
/
Keith Akins Joined: Oct 22 05 Posts: 176 ID: 6022 Credit: 71,779 RAC: 0
Credits to DC projects are like points in a video game. Sure, you can't spend either one and have no real value.
But, take the point systems out of video games and see what happens to the market. The same could be said about DC projects. Here on Rosetta were not only in a sort of points race, but the race itself lends itself to something far more valuable than a victory in a video game.
It would be interesting if a study group were allowed by a given arcade to go in a yank out and disable all scoreboards from all machines for one day and see how customers respond.
____________
Kevint, I apologize as well. I lost my temper and I dont like to do that... May I ask where your getting a kentsfield? Cuz as you prolly know they wont hit retail for another year or so.
____________
ID: 22294 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/
Jose Joined: Mar 28 06 Posts: 820 ID: 69098 Credit: 48,297 RAC: 0
Credits to DC projects are like points in a video game. Sure, you can't spend either one and have no real value.
But, take the point systems out of video games and see what happens to the market. The same could be said about DC projects. Here on Rosetta were not only in a sort of points race, but the race itself lends itself to something far more valuable than a victory in a video game.
It would be interesting if a study group were allowed by a given arcade to go in a yank out and disable all scoreboards from all machines for one day and see how customers respond.
I am glad you two (Keith and Kid) are cooling down a bit to realize that what binds us here at Rosetta is more than the freaking credits . Lets face the dedication and commitment of most if not all of the pople to this Project is cult-like :) . Show me a p[roject where in the middle of a major heat wave people responded and crunched more when asked.
Credits to DC projects are like points in a video game. Sure, you can't spend either one and have no real value.
But, take the point systems out of video games and see what happens to the market. The same could be said about DC projects. Here on Rosetta were not only in a sort of points race, but the race itself lends itself to something far more valuable than a victory in a video game.
It would be interesting if a study group were allowed by a given arcade to go in a yank out and disable all scoreboards from all machines for one day and see how customers respond.
WELL SAID - I have been trying to figure out a way to put the need for credits in words -
Perfectly said !
Kevint, I apologize as well. I lost my temper and I dont like to do that... May I ask where your getting a kentsfield? Cuz as you prolly know they wont hit retail for another year or so.
I still have a few connections at intel and other places, in another lifetime I was a serious techno geek.
Problem is, I am going to have to run it on an intel MB.
Kevint, I apologize as well. I lost my temper and I dont like to do that... May I ask where your getting a kentsfield? Cuz as you prolly know they wont hit retail for another year or so.
I still have a few connections at intel and other places, in another lifetime I was a serious techno geek.
Problem is, I am going to have to run it on an intel MB.
Kevin: Stop in at XtremeSystems forum. We can make your move into Kentsfield a lot easier..<BG> www.XtremeSystems.com
Boards for Kentsfields:
Intel Bad AXE..Get at least ver 3.04<-Known working
Asus P5W DH Deluxe<-Known working, but can be finicky
GIGABYTE DS3<-Conroe only so far
Thanks for your time,
Movieman
____________
ID: 22306 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/
Jose Joined: Mar 28 06 Posts: 820 ID: 69098 Credit: 48,297 RAC: 0
Kevint, I apologize as well. I lost my temper and I dont like to do that... May I ask where your getting a kentsfield? Cuz as you prolly know they wont hit retail for another year or so.
I still have a few connections at intel and other places, in another lifetime I was a serious techno geek.
Problem is, I am going to have to run it on an intel MB.
EEEck an Intel mb for a Kentfield. I can feel the pain :(
Kevint, I apologize as well. I lost my temper and I dont like to do that... May I ask where your getting a kentsfield? Cuz as you prolly know they wont hit retail for another year or so.
Problem is, I am going to have to run it on an intel MB.
EEEck an Intel mb for a Kentfield. I can feel the pain :(
Yep, that is about the only way I could get Intel to release them to me - but it does not mean that I have to leave it that way after I get them in. - know what I mean, nudge nudge, wink wink...
