Jose,
Face it dude ...Rosetta CHOSE to be part of the Boinc community and not run stand alone. Any project choosing to be part of Boinc should try to follow some sort of uniformity in credit allocation whether YOU like it or not. Your rants will not change that and YOU can't impose your will on the project or its members.

Dude get it into your thick skull. I am not trying to impose my will on anyone . I am just pointing to the obvious fact that those of you that worship at the BOINC altar do not seem to get:

1-The open source nature of BOINC makes it vulnerable to tampeering. So any issues of tampering have to be dealt at that level first.

2- The developers at Rosetta knew about and allowed the use optimized clients. So their use was not banned and thus it is legit. Tarring everyone that used as them as cheats is unfair and is not true.

3- The attempts to impose multiple Quorums at Rosetta (which was the first salvo of this battle) is not practical. It is a waste of computing ressources as the structures of the work units we are crunching are known and all waht we are doing is fine tunning the Rosetta software.

4- The issue is credits : BOINC Credits . Add to that that this fight happened in another forum..the same people started using the word cheat and everything degenerated from there. So when the "cheating "complainers started here, we knew what was comming: It was going to be the SETI revisited.

But why should I tell you that? By your credits it is obvious where your project loyalty/priorities lie and cerratinly they dont lie with Rosetta.

It certainly sounds like you are trying to impose your will on others.

What would you call artificially increasing credit requests if not cheating?

Quorums larger than one is one way to curb cheating on credits. Fixed credit per result (if the results have predictable run times) is another.

---

BOINC WIKI

Jose, please edit your message. . you have a good post without calling someone thick skulled for disagreeing with your 'obvious fact'.

---

I'll backtrack a bit and clarify.

When I said I don't believe XS are truly doing 5 TeraFLOPS per day what I really meant and what I should have said is that I don't believe XS are truly doing 500,000+ credits worth of work per day. Now 500,000 credits per day = 5 TeraFLOPS per day.

Reason I'm backtracking is that BOINC's idea of a TeraFLOP is rather far removed from reality. At perfect efficiency, 625 2GHz Athlons would be doing 5 TeraFLOPS. I believe XS are fielding more power than that, no matter what it's form. Thus I retract the TeraFLOP statement in proper terms.

With regards to not believing that XS are truly producing a sustained 500,000 credits per day, a glance at a selection of random computers in the XS team shows that the granted work credit (the new value which should be more accurate) and the granted credit values differ wildly. I've seen between 25 and 300% of the granted work credit being claimed. Does that make sense? I'm trying to remain easy to follow.

What that means is that I reckon somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of all XS's claimed credit is overclaim. Given the amount of power you truly have, I expect a true RAC, based on work done and not on the claimed credit given by optimised clients, to be somewhere in the region of 250,000. Simply because of the huge over-inflation given by optimised clients.

In different terms, if all of XS was to move to another project, say LHC for example, then the RAC of XS would drop dramatically.

Consider XS having a BOINC overall RAC of ~530,000 versus SETI.Germany having an RAC of ~500,000. They have 2037 users with credit this week, according to BOINCstat.com. XS in contrast have 178 users with credit this week, also according to BOINCstats.com. The numbers on Rosetta just do not stack up. In fairness, I'm not singling XS out here. I believe all the stats of anyone using optimised clients are wrong. I accept XS are doing three times as much work as the Dutch Power Cows etc. Proportionally on Rosetta, your stats are correct. Across BOINC, using credits, they're way out.

****

My ultimate reason for wanting to see credit changes backdated is that Rosetta is tearing apart the BOINC credit model. It wasn't perfect before, not by a long shot, but it was vaguely equivalent across projects. Rosetta awards far far more credit for the work done than any other project. I object to that.

How to say it politely:

Again it is the freakin BOINC uniformity mantra thing!!!!

Who cares about BOINC?

IT is the open source foolishness in BOINC that has opened the whole can of worms to start with. THEY, their open source, their ridiculous way of benchmarking, their allowing for easy ways of interfering with the benchamrks is the root source of all problems.

