That is wrong.

yaaa, Mikey *IS* a better person!

---

Add this signature to your EMail:
Running Microsoft's "System Idle Process" will never help cure cancer, AIDS nor Alzheimer's. But running Rosetta@home just might!
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/

Credits are a rank of how many computers each of us have access too. I see my stats are blowing you out of the water, does that make me a better person, or even a better cruncher? NO IT DOES NOT!!!

That is wrong. It says that you contributed more to this project than somebody else.

You said what I did not but meant.

---

That is wrong.

yaaa, Mikey *IS* a better person!

Nah just has more resources. I am kind of lucky when it comes to computers, they are my hobby. That means that lots of people ask me to help them with their broken and being replaced computers. I do not charge money for this, I just take their old parts as payment. Some of course pay money, most give me their old pc's, both of which gives me more crunchers. Since I do this I can buy parts and build my own, waiting for sales of course to buy the parts.

---

Usually my credits come around 40-50 but this job has 2x credited, how does this happen and what happens to these kinds of wu's?

227831248 207650316 11 Feb 2009 4:53:14 UTC 11 Feb 2009 19:36:34 UTC Over Success Done 10,011.64 40.77 48.74
227831247 207650315 11 Feb 2009 4:53:14 UTC 11 Feb 2009 20:04:01 UTC Over Success Done 10,307.56 41.97 97.60

---

Contrary to what is said about there not being a bad side to credits....I say you must have been born blind. Crunching a wu for 6 hours and I receive 10 credits? I should have received the claimed credit of 47. Credit granted should coincide with the amount of time that a computer crunches a work unit and NOT some arbitrary solution dreamed up to satisfy someones itch. It is plain to see so don't offer up any explanation that would otherwise say so. When these wu's are done crunching then it seems it will be time to get rid of Rosetta altogether. People crunch not only for science but for credit. It's a natural innate action to try and get as much credit as possible. When you begin granting appropriate credit for work done then I may return....if it's worth it.

I agree.

It is sad when credit granted is 50% lower then credit claimed.

Too me ranking is very important.
I don't agree that it should be reset at every new year.

Contrary to what is said about there not being a bad side to credits....I say you must have been born blind. Crunching a wu for 6 hours and I receive 10 credits? I should have received the claimed credit of 47. Credit granted should coincide with the amount of time that a computer crunches a work unit and NOT some arbitrary solution dreamed up to satisfy someones itch. It is plain to see so don't offer up any explanation that would otherwise say so. When these wu's are done crunching then it seems it will be time to get rid of Rosetta altogether. People crunch not only for science but for credit. It's a natural innate action to try and get as much credit as possible. When you begin granting appropriate credit for work done then I may return....if it's worth it.

I agree.

It is sad when credit granted is 50% lower then credit claimed.

Too me ranking is very important.
I don't agree that it should be reset at every new year.

Which is the whole reason why they are not currently reset now. Too many people feel as you do and not enough as I do. Not exactly a democracy but the people do get listened too.
The reason behind the reset was to stop the cheaters. Make it a one year at a time thing. If a cheater finds their stats reset every year and them starting over they, hopefully, would get frustrated and leave. Yes they could see it as a challenge but then next year they have to start all over again. The amount of time and energy spent on stopping cheating has been enormous in the past. I do not hear about them anymore, I have moved on from those discussions, but I am sure the cheaters are still here. Here as in at Boinc, NOT here as in at Rosetta. I have no idea if Rosetta has or even ever has had any cheaters, I would like to think not, but as a simple cruncher I am not privy to those kinds of conversations.

---

ooops, somewhat like bad joke: 12 hours on 1 core from GenuineIntel
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9400 @ 2.66GHz [Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 10] (4 processors), RAM 4 GB DDR3 and as much as 75 credits?