After doing some WU's over @ the Ralph Project if this is going to be the New Wave Credit System I don't think theres going to be very many takers.
I have yet to get over 8 Credits for 1 WU processing them @ 1 hour Preferences with a P4 3.2 Ghz CPU PC, some were as low as 2 Credits. Yet I see other People with 1.8 Ghz CPU PC's getting 40 & 50 Credit's Per hour.
If this is what is called equalizing the Credits among the Participants I can Live without it ... 0_o
After doing some WU's over @ the Ralph Project if this is going to be the New Wave Credit System I don't think theres going to be very many takers.
I have yet to get over 8 Credits for 1 WU processing them @ 1 hour Preferences with a P4 3.2 Ghz CPU PC, some were as low as 2 Credits. Yet I see other People with 1.8 Ghz CPU PC's getting 40 & 50 Credit's Per hour.
As has been explained many times, the 2 credits per model on RALPH is for testing only. When the system is moved to Rosetta, a slow WU will get a lot more than 2 credits per model, while a fast WU will get less. Thus, the number of credits per hour that a given machine will get won't depend on the type of WU.
ID: 22348 | Rating: 2 | rate:
/
Jose Joined: Mar 28 06 Posts: 820 ID: 69098 Credit: 48,297 RAC: 0
Kevint, I apologize as well. I lost my temper and I dont like to do that... May I ask where your getting a kentsfield? Cuz as you prolly know they wont hit retail for another year or so.
Problem is, I am going to have to run it on an intel MB.
EEEck an Intel mb for a Kentfield. I can feel the pain :(
Yep, that is about the only way I could get Intel to release them to me - but it does not mean that I have to leave it that way after I get them in. - know what I mean, nudge nudge, wink wink...
Crunch3rs source code for 5.5.0 is available if you know where to look.
It's basically just the 5.5.0 code compiled with Intel & Micorosoft stuff
blah de blah blah
as a side, I have to stop a few of my computers now :-(
but that's because I've eventually moved into my house which means I now can use the broadband I've been paying for for 10 months <grrr> :-)
So I can click Ralph back on the ones that are still running, though they've been down clocked to keep them quite for now.
But if anyone is really bothered about the credit system, get your arse over to [url=
http://ralph.bakerlab.org/]Ralph[/url], give your ideas and feedback there!
I agree with the need to change the credit granting process. Change it going forward. If you change it going backwards, then I believe many will leave. This isn't the only worthy DC project. I've run UD, D2OL, and FaD. And now Rosetta. I've put alot of my own resources into these projects, both in terms of hardware expenditures and $$ for power. To go and negate credit based on past crunching is xtremely distasteful to me. If that is what my contributions to this project get me, I would have to seriously reconsider my up-til-now loyalty to this project, as much as I like it and respect the science being done.
Also, credit based on what system is being reported instead of the amount of actual work being done is, in my opinion, going down the wrong road. I guarantee you, my x2 3800+, overclocked, is doing more work than a system with the same processor. The system that puts out more work should get more credit.
____________
Personally, I dont care if they back date, zero, parallel or archive. But I know many others vehemently oppose this idea. If it's implemented, it will likely be very expensive in terms of human/volunteer capital if recent history is any indicator.
Secondarily, I'm frankly quite surprised that this system is going to be deployed without any prior advisement from the project administators detailing precisely the changes made, those still being considered, and in their best estimation how we, the users, and our machines and credits will be affected. Forgive me if such coherent and unadulterated correspondence exists, but if it does, I cant find it, and its not for the lack of looking. In my opinion, this effort falls far short of my expectations established by past precendent and represents a most unwelcome departure from the 'norm'.
What I'm concerned about is this:
If for the sake of argument, my DX3600 machine can do twice the work in a given timeframe than Jimmy Jones Dell P4-2000 will I be receiving twice the points that he does for the same timeframe? IE: Is this new system all based on work done?