That and the freaking idea of the Boinc Purists that all projects must be run as if produced by a cookie cutter combined with their propensity of using the fighting word cheat.

Had the issue started here, I would have been in more forgiving mood .
But ,this is an old problem and has ben lived through in other projects and drat what a coincidence : the fights are allways started by the same people , arguing the BOINC Purist credo and spouting the same "the others are cheaters" argument. The last project was SETI. That can be veryfied

Do not compare member numbers , compare computers..one of our membres runs more than 150...all on Rosetta 24/7

As to LHC...bad choice of project.... That Freaking project is out of work.
For your information our team there has only 2 active members of a total of 3. Why dont get the administartor there to have new work available and maybe we can show there what a team of dedicated crunchers can do?

See in your obsession with optimized clients you forget the effect of overclocking and some Conroes, Kentfields and even power macs that were running 24/7 Rosetta. Rosetta @ Home was not a partime hobby for the XtremeSystems as it is for those Boinc Purists that Bash us. For our Rosetta Team it was a full time job. A job we were gladly to do.

It was that dedication that made many whinners dislike us. So they went to the old tricks and used the cheat word.

Bactrack all you want. That doesnt change the fact you are one of those that used the concept cheater very looslely. A look at your Rosetta Rac says it all.

It was the intent of the BOINC developers from the beginning that credit could be compared across projects, hence the "BOINC mantra" about credits. It is still the intent of the BOINC developers that the credit be comparable across projects. Yes, the benchmarks were not perfect, but people should at least try to make the credits even across projects for a specific computer. The optimized clients were created to address a specific perceived problem with credits being under requested for a couple of reasons the main reason of which does not apply to Rosetta.

I am not going to backtrack. Widespread cheating on credits will harm the project as people who do not believe in cheating leave the project to the minority that are cheaters. In S@H classic some of the credits went so far as to cheat on the science as well (nothing like returning the same answer for all tasks), none of the credit problems here rise to quite that level.

My take is the fairest thing to do once the kinks are all worked out of the new credit granting method is to back date it as far as possible.

Ah the list of BoincSynergy actors starts growing.

I am also one of the BOINC volunteer developers.

---

BOINC WIKI

Jose, please edit your message. . you have a good post without calling someone thick skulled for disagreeing with your 'obvious fact'.

Ethan if you want to ban me do so. When I see you telling the same thing at the people that have slandered my teamates as cheats and the one that just attacked me now , I will edit my post.,


It has been the collective silence of the developers and moderators when the cheating accusations started , when the slandering by the Seti people started that has yielded this . Ethan, in your silence and now in your selective moderating , you and the otrher moteratos have taken sides. Willingly or not you have.

Ban if you wish; You allowed me and me teamates to be called cheats. What else can I expect.

don't envy your position today Ethan! ;)

Jose - you seem to have taken this as a personal battle to stand up for team XS on all fronts. I don't think I've seen any attacks on any team specifically - if there are they don't need pointing out. I'm sure XS are big enough to handle it! I'm really not trying to add fuel to the fire - I think quite a few people needs to take a few days off from posting about anything to do with credits, teams etc as it's not getting anyone anywhere.

---

Jose,
Face it dude ...Rosetta CHOSE to be part of the Boinc community and not run stand alone. Any project choosing to be part of Boinc should try to follow some sort of uniformity in credit allocation whether YOU like it or not. Your rants will not change that and YOU can't impose your will on the project or its members.

Dude get it into your thick skull. I am not trying to impose my will on anyone . I am just pointing to the obvious fact that those of you that worship at the BOINC altar do not seem to get:

1-The open source nature of BOINC makes it vulnerable to tampeering. So any issues of tampering have to be dealt at that level first.

2- The developers at Rosetta knew about and allowed the use optimized clients. So their use was not banned and thus it is legit. Tarring everyone that used as them as cheats is unfair and is not true.

