Is this for real???

Message boards : Number crunching : Is this for real???

To post messages, you must log in.

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 6 · Next

AuthorMessage
MJD1964

Send message
Joined: 12 Oct 05
Posts: 4
Credit: 1,070,132
RAC: 0
Message 17162 - Posted: 26 May 2006, 19:08:51 UTC

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/results.php?hostid=210800

536cr for 2.962hrs of work.
ID: 17162 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Profile Feet1st
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Dec 05
Posts: 1755
Credit: 4,229,071
RAC: 1,970
Message 17163 - Posted: 26 May 2006, 19:13:21 UTC

Measured floating point speed 26989.43 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 59996.01 million ops/sec

...this does seem a bit excessive for a 3Ghz machine.
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/
ID: 17163 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Jose

Send message
Joined: 28 Mar 06
Posts: 820
Credit: 48,297
RAC: 0
Message 17165 - Posted: 26 May 2006, 19:26:03 UTC - in response to Message 17163.  

Measured floating point speed 26989.43 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 59996.01 million ops/sec

...this does seem a bit excessive for a 3Ghz machine.


I think there are 5 or 6 other computers like that. All of the anonymous

This and no other is the root from which a Tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
Plato
ID: 17165 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Astro
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Oct 05
Posts: 987
Credit: 500,253
RAC: 0
Message 17183 - Posted: 26 May 2006, 22:15:01 UTC

If that's what's happening on a regular basis, I hope managements uses the "credit delete key", but NO computer's that fast
ID: 17183 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
MJD1964

Send message
Joined: 12 Oct 05
Posts: 4
Credit: 1,070,132
RAC: 0
Message 17188 - Posted: 26 May 2006, 22:58:33 UTC
Last modified: 26 May 2006, 23:01:58 UTC

ID: 17188 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Lee Carre

Send message
Joined: 6 Oct 05
Posts: 96
Credit: 79,331
RAC: 0
Message 17189 - Posted: 26 May 2006, 23:17:49 UTC - in response to Message 17188.  

Here's 6 of them, this individual is scaming the credit system bigtime!!!!

[sarcasm]wonderful, it's nice to know some people are sad enough to sink that low, attempting to render the whole credit system useless (it is if people can claim what they want)[/sarcasm]

i wish rosetta would implement FlOps counting...
Want to search the BOINC Wiki, BOINCstats, or various BOINC forums from within firefox? Try the BOINC related Firefox Search Plugins
ID: 17189 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Hefto99

Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 05
Posts: 5
Credit: 2,666,288
RAC: 6,255
Message 17197 - Posted: 27 May 2006, 2:11:38 UTC

It seems many of them are using Boinc Studio with credit calibration set to ON for Rosetta... This shall be not allowed. All pleasure for compete is gone :-(
ID: 17197 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Moderator9
Volunteer moderator

Send message
Joined: 22 Jan 06
Posts: 1014
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
Message 17220 - Posted: 27 May 2006, 5:33:17 UTC - in response to Message 17197.  

It seems many of them are using Boinc Studio with credit calibration set to ON for Rosetta... This shall be not allowed. All pleasure for compete is gone :-(

I will report this thread to the Project. There is something afoot that will solve this issue. It will probably be in the next version of Rosetta. If the project looks at these systems and determines there is a serious issue, they will fix it.

They have in the past taken the following course of action-

1) Deleted the systems, the user ID and the credits (The situation was WAY out of line with reality)
2) Adjusted the total credits for the offending systems.
3) Nothing if it could be shown that the situation was either unintentional or legitimate (it happens)

But I can assure you that when I report it they will look into it.

Moderator9
ROSETTA@home FAQ
Moderator Contact
ID: 17220 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
MikeMarsUK

Send message
Joined: 15 Jan 06
Posts: 121
Credit: 2,637,872
RAC: 0
Message 17272 - Posted: 28 May 2006, 11:28:23 UTC

It's been reporting high credits for some time back, so not merely a single benchmark which went haywire. Highly suspicious that it's anonymous to my mind.

Roll on work-unit based credits :-)

ID: 17272 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Jose

Send message
Joined: 28 Mar 06
Posts: 820
Credit: 48,297
RAC: 0
Message 17273 - Posted: 28 May 2006, 12:43:57 UTC - in response to Message 17272.  