I'd also like to comment on the idea of going back to February and changing all the point values.
I'm against it and for the following reasons:
The XS team busted their backsides for this project to a degree that I really can't describe here and to have that effort negated would leave a very bad taste in my teams mouth.
I usually speak for myself when posting here but in this post I'm speaking as the co-captain of the team and very sure that I speak for all 600 of them in this regard.
I've said this before but it bears repeating: We are a partnership with Rosetta and to deny that is avoiding reality.We( and I mean all the participants not just XS) contribute our time, machinery and money to this project just as much as if we wrote a check to Baker Labs. All that we ask back for this is courtesy, some communication, fair play, and an understanding that we are in this WITH you as a partner not just a faceless entity that turns on a machine for you daily. The competitions may not be valuable from where you sit, but I assure you that they are the prime reason that you have as much computational power devoted to this project as you currently have.
These competitions are the life blood of any DC project. The science is the main motivator but the competitions make this happen on this scale.
Think of us as a friend that is here to help you and we will both profit by this partnership.
Thanks for your time,
Movieman
____________
ID: 22516 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/
Jose Joined: Mar 28 06 Posts: 820 ID: 69098 Credit: 48,297 RAC: 0
FYI, it's being discussed on the Ralph forum that backdating the current credits so they reflect the new system is indeed a possibility.
Back Dating is an ex post facto aplication of the new credit system. Ex post fact applications of any rule is unfair as well as counter productive. I doubt our leaders at Rosetta @ Home will go this route: they promised fairness and I doubt they will complicate their very complicated lifes trying to deal with what would be the firestorm that will come from backdating.
So I expect a fair, straight forward system to be installed tommprrow. And Yes, I expect some glitches will show up and that they will be fixed.
If for the sake of argument, my DX3600 machine can do twice the work in a given timeframe than Jimmy Jones Dell P4-2000 will I be receiving twice the points that he does for the same timeframe? IE: Is this new system all based on work done?
Movieman: Getting a certain number of credits per model (the credit/model changes with each major WU) means that if you produce twice the models in a certain WU in the same time as another machine running the same certain WU, that you'll get twice the credits.
As for your comments on rescoring back to February - dekim was asking for feedback on the Ralph@Home forums. (See Jose's link.)
If for the sake of argument, my DX3600 machine can do twice the work in a given timeframe than Jimmy Jones Dell P4-2000 will I be receiving twice the points that he does for the same timeframe? IE: Is this new system all based on work done?
Movieman: Getting a certain number of credits per model (the credit/model changes with each major WU) means that if you produce twice the models in a certain WU in the same time as another machine running the same certain WU, that you'll get twice the credits.
As for your comments on rescoring back to February - dekim was asking for feedback on the Ralph@Home forums. (See Jose's link.)
Thanks for the info. I'm all for a work related credit system as I've been saying for months. This benchmark deal is a joke and a bad one.
Yes, caught the link and read it but after I'd posted here.
Thanks for your time,
Movieman
____________
The XS team busted their backsides for this project to a degree that I really can't describe here and to have that effort negated would leave a very bad taste in my teams mouth.
Before anyone reads this and heads over there in a rage - nobody proposed "negating" it. They are proposing that all historical credit back to February reflect the new system - credits based on work done. *Huge* difference, and I hope everyone understands that. They have a more accurate measuring stick now, and have the opportunity to adjust credit back 6 months so it reflects how much work you did for the project.
XS will still be way out front, potentially more than they are now depending on how many people fluffed their stats.
If you have any thoughts, please head over to the Ralph forum and post them there.
Getting a certain number of credits per model (the credit/model changes with each major WU) means that if you produce twice the models in a certain WU in the same time as another machine running the same certain WU, that you'll get twice the credits.