3- The attempts to impose multiple Quorums at Rosetta (which was the first salvo of this battle) is not practical. It is a waste of computing ressources as the structures of the work units we are crunching are known and all waht we are doing is fine tunning the Rosetta software.

4- The issue is credits : BOINC Credits . Add to that that this fight happened in another forum..the same people started using the word cheat and everything degenerated from there. So when the "cheating "complainers started here, we knew what was comming: It was going to be the SETI revisited.

But why should I tell you that? By your credits it is obvious where your project loyalty/priorities lie and cerratinly they dont lie with Rosetta.

It certainly sounds like you are trying to impose your will on others.

What would you call artificially increasing credit requests if not cheating?

Quorums larger than one is one way to curb cheating on credits. Fixed credit per result (if the results have predictable run times) is another.

Man If I had my way:

1- No allowing for benchmarks to be reset at the will of the participants.
2- Random change of the benchmark runs
3- Close source, heavy encription of the credit granting code.
4- A code that will reward time crunched ( as time is the ressource we contribute) as well as work done.
5- A system that doesnt favor AMDS vs Intels or whatever over whatever. And that includes the anti Linux bias that are obvious in BOINC.
6- A rational way of determining the work credits: I think That was being talked about with some of the people in the other thread. I even showed whqt I believe could be done )If memory doenst fail me two or three people made good comments about the idea.)

Yes and I even proposeed a douzy...credits for the lower energy models. It took less than 2 minutes for that stroke of idiocy on my part to be shot down by clerarer minds.

Want to reason with me: that can be done. BUT even the slightest insinuation that I am a cheat or that I condone cheating is not the way to start a dialogue with me , all it will get you is my utter comptempt and my anger.

PS John :

From the begining the use of optimizers was known to the Rosetta Developers. They chose to accept them . Are you insinuating they allowed and encouraged cheating?

Latter edit> John: In case you did not read it: David Baker stated in a Post at XtremeSystems that there was not going to be backdating

don't envy your position today Ethan! ;)

Thanks.

Jose, from my perspective your post didn't need the attack.

I just started getting into this (what a way to start the weekend!) and don't have the ability to go through every thread. So I'm starting with new ones and yours was over the top. I asked you to change it since my only other option would be to delete it.

I'm heading home, be back in 90 minutes. Everyone, please consider what you're typing before you hit submit.

---

Jose,
Face it dude ...Rosetta CHOSE to be part of the Boinc community and not run stand alone. Any project choosing to be part of Boinc should try to follow some sort of uniformity in credit allocation whether YOU like it or not. Your rants will not change that and YOU can't impose your will on the project or its members.

Man, get it into your thick skull. I am not trying to impose my will on anyone . I am just pointing to the obvious fact that those of you that worship at the BOINC altar do not seem to get:

1-The open source nature of BOINC makes it vulnerable to tampeering. So any issues of tampering have to be dealt at that level first. Secure the credit granting parameters, close the source.

2- The developers at Rosetta knew about and allowed the use optimized clients. So their use was not banned and thus it is legit. Tarring everyone that used as them as cheats is unfair and is not true.

3- The attempts to impose multiple Quorums at Rosetta (which was the first salvo of this battle) is not practical. It is a waste of computing ressources as the structures of the work units we are crunching are known and all waht we are doing is fine tunning the Rosetta software.

4- The issue is credits : BOINC Credits . Add to that that this fight happened in another forum..the same people started using the word cheat and everything degenerated from there. So when the "cheating "complainers started here, we knew what was comming: It was going to be the SETI revisited.

But why should I tell you that? By your credits it is obvious where your project loyalty/priorities lie and cerratinly they dont lie with Rosetta.

Why are you SO stuck on this loyalty thing and priority issue....You act like you are better than anyone else here who doesn't do Rosetta exclusively..... I mean if it weren't for Boinc, I and possibly a majority of users wouldn't even be here. You should be grateful to Boinc for bringing the rest of us to the Rosetta table and helping your favorite dc project instead of bashing it at every chance you get.

and Ethan typically the name caller is showing thier lack of ability to make others agree with his ideas ...it just shows he is not a team player and will make others mistrust anything of intelligence he has to say in his tirades. So he can bash me and others all he likes it will only soften his position and I will not respond to his posts anymore as I see it will do nothing other than inflame him and further his belligerence.