11 Sep 2010 12:10:21 UTC 12 Sep 2010 16:24:45 UTC Over Success Done 43,157.03 258.41 75.27

I am leaving Rosetta for a better "paid" job. My PC is more suitable to crunch 64-bit tasks of physics and maths.

ooops, somewhat like bad joke: 12 hours on 1 core from GenuineIntel
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q9400 @ 2.66GHz [Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 10] (4 processors), RAM 4 GB DDR3 and as much as 75 credits?

11 Sep 2010 12:10:21 UTC 12 Sep 2010 16:24:45 UTC Over Success Done 43,157.03 258.41 75.27

I am leaving Rosetta for a better "paid" job. My PC is more suitable to crunch 64-bit tasks of physics and maths.

Rosetta is 32-bit.

---

Martin previously said:

I am leaving Rosetta for a better "paid" job

Better paid huh? After looking at the AQUA@home project where most of your crunching is focused I have to wonder if "paid" might be the right term. Being young and innocent I thought the AQUA project might have something to do with ocean sciences.

So I looked it up.

I was surprised to see that it is in fact the BOINC end of the D-Wave company - a private, for profit corporation developing what is claimed to be the first commercially viable quantum computer.

While D-Wave appears to have originated as a partnership with the University of British Columbia, the Wikipedia article suggests that these partnerships faded into history around 2005.

The Wikipedia article also suggests that there is more than a little controversy and criticism in academic circles as to the validity of their claims of "quantum computing" but you may have to take some of that with a grain of salt - great academics are always banging heads.

But back to your statement - since you are donating your time to a private corporation, which has the stated goal of commercially developing hardware for profit, I was wondering exactly how much you are getting paid?

BTW - you only appear to have completed 4 work units for Rosetta - only one of which was as you put it "underpaid" - the other three came in pretty much at or a little above their claimed credit level. I wonder if this assessment based on a single work unit is really fair?

Have a great day

Better paid huh? After looking at the AQUA@home project where most of your crunching is focused I have to wonder if "paid" might be the right term. Being young and innocent I thought the AQUA project might have something to do with ocean sciences.

Quantum computer might bring (or might not,who knows now?)new way to solve NP problem, which cannot be solved now in reasonable way. It's based on physical principles, not classical algebra. If the theory will be proved, nothing of this world will be considered as complex. So, protein folding will not be astronomical number of different variation any more. On Aqua typical 64-bit WU last 18 hour on 4 processors. My PC will be better used. Still better than I would be looking for extra terestrial civilizations.

I've only been on this project a couple days. I started it to complement my GPUgrid and my new folding@home ventures. I'll say right now I don't participate in these projects for credits, I process scientific data that I feel can benefit the future of mankind. However, I believe credits can be a useful tool for measuring your overall contribution. Unfortunately I find the credits from Rosetta@home to be extremely low comparatively, even lower than the less "useful" PrimeGrid application I had been running. It makes me feel like my machine is contributing less now, even though this new work is potentially very beneficial. IMO it would be nice to see a more consistent credit system between all the projects.

Yeah, the credits given need to be balanced with other projects. Kinda trivial compared to the research I believe, but I think it would be appreciated by everyone.

I crunch Rosetta & Milkyway mainly (1 CPU & 1 GPU app), and they are on complete opposit ends of the credits spectrum. (Not even taking into account the CPU vs GPU debate...)

M.

I've only been on this project a couple days. I started it to complement my GPUgrid and my new folding@home ventures. I'll say right now I don't participate in these projects for credits, I process scientific data that I feel can benefit the future of mankind. However, I believe credits can be a useful tool for measuring your overall contribution. Unfortunately I find the credits from Rosetta@home to be extremely low comparatively, even lower than the less "useful" PrimeGrid application I had been running. It makes me feel like my machine is contributing less now, even though this new work is potentially very beneficial. IMO it would be nice to see a more consistent credit system between all the projects.