That's the whole point. I know my boxes can't compete - ie. can't produce the same amount of work - with any of the big crunchers, but at least now if I can produce 12 models in an hour I will get the same amount of credits as someone who produces 12 models in 10 minutes. They will get 6 times the credit that I get in an hour but that is only fair as they will be producing 6 times the work.
____________ Free Tibet/ Tibet Libre Team Forum
Thanks for the info. I'm all for a work related credit system as I've been saying for months. This benchmark deal is a joke and a bad one.
Yes, caught the link and read it but after I'd posted here.
Thanks for your time,
Movieman
Hi Movieman / Scott (DCManiak)
What's your thoughts on the suggestion for the credits being backdated using the new work-done basis so they're consistent as far back as possible?
Whether the credits are back-dated or not, I think the competition will be more intense with the new credit system which can only be a good thing...
____________
Thanks for the info. I'm all for a work related credit system as I've been saying for months. This benchmark deal is a joke and a bad one.
Yes, caught the link and read it but after I'd posted here.
Thanks for your time,
Movieman
Hi Movieman
What's your thoughts on the suggestion for the credits being backdated using the new work-done basis so they're consistent as far back as possible?
Whether the credits are back-dated or not, I think the competition will be more intense with the new credit system which can only be a good thing...
I don't like the idea of the work being back dated.
I don't want to say any more until I've seen what the new system will be.
Anything I can add will only cause more flaming in this forum and there's been enough of that already. Let's just say that I have my feelings and they are very strong.
Thanks for your time,
Movieman
____________
Backdating sounds like a good way to penalize those who run/ran optimized BOINC core clients - but that also sounds like a good way to burn this forum and the project to the ground.
Bad idea.
____________
Proudly Banned from Predictator@Home and now Cosmology@home as well. Added SETI to the list today. Temporary ban only - so need to work harder :)
Agreed, lets do it just from scratch ;)
People please, don't complain when the battle becomes a fair one.
I'm a stats addicted person, but prefer a fair battle above extravagant credits from my client.
But at the end we will beat XS (just poking arround ;) )
____________
ID: 22970 | Rating: 1 | rate:
/
Jose Joined: Mar 28 06 Posts: 820 ID: 69098 Credit: 48,297 RAC: 0
The XS team busted their backsides for this project to a degree that I really can't describe here and to have that effort negated would leave a very bad taste in my teams mouth.
Before anyone reads this and heads over there in a rage - nobody proposed "negating" it. They are proposing that all historical credit back to February reflect the new system - credits based on work done. *Huge* difference, and I hope everyone understands that. They have a more accurate measuring stick now, and have the opportunity to adjust credit back 6 months so it reflects how much work you did for the project.
XS will still be way out front, potentially more than they are now depending on how many people fluffed their stats.
If you have any thoughts, please head over to the Ralph forum and post them there.
Here we go again: The cheat accusation. This is getting tired.
I will state it simply: Backdating is changing the rules after the fact. Ex post facto application of any new rules is unfair and it will create a backlash against the project that will make the SETI Brouhaha look like children at play. This is not a threat it is a statement of fact.
Want to negate the old credits for the reasons that moves you: jealousy , or what ever moves you...be open about it. Ask for a freeze the credits levels at the levels there are and ask for start with a Rosetta Phase II with the new credits . And then watch as the top teams remain the top teams and you will find more excuse to whine and rant against them.
Stop the slander of the top teams. Enough is enough.
ID: 22980 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/
Jose Joined: Mar 28 06 Posts: 820 ID: 69098 Credit: 48,297 RAC: 0
Ok everybody chant -
No Back dating, no back dating, no back dating.
Bad idea.
Agreed, lets do it just from scratch ;)
People please, don't complain when the battle becomes a fair one.
I'm a stats addicted person, but prefer a fair battle above extravagant credits from my client.