It's been reporting high credits for some time back, so not merely a single benchmark which went haywire. Highly suspicious that it's anonymous to my mind.

Roll on work-unit based credits :-)


The worst part with these anonymous machines is that when compared to machines with state of the art Intels AMDs or even multi board blocks they out credit them. ( And yes we have machines in this community that have state of the art That is something that streches reality to the point of requiring believing in voodoo. I believe in voodoo but, not even the most powerful dolls can override the realities of chip and mobo structures. IN short words: those huge numbers for those machines ( and there are more than 6) are not real.



This and no other is the root from which a Tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
Plato
ID: 17273 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Jose

Send message
Joined: 28 Mar 06
Posts: 820
Credit: 48,297
RAC: 0
Message 17275 - Posted: 28 May 2006, 15:02:03 UTC
Last modified: 28 May 2006, 15:02:39 UTC

A modest Proposal: why don't we start by requiring that the computers be verifiable in order to "be granted credits. When a person goes anonymous there is no way to check if what he/she claims as credits can be produced by the machine(s) he/she use to crunch. Want to claim a gazillion benchmarks...show your computers for a "reality check.

Note: Ir would also help to have the merge function working so the people could merge or delete the computers that are no longer "real" or inactive. (Please remember that when one has to reattach a new computer profile is created so a person can have "ghosts"listed under his computers. I know: I have about 5 ghosts. I know that merging can be a hassle but there has to be a time ( probably after CASP) that this housekeeping function will have to be performed in order to get a clearer view of how many computers are really involved in the project.
This and no other is the root from which a Tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
Plato
ID: 17275 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
MJD1964

Send message
Joined: 12 Oct 05
Posts: 4
Credit: 1,070,132
RAC: 0
Message 17282 - Posted: 28 May 2006, 23:28:12 UTC
Last modified: 28 May 2006, 23:28:33 UTC

(It seems many of them are using Boinc Studio with credit calibration set to ON for Rosetta...)



I don't think its Boincstudio. I'm crunching Rosetta with it now and it only claimed 78 for 14000sec of work. I think thats inline...
ID: 17282 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Astro
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Oct 05
Posts: 987
Credit: 500,253
RAC: 0
Message 17283 - Posted: 29 May 2006, 0:00:27 UTC

Using a standard boinc client (5.4.9), here are some of my results:

P4 1.8
21700200 18175730 27 May 2006 2:38:24 UTC 28 May 2006 23:41:46 UTC Over Success Done 28,099.78 44.39 44.39
21622567 18104291 26 May 2006 11:03:41 UTC 27 May 2006 19:10:52 UTC Over Success Done 28,287.81 44.68 44.68
21517898 18008458 25 May 2006 13:49:30 UTC 26 May 2006 21:59:12 UTC Over Success Done 27,372.94 43.24 43.24
21470024 17967978 24 May 2006 20:25:22 UTC 26 May 2006 10:21:08 UTC Over Success Done 27,548.44 43.51 43.51
21437990 17938898 24 May 2006 13:06:57 UTC 25 May 2006 22:39:33 UTC Over Success Done 26,853.22 43.26 43.26
21423203 17925754 24 May 2006 10:45:21 UTC 25 May 2006 0:14:58 UTC Over Success Done 9,172.70 14.78 14.78
21383020 17888722 24 May 2006 2:11:55 UTC 24 May 2006 18:36:50 UTC Over Success Done 11,439.34 18.43 18.43
21366827 17873766 23 May 2006 23:03:10 UTC 24 May 2006 11:53:28 UTC Over Success Done 7,447.88 12.00 12.00