---

Call me a cheat or one that tolerates cheating and you have started a fight with me plain and simple.

I got that a long time ago! Rise above it. I don't think there's anything new to say. Hopefully things will improve, probably more quickly if everyone that feels heated about it takes a break for a while (which is most people I think!).

---

Jose:

people that have slandered my teamates

I've been involved in discussions about the term "slander" in the past; and while one of the definitions at www.dictionary.com may fit - in legal terms, slander is spoken. Libel is the term for written lies.

The suggestions you've made for a new benchmark are still performed on the client's machine and are prone to end user tampering. Random benchmarking doesn't get around scripts setup to replace files that are replaced randomly. The recommendation for switching to credit/model was to eliminate all chance of end user tampering. A system could be reporting boinc benchmarks that are 1000 times what they should be getting; while increasing the time reported by only allowing one tick per second. Running 20 other tasks so that Rosetta only gets 10% of the cpu power.. and when it turns in a WU with 1 model - it gets credit for 1 model. Not the outrageous amount implied by running time at vast multiples of reality, or based on benchmarks that are vast multiples of reality. Having the model score based on standard windows boinc clients will end the non stop optimized client vs standard client wars that have been going on since about the time I got here.

Showing us the backdated credit total will prove the technique works; regardless of whether it's used on the boinc stats sites. (And according to at least one post by the Rosetta staff, it won't be.)

---

Jose, please edit your message. . you have a good post without calling someone thick skulled for disagreeing with your 'obvious fact'.

Ethan if you want to ban me do so. When I see you telling the same thing at the people that have slandered my teamates as cheats and the one that just attacked me now , I will edit my post.,


It has been the collective silence of the developers and moderators when the cheating accusations started , when the slandering by the Seti people started that has yielded this . Ethan, in your silence and now in your selective moderating , you and the otrher moteratos have taken sides. Willingly or not you have.

Ban if you wish; You allowed me and me teamates to be called cheats. What else can I expect.

I can think of a couple of sayins :
If the shoe fits.....
or
The truth hurts don't it....

This is not directed at you personally

---

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.

How to say it politely:

Again it is the freakin BOINC uniformity mantra thing!!!!

Who cares about BOINC?

IT is the open source foolishness in BOINC that has opened the whole can of worms to start with. THEY, their open source, their ridiculous way of benchmarking, their allowing for easy ways of interfering with the benchamrks is the root source of all problems.

That and the freaking idea of the Boinc Purists that all projects must be run as if produced by a cookie cutter combined with their propensity of using the fighting word cheat.

Lots of people care about BOINC, especially its developers. The whole purpose of BOINC was an easy-to-use, cross platform distributed computing system. It was intended to ensue fairness across all projects. If the Baker Lab don't want to fit in with BOINC then they should find their own backend. Otherwise, they should try and run it properly. I accept it's difficult which is why I won't jump on the staff and blame them, rather try and offer suggestions.

Had the issue started here, I would have been in more forgiving mood .
But ,this is an old problem and has ben lived through in other projects and drat what a coincidence : the fights are allways started by the same people , arguing the BOINC Purist credo and spouting the same "the others are cheaters" argument. The last project was SETI. That can be veryfied

Do not compare member numbers , compare computers..one of our membres runs more than 150...all on Rosetta 24/7

I know member numbers aren't everything, but they give an indication that something is amiss. Of course, you say it's 150, but since few XS members show their computers, that's a bit difficult to verify.

As to LHC...bad choice of project.... That Freaking project is out of work.
For your information our team there has only 2 active members of a total of 3. Why dont get the administartor there to have new work available and maybe we can show there what a team of dedicated crunchers can do?