But at the end we will beat XS (just poking arround ;) )
The last time the cows challenged XtremeSystems they ended up in our BBQ Grills. :P
ID: 22981 | Rating: 0 | rate:
/
Jose Joined: Mar 28 06 Posts: 820 ID: 69098 Credit: 48,297 RAC: 0
Thanks for the info. I'm all for a work related credit system as I've been saying for months. This benchmark deal is a joke and a bad one.
Yes, caught the link and read it but after I'd posted here.
Thanks for your time,
Movieman
Hi Movieman / Scott (DCManiak)
What's your thoughts on the suggestion for the credits being backdated using the new work-done basis so they're consistent as far back as possible?
Whether the credits are back-dated or not, I think the competition will be more intense with the new credit system which can only be a good thing...
The issue is not going to be one of competition but, of trying to pick up the pieces. The train wreck that will happen should credits be backdated will rival the Titanic, The Hindenburgh and the Exxon Valdez in uglinness.
I certainly don't mean any slander agaisnt any of the top teams, or anyone else. I'm not interested in points, but I'd like to see a measure of work done. Its new, accurate information that hasn't been available before and I don't see why some people are adamant that this information should be suppressed.
____________
ID: 22989 | Rating: 3 | rate:
/
Jose Joined: Mar 28 06 Posts: 820 ID: 69098 Credit: 48,297 RAC: 0
I certainly don't mean any slander agaisnt any of the top teams, or anyone else. I'm not interested in points, but I'd like to see a measure of work done. Its new, accurate information that hasn't been available before and I don't see why some people are adamant that this information should be suppressed.
You use of words is counter to your stated intentions. In this charged enviroment words like "fluff" will generate very negative reactions.
It is not the reality of the new information , it is some of the intended use and some the comments that have been attached to them by some people including the absurdity and unfairness of back dating credits that is being objected.
Its new, accurate information that hasn't been available before and I don't see why some people are adamant that this information should be suppressed.
I don`t think it`s true that people want it suppressed. I think it is still at the test stage and the credits do look kind of radical and not in keeping with what is expected. XS posted his scores on the same machine, with roughly the same time frames per wu, the scores were a lot different to each other this appears wrong to most and certainly radical from anything before. People are questioning the fairness of this system just as people questioned the fairness of using 5.5 (excuse the profanity).
It is Beta, it isn`t correct yet. No one I have seen has blatantly said that they hate the new system, questions are being asked that`s all.
____________
Not all Czech`s bounce but I`d like to try with Barbar ;-)
I don`t think it`s true that people want it suppressed. I think it is still at the test stage and the credits do look kind of radical and not in keeping with what is expected. XS posted his scores on the same machine, with roughly the same time frames per wu, the scores were a lot different to each other this appears wrong to most and certainly radical from anything before. People are questioning the fairness of this system just as people questioned the fairness of using 5.5 (excuse the profanity).
It is Beta, it isn`t correct yet. No one I have seen has blatantly said that they hate the new system, questions are being asked that`s all.
I agree - it definitely needs further testing, but it's opposition to it's release I can't understand. I agree with everything in your post though ;)
____________
If we think about it in terms of the people behind the credits, behind the machines it easier to see why.
It is a major change to them, like moving home, like having the wife go and buy a complete new wardrobe for you. It is trepidation, fear whatever you want to call it. This is challenging their place in a heirachy if you like to look at it that way.
It`s like your company coming up with a new pay structure but it`s complex and hasn`t been sorted out yet and all the information hadn`t been relayed to you yet as to what exactly you will get in proportion to others.
It`s natural human behaviour, unfortunately fear of an unknown can bring hostility and what is happening is instead of being calming people are shouting " Grow up, there`s nothing to fear".
Crunching is very important to them and their places are hard fought for with many dollars spent. It is the fact they are so dedicated to the project that is causing the arguments as the other side is too. What I feel has happened here is the people, the persona has not been taken into account.
____________
Not all Czech`s bounce but I`d like to try with Barbar ;-)