AMD64 3700 (754 socket), 1G ram
21724483 18198568 27 May 2006 7:33:36 UTC 28 May 2006 12:47:38 UTC Over Success Done 28,774.13 105.62 105.62
21638686 18119401 26 May 2006 14:17:31 UTC 27 May 2006 23:51:51 UTC Over Success Done 28,479.27 104.54 104.54
21447833 17947753 24 May 2006 14:59:57 UTC 26 May 2006 10:21:58 UTC Over Success Done 29,204.31 107.20 107.20
21385126 17890628 24 May 2006 2:39:07 UTC 25 May 2006 12:41:36 UTC Over Success Done 28,379.27 105.60 105.60
21369689 17876529 23 May 2006 23:39:30 UTC 24 May 2006 20:31:53 UTC Over Success Done 11,006.30 40.95 40.95
21290404 17803413 23 May 2006 7:35:29 UTC 24 May 2006 11:50:09 UTC Over Success Done 10,938.94 40.70 40.70
21273674 17787853 23 May 2006 4:21:32 UTC 24 May 2006 11:50:09 UTC Over Success Done 10,638.03 39.58 39.58
21219530 17738049 22 May 2006 17:27:59 UTC 23 May 2006 11:30:56 UTC Over Success Done 11,588.06 43.12 43.12

AMD64 3700 Sandiego, 1G ram, 10% OCed
21688526 18164885 27 May 2006 0:13:05 UTC 27 May 2006 19:14:59 UTC Over Success Done 28,113.91 111.32 111.32
21481154 17978074 24 May 2006 21:37:52 UTC 27 May 2006 0:13:05 UTC Over Success Done 28,374.98 112.35 112.35
21454460 16396617 24 May 2006 16:13:15 UTC 26 May 2006 2:09:40 UTC Over Success Done 28,542.97 113.02 113.02
21434448 17935767 24 May 2006 12:32:23 UTC 25 May 2006 23:22:13 UTC Over Success Done 27,882.02 110.40 110.40
21405305 17909273 24 May 2006 7:07:09 UTC 25 May 2006 0:15:40 UTC Over Success Done 10,193.08 40.25 40.25
21367714 17874643 23 May 2006 23:14:34 UTC 24 May 2006 16:13:15 UTC Over Success Done 11,268.72 44.50 44.50
21344125 17765861 23 May 2006 17:59:16 UTC 24 May 2006 11:53:07 UTC Over Success Done 10,339.34 40.83 40.83
21314078 17452962 23 May 2006 11:34:19 UTC 24 May 2006 4:13:46 UTC Over Success Done 10,564.08 41.72 41.72
21289356 17802416 23 May 2006 7:26:36 UTC 23 May 2006 21:02:00 UTC Over Success Done 10,147.94 40.07 40.07
ID: 17283 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Hefto99

Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 05
Posts: 5
Credit: 2,666,288
RAC: 6,255
Message 17287 - Posted: 29 May 2006, 1:17:30 UTC - in response to Message 17282.  

I don't think its Boincstudio. I'm crunching Rosetta with it now and it only claimed 78 for 14000sec of work. I think thats inline...


If you don't use credit calibration, you report normal benchmarks. Credit calibration inflates benchmarks, therefore those people claim too much. Unfortunatelly it works in this way, although Rosetta doesn't have optimized application and benchmarks should not be increased even calibration is activated... :-(
ID: 17287 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Murasaki
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Apr 06
Posts: 303
Credit: 511,418
RAC: 0
Message 17289 - Posted: 29 May 2006, 1:41:05 UTC - in response to Message 17275.  

A modest Proposal: why don't we start by requiring that the computers be verifiable in order to "be granted credits. When a person goes anonymous there is no way to check if what he/she claims as credits can be produced by the machine(s) he/she use to crunch. Want to claim a gazillion benchmarks...show your computers for a "reality check.


One problem with that idea is that you might drive away the users who want to contribute but keep their computer information private. The number of users who "cheat" are probably a very small fraction of the anonymous users and trying that method of fixing may cause more harm than good.

I think it would be harder to recruit new users to the project if they were told that they had to release details of their computers to anyone who wanted to take a look. Even if we said "this information will not affect the security of your computer" a large proportion of potential users wouldn't trust that statement and err on the side of caution by staying away.
ID: 17289 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Profile Carlos_Pfitzner
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Dec 05
Posts: 71
Credit: 138,867
RAC: 0
Message 17291 - Posted: 29 May 2006, 5:53:42 UTC - in response to Message 17188.  
Last modified: 29 May 2006, 6:01:26 UTC

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=210800

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=210798

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=210801

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=213206

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=210805

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=210806

Here's 6 of them, this individual is scaming the credit system bigtime!!!!