It was a great choice of project. Reason for that is it uses a quorum and has never had an optimised science application released for it. That means that benchmarks and credit claims are not skewed and nobody needs to run optimised BOINC clients. It was nothing about current RAC, it was about ability to ever have such an RAC on a project that didn't simply grant the claimed credit.

SIMAP, Leiden Classical, Malaria Control... those are another few that would be equally good choices. SETI and Einstein are not due to the optimised clients and those projects now returning more credit per hour than previously. Climate Prediction and it's offshoots also wouldn't be good choices because they use a fixed credit system.

If XS can replicate their RAC on a project with a quorum I'll eat my words. But they can't.

See in your obsession with optimized clients you forget the effect of overclocking and some Conroes, Kentfields and even power macs that were running 24/7 Rosetta. Rosetta @ Home was not a partime hobby for the XtremeSystems as it is for those Boinc Purists that Bash us. For our Rosetta Team it was a full time job. A job we were gladly to do.

I don't think you're fully understanding the situation then. An overclocked computer will run work units faster and therefore does more work and does deserve more credit. Overclocked computers have higher BOINC benchmarks. They claim more credit and are granted more credit, because they still claim credit in line with the work they have done. Only optimised clients claim more credit than they have done. And anyone running 5.5.0, and that includes myself, is claiming a lot more credit than they really deserve.

It was that dedication that made many whinners dislike us. So they went to the old tricks and used the cheat word.

I haven't called XS cheats. I've been very clear about that. Using 5.5.0 isn't cheating because the admins never forbade it's use. They also never put anything in place to prevent extreme credit claims. XS is doing a lot more work than any other team, they are getting around three times the credit of the Dutch Power Cows because they are doing around three times the credit of the Dutch Power Cows. What I'm not happy with is the fact that XS is getting more credit than SETI.Germany are across all BOINC projects when SETI.Germany is actually doing a lot more real work. Rosetta's lack of prevention of overclaiming is causing this. I don't call it cheating, I call it unfair but the fault of the admins.

Bactrack all you want. That doesnt change the fact you are one of those that used the concept cheater very looslely. A look at your Rosetta Rac says it all.

My RAC is low because I refuse to fully support a project that I feel has a lot of changes to go through. My lack of support means I also won't be writing any front page articles on Ars Technica any time soon. A look at my RAC shows that I get a granted credit that is equal to, or very close to my granted work credit. And not, like some, a granted credit that is three times my granted work credit.

---

How to say it politely:

Again it is the freakin BOINC uniformity mantra thing!!!!

Who cares about BOINC?

IT is the open source foolishness in BOINC that has opened the whole can of worms to start with. THEY, their open source, their ridiculous way of benchmarking, their allowing for easy ways of interfering with the benchamrks is the root source of all problems.

That and the freaking idea of the Boinc Purists that all projects must be run as if produced by a cookie cutter combined with their propensity of using the fighting word cheat.

Lots of people care about BOINC, especially its developers. The whole purpose of BOINC was an easy-to-use, cross platform distributed computing system. It was intended to ensue fairness across all projects. If the Baker Lab don't want to fit in with BOINC then they should find their own backend. Otherwise, they should try and run it properly. I accept it's difficult which is why I won't jump on the staff and blame them, rather try and offer suggestions.

Had the issue started here, I would have been in more forgiving mood .
But ,this is an old problem and has ben lived through in other projects and drat what a coincidence : the fights are allways started by the same people , arguing the BOINC Purist credo and spouting the same "the others are cheaters" argument. The last project was SETI. That can be veryfied

Do not compare member numbers , compare computers..one of our membres runs more than 150...all on Rosetta 24/7

I know member numbers aren't everything, but they give an indication that something is amiss. Of course, you say it's 150, but since few XS members show their computers, that's a bit difficult to verify.

As to LHC...bad choice of project.... That Freaking project is out of work.
For your information our team there has only 2 active members of a total of 3. Why dont get the administartor there to have new work available and maybe we can show there what a team of dedicated crunchers can do?