The basic problem with "a more consistent credit system between all the projects" is that some projects put ALOT of work into tweaking their program while others use the standard off the shelf stuff. Should the project that does all the tweaking be constrained to give out less credits? They did it for their project and the benefit of the users, should they be put into the same pot as a project that does nothing? There is NO right answer to this question, IMO. The only real answer is to separate the totals and only count credits within a specific project. Meaning that the credits I earn at Einstein right now should have no comparison to those I am earning here at Rosie or the ones my gpu is earning over at DNETC. The projects are different, each doing something entirely different, and therefore the credits should be used for comparison outside their given project. Now comparing my Rosie credits to your Rosie credits is not a bad thing, but only for comparing my effort to yours and being able to tweak our machines to do more and more.

And M one of the suggestions, by Dr A and staff, is to take your gpu credits and bring them DOWN to the cpu level, so the advantage of your gpu being able to do 30 times more work in the same amount of time, and get 30 times the credits, is muted.

IMO if all this comes thru I think you will see a HUGE drop off in the number of Boinc crunchers. People crunch for both admirable and selfish reasons but one of them is for the credits. If you take that incentive away, what is the point in having a 6 million RAC?! And yes there are people with that much RAC and the machines to back it up.

And M one of the suggestions, by Dr A and staff, is to take your gpu credits and bring them DOWN to the cpu level, so the advantage of your gpu being able to do 30 times more work in the same amount of time, and get 30 times the credits, is muted.

IMO if all this comes thru I think you will see a HUGE drop off in the number of Boinc crunchers. People crunch for both admirable and selfish reasons but one of them is for the credits. If you take that incentive away, what is the point in having a 6 million RAC?! And yes there are people with that much RAC and the machines to back it up.

As with anything involving people, I agree there needs to be some type of incentive. All project credits could maybe be considered relative to themselves basicaly. (Ie: a GPU can take 1 1/2 minutes to calculate a wu, on a CPU it's in the area of 40 to 50 hours if I remember right for the same work unit x #cores in MW.)

And you are right, some projects work very hard and invest money to optimize their code. Some less so, probably for any multitude of reasons. Cross-project comparisons might not be useful, but they are there with the current credit system.

M.

And M one of the suggestions, by Dr A and staff, is to take your gpu credits and bring them DOWN to the cpu level, so the advantage of your gpu being able to do 30 times more work in the same amount of time, and get 30 times the credits, is muted.

IMO if all this comes thru I think you will see a HUGE drop off in the number of Boinc crunchers. People crunch for both admirable and selfish reasons but one of them is for the credits. If you take that incentive away, what is the point in having a 6 million RAC?! And yes there are people with that much RAC and the machines to back it up.

As with anything involving people, I agree there needs to be some type of incentive. All project credits could maybe be considered relative to themselves basicaly. (Ie: a GPU can take 1 1/2 minutes to calculate a wu, on a CPU it's in the area of 40 to 50 hours if I remember right for the same work unit x #cores in MW.)

And you are right, some projects work very hard and invest money to optimize their code. Some less so, probably for any multitude of reasons. Cross-project comparisons might not be useful, but they are there with the current credit system.
M.

I totally agree and think that is where the new credit system should be addressing itself, not trying to fix the unfixable. Now I am JUST a cruncher, nothing more and my voice is just one of many on one side or the other of this discussion. But I would not like to think that this credit issue is the reason people stopped crunching! I mean some people pay TONS of money for electricity just to keep their machines near the top of the heap, to then put them down where my machines are would certainly burst their bubbles and force them to stop crunching. ie they like the 'notoriety' of being number 1 or 2!

Mikey -

I just noticed that you are crunching again - way to go Biscuit Boy! Welcome back form the dark side.

CH

Mikey -

I just noticed that you are crunching again - way to go Biscuit Boy! Welcome back form the dark side.

CH

Hey thanks, I have 2 machines crunching here now the rest are over at Einstein. They may come over here later but for now I am pretty much status quo.

Discussion continued in Discussion of the new credit systen (3)

---

Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Sense