My Internet Link is faster than the Internet link of those above! see
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=170243
*I can block a Intercontinental backbone from operating, if I want.

Have occured to you that the computers above are virtual computers
running into this one computer ? (it has 20 teraflops)
http://www.cray.com
Probably *Anonymous cause they dont asked the supercomputer conter boss before

Err .... They have made few virtual computers ...
http://www.vmware.com
So, the benchmarks go too high -:(

*Anyway they are *not* cheating.
Else,
there will be impossible they crunching 101 WUs / day, on each virtual computer.

Cheers,
Click signature for global team stats
ID: 17291 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
[AF>HFR>Corsica] DocMaboul

Send message
Joined: 1 Mar 06
Posts: 3
Credit: 639,939
RAC: 0
Message 17296 - Posted: 29 May 2006, 7:51:51 UTC - in response to Message 17287.  

I don't think its Boincstudio. I'm crunching Rosetta with it now and it only claimed 78 for 14000sec of work. I think thats inline...


If you don't use credit calibration, you report normal benchmarks. Credit calibration inflates benchmarks, therefore those people claim too much. Unfortunatelly it works in this way, although Rosetta doesn't have optimized application and benchmarks should not be increased even calibration is activated... :-(


Hi,

I'm developping BoincStudio and I have made some tries with credit correction on Rosetta: there is a problem. Without it, i'm claiming about 5 or 6 credits per wu. With credit correction, i'm claming about 10 to 20 more. For me, problem is not comming from BoincStudio but from Rosetta.

When BoincStudio calibrating benchmarks, he's looking at the estimated fops for a work unit (e), the benchmark fops (b) and the real time spend (r)

Estimated time = e/b
Correction factor = r/estimated time

Then, at results reporting, benchmarks are divided by the correction factor.

So, if estimated fops and benchmark results are quite correct, credit correction does not change claimed credits when someone is not using an optimized client.

Rosetta is reporting 10 to 20 more estimated fops than real fops consumed and that's why BoincStudio's credit correction system is not working correctly.

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=171976

Result duration correction factor: 0.06275
ID: 17296 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Hefto99

Send message
Joined: 11 Oct 05
Posts: 5
Credit: 2,666,288
RAC: 6,255
Message 17298 - Posted: 29 May 2006, 8:50:15 UTC - in response to Message 17296.  

Hi DocMaboul,

I don't say that BS is guilty. It is an excellent piece of software, thank you very much again for it's creation. But - as you stated, switching calibration for Rosetta to ON inflates benchmarks. Unfortunatelly, there are many people who abuse this situation... I just point this out as a possible explanation of high credits claimed by the top computers.
No offense to you and BS was meant :-) .
ID: 17298 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
[AF>HFR>Corsica] DocMaboul

Send message
Joined: 1 Mar 06
Posts: 3
Credit: 639,939
RAC: 0
Message 17341 - Posted: 30 May 2006, 7:51:28 UTC - in response to Message 17298.  

It's ok :-)

Also, I don't think these people are using BoincStudio (because core_client_version should be something like "5.x.x BoincStudio 0.xx alpha")
ID: 17341 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
BennyRop

Send message
Joined: 17 Dec 05
Posts: 555
Credit: 140,800
RAC: 0
Message 17345 - Posted: 30 May 2006, 8:59:15 UTC
Last modified: 30 May 2006, 9:06:04 UTC

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/result.php?resultid=21696168
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/result.php?resultid=21548945
It's producing the same number of decoys for this WU in 10,000 seconds that my 2Ghz Athlon 64 3000+ machine produced in 86,000. It's getting twice the number of credits that my default client is getting for the same amount of work. Very strange..

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/result.php?resultid=21795438
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/result.php?resultid=21786691
and here's a set where the speeddemon created 12 in 10,000 seonds, and my machine produced 97 in 86,000.

Could one of the project staff explain why in the first case this Xeon with outrateous benchmarks is producing decoys 8.6 times faster than my system, and in the second case, is producing them at the same speed my system is?


ID: 17345 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 6 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : Is this for real???



©2021 University of Washington
https://www.bakerlab.org