It was a great choice of project. Reason for that is it uses a quorum and has never had an optimised science application released for it. That means that benchmarks and credit claims are not skewed and nobody needs to run optimised BOINC clients. It was nothing about current RAC, it was about ability to ever have such an RAC on a project that didn't simply grant the claimed credit.

SIMAP, Leiden Classical, Malaria Control... those are another few that would be equally good choices. SETI and Einstein are not due to the optimised clients and those projects now returning more credit per hour than previously. Climate Prediction and it's offshoots also wouldn't be good choices because they use a fixed credit system.

If XS can replicate their RAC on a project with a quorum I'll eat my words. But they can't.

See in your obsession with optimized clients you forget the effect of overclocking and some Conroes, Kentfields and even power macs that were running 24/7 Rosetta. Rosetta @ Home was not a partime hobby for the XtremeSystems as it is for those Boinc Purists that Bash us. For our Rosetta Team it was a full time job. A job we were gladly to do.

I don't think you're fully understanding the situation then. An overclocked computer will run work units faster and therefore does more work and does deserve more credit. Overclocked computers have higher BOINC benchmarks. They claim more credit and are granted more credit, because they still claim credit in line with the work they have done. Only optimised clients claim more credit than they have done. And anyone running 5.5.0, and that includes myself, is claiming a lot more credit than they really deserve.

It was that dedication that made many whinners dislike us. So they went to the old tricks and used the cheat word.

I haven't called XS cheats. I've been very clear about that. Using 5.5.0 isn't cheating because the admins never forbade it's use. They also never put anything in place to prevent extreme credit claims. XS is doing a lot more work than any other team, they are getting around three times the credit of the Dutch Power Cows because they are doing around three times the credit of the Dutch Power Cows. What I'm not happy with is the fact that XS is getting more credit than SETI.Germany are across all BOINC projects when SETI.Germany is actually doing a lot more real work. Rosetta's lack of prevention of overclaiming is causing this. I don't call it cheating, I call it unfair but the fault of the admins.

Bactrack all you want. That doesnt change the fact you are one of those that used the concept cheater very looslely. A look at your Rosetta Rac says it all.

My RAC is low because I refuse to fully support a project that I feel has a lot of changes to go through. My lack of support means I also won't be writing any front page articles on Ars Technica any time soon. A look at my RAC shows that I get a granted credit that is equal to, or very close to my granted work credit. And not, like some, a granted credit that is three times my granted work credit.

Leiden Classical another of the great Boinc Projects that have not allowed mew members in months and whose files get corrupted while its manager is enoying the sun at Curacao.

Jose,
Face it dude ...Rosetta CHOSE to be part of the Boinc community and not run stand alone. Any project choosing to be part of Boinc should try to follow some sort of uniformity in credit allocation whether YOU like it or not. Your rants will not change that and YOU can't impose your will on the project or its members.

Dude get it into your thick skull. I am not trying to impose my will on anyone . I am just pointing to the obvious fact that those of you that worship at the BOINC altar do not seem to get:

1-The open source nature of BOINC makes it vulnerable to tampeering. So any issues of tampering have to be dealt at that level first.

2- The developers at Rosetta knew about and allowed the use optimized clients. So their use was not banned and thus it is legit. Tarring everyone that used as them as cheats is unfair and is not true.

3- The attempts to impose multiple Quorums at Rosetta (which was the first salvo of this battle) is not practical. It is a waste of computing ressources as the structures of the work units we are crunching are known and all waht we are doing is fine tunning the Rosetta software.

4- The issue is credits : BOINC Credits . Add to that that this fight happened in another forum..the same people started using the word cheat and everything degenerated from there. So when the "cheating "complainers started here, we knew what was comming: It was going to be the SETI revisited.

But why should I tell you that? By your credits it is obvious where your project loyalty/priorities lie and cerratinly they dont lie with Rosetta.

It certainly sounds like you are trying to impose your will on others.

What would you call artificially increasing credit requests if not cheating?

Quorums larger than one is one way to curb cheating on credits. Fixed credit per result (if the results have predictable run times) is another.

Man If I had my way:

1- No allowing for benchmarks to be reset at the will of the participants.
2- Random change of the benchmark runs
3- Close source, heavy encription of the credit granting code.
4- A code that will reward time crunched ( as time is the ressource we contribute) as well as work done.
5- A system that doesnt favor AMDS vs Intels or whatever over whatever. And that includes the anti Linux bias that are obvious in BOINC.
6- A rational way of determining the work credits: I think That was being talked about with some of the people in the other thread. I even showed whqt I believe could be done )If memory doenst fail me two or three people made good comments about the idea.)

Yes and I even proposeed a douzy...credits for the lower energy models. It took less than 2 minutes for that stroke of idiocy on my part to be shot down by clerarer minds.

Want to reason with me: that can be done. BUT even the slightest insinuation that I am a cheat or that I condone cheating is not the way to start a dialogue with me , all it will get you is my utter comptempt and my anger.

PS John :

From the begining the use of optimizers was known to the Rosetta Developers. They chose to accept them . Are you insinuating they allowed and encouraged cheating?

Latter edit> John: In case you did not read it: David Baker stated in a Post at XtremeSystems that there was not going to be backdating

Not having a firm statement against optimized core clients was in my opinion a mistake, that lack is causing a great deal of strife. Not back dating the fix (since that is possible) is also, in my opinion, a mistake. It allows those that fluffed their numbers (I am not accusing any particular person or group) to brag about how much more they contributed than others, when in actual fact they did not contribute as much as they claim. My opinion of cheating may be a bit more strict than yours.

Open source is a double edged sword. On the one hand, it may be impossible to eliminate credit cheats without redundant processing, fixed credits / task, or FLOPS counting. Each solution will be a better fit for different projects. On the other hand, without open source, the developers can not get help with bug stomping, and design and implementation of new features.

Moving away from reliance on benchmarks for credits is probably a good thing (they are still needed by the CPU scheduler and the work fetch algorithm, but these do not affect credits).

As for awarding time, is the time on my P-200Mhz machine worth as much as your P-4 GHz machine? I really think not. I do have a small number of 200 GHz machines crunching.

---

BOINC WIKI

I do have a small number of 200 GHz machines crunching.

I'd say that's all you'd need :)

---

I do have a small number of 200 GHz machines crunching.

I'd say that's all you'd need :)

Those are not my only machines, and this is not the only project I crunch for. I am currently attached to 36 projects. Yes, it is a little work for a lot of projects, it is also testing the CPU scheduler and work fetch code.

---

BOINC WIKI

Those are not my only machines, and this is not the only project I crunch for. I am currently attached to 36 projects. Yes, it is a little work for a lot of projects, it is also testing the CPU scheduler and work fetch code.

I was just pointing out a 200GHZ machine would be some sort of record.

---

Leiden Classical another of the great Boinc Projects that have not allowed mew members in months and whose files get corrupted while its manager is enoying the sun at Curacao.

its called been a Alpha project, hence why people are not allowed to flood in, the server is not upto the task there of letting loads of people in at the moment

---

Join us in Chat (see the forum) Click the Sig


Join UBT

Leiden Classical another of the great Boinc Projects that have not allowed mew members in months and whose files get corrupted while its manager is enoying the sun at Curacao.

its called been a Alpha project, hence why people are not allowed to flood in, the server is not upto the task there of letting loads of people in at the moment

But many teams have used thee fact that the project is closed to new teams to prop their standing in the DC Vault: an endeavor that is supposed to include only projects that are open for recruitment. You see nothing when the bending of the rules favors your team.

Those are not my only machines, and this is not the only project I crunch for. I am currently attached to 36 projects. Yes, it is a little work for a lot of projects, it is also testing the CPU scheduler and work fetch code.

I was just pointing out a 200GHZ machine would be some sort of record.

EEK typo. 200MHz.

---

BOINC WIKI