what happened to the challenge here? There's a new credit system that awards the computers that produce more structures so what computers produce the most?

Two things happenned. First of all none of the "vocal group" took up the challenge and second, with the release of the new credit system and the realisation that it doesn't really show the differences in a machines capability due to the differences in work units, the challenge is meaningless.

Hello movieman,
there are obviously two different positions for the interpretation of the meaning of credits.
1. A measure for the overall capabilities of a puter (i.e. benchmark) times the donated time.
2. A measure for the work done for the advancement of the science (i.e. delivered decoys)

Both are valid, and in an ideal world both will deliver the same numbers.

The old BOINC method of credit calculation was in favour of #1, but as it was easy to edit the benchmarks without improving the capabilities of the puter, the system was flawed, not to mention it's obvious OS-sensibility.

The second will show how good a certain puter fits in the crunching demands of a certain project. A Ferrari is fine on a racetrack, but off-road he would not succeed. Same goes vice versa for a Hummer. I'm no puter wizz, but that's what I get from the discussion on the different boards: Some puters suit this project better, some another, that's life.

For the different new methods by the projects to calculate the amount of credit, different means are used:
Seti calculates the used Flops within the WU, afaik it would be something more in the direction of #1, only a bit more fiddle-proof.
Folding, Rosetta, CPDN and probably soon enough QMC will give you a certain amount of credit per delivered package of science, it's method #2.

To get the numbers of both methods close enough, it's mandatory that the science application does make use of all the fancy new tricks in the CPU to advance crunching speed, like MMX, SSE(1,2,3) and whatever comes next. I restate, I'm no puter wizz, and I don't know if it's always possible to do so without compromising the results. In calculations that are very sensitive to small rounding differences, it might be crucial not to use the advanced methods, while some other are probably more robust. It's up to the project scientists to decide what suites them best (and what sources of developers to recruit for this task: open or closed source, i.e. volunteers or employers/contractors).

what happened to the challenge here? There's a new credit system that awards the computers that produce more structures so what computers produce the most?

Still can't tell until you block the use of clients that inflate the credits. These same computers that where overclaiming b4 are still influencing the amount of credit that gets awarded under the new system and that is a flaw. If you went back to what you started to do with getting a base amount from ralph then that would not be a problem but you then have to take steps there to make sure only official clients are used there. Then it would not matter what client people used here.

---

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.

that's unfortunate. I hope they at least keep crunching for other projects not just for the competition but also for the science.

A side note which may be interesting to people or not:

We are working with someone in microsoft research to develop a result reporting server so people could compare their results with everyone else. Today, I started getting the dual-core dual opteron server set up and next week Stuart from microsoft will be in town to help set up the system. I think this might offer an interesting type of competition rather than credits for those who do not believe the credit system works. It will really show how many models one generates compared to everyone else and where they lie in the rmsd vs energy plots. Maybe we can have rankings for each work unit type along with the plots. Also, we will soon be running HIV vaccine designs and I think it would be really cool if you knew that your computer was one that produced an HIV vaccine candidate for expression and further studies.

I like !!!!

---

SETI.USA

@David Kim: I really like the idea of lots of stats tables with comparisons available.

Hello movieman,
there are obviously two different positions for the interpretation of the meaning of credits.
1. A measure for the overall capabilities of a puter (i.e. benchmark) times the donated time.
2. A measure for the work done for the advancement of the science (i.e. delivered decoys)

Saenger is definately spot on here, the problem is it splits into two groups of crunchers as well.

1) There are the hardened computer enthusiast`s with a yearning to put their machines to work. Those machines numbering many and all top specs.

2) The scientific minded who are a lot less into racing computers and tend to put science first. They tend not to have the impetus on the hardware front.

(There are of course all those inbetween.}

What has to be considered is what is being asked for by the project. The bottom line, I feel, is that they want the power. It is with this in mind that I would tend to lean toward a measuring system that is, as Saenger stated, more a benchmark figure for machines. I think a lot of power crunchers will move away from this project, I could be wrong. Howether we have what we have now, if it stabilises and the erratic credits even out it will be fine. If it continues that credits for 3 hours on a given machine can be any given figure, very few will be satisfied.

I must admit to have not studied the new system in any given depth but feel that a system should be time*system specs, or fractions of ( Or in that scheme of things). It may well be the new system fulfills these requirements, I don`t know.

I personally feel that if I got 100 credits for a 4 hour job and then got 30, I would assume something wrong with my machine. It certainly cannot be right in the average person`s thinking. Howether with scientist`s things are worked differently like RAC which makes little sense to the common man. It boils down to who we are doing a credit system for.

---

Not all Czech`s bounce but I`d like to try with Barbar ;-)

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

that's unfortunate. I hope they at least keep crunching for other projects not just for the competition but also for the science.

A side note which may be interesting to people or not:

We are working with someone in microsoft research to develop a result reporting server so people could compare their results with everyone else. Today, I started getting the dual-core dual opteron server set up and next week Stuart from microsoft will be in town to help set up the system. I think this might offer an interesting type of competition rather than credits for those who do not believe the credit system works. It will really show how many models one generates compared to everyone else and where they lie in the rmsd vs energy plots. Maybe we can have rankings for each work unit type along with the plots. Also, we will soon be running HIV vaccine designs and I think it would be really cool if you knew that your computer was one that produced an HIV vaccine candidate for expression and further studies.

David Kim:
Every time someone doesn't have an answer for a problem they trot out "I hope they at least keep crunching for other projects not just for the competition but also for the science." or something close to that.
As one of Rosetta's most vocal supporters over the past months I feel at the very least I'm entitled to ask you to listen with an open mind.
THE first thing that motivates us and people of my mindset on this IS the science. Do you honestly think I have all the hardware in my house that I do( app $15,000.00) and incur my current elec bill of $350.00 a month( $150-200 prior to crunching) just for competition?
The difference in our outlook is that I understand the mentality of the people who do this and you haven't grasped it as yet.
These people are:
Demanding of fair play
Demanding of an accurate system being in place on the credit issue.
Supremely competitive
Tend to see things in black and white..no grays
Have absolutely no tolerance of BS or being "blown off" by vague statements
When angered fight back tooth and nail. There is no middle ground, there is no negoiation. We'd support you to the death but also need to know that you support and respect the effort that goes into what we can bring to you.
Loyal to a fault and would give you the shirt off their back but would fight you to the death if they thought you were trying to con that same shirt from them.
Use these competitions to bring in new players and for a little amusement and a way of meeting new people.
When I saw that "needy children" video for the first time I wanted to reach out and say " How can you feel this way about people whose primany goal is to help mankind long term becaue your project seems to hold that hope.
This isn't and never was an issue about science or points, this is and was an issue about respect..
We asked and asked but we evidently didn't get the message across.
This is why I suggested a different means of communication other than this forum.
All we ever wanted was to help you and that is the truth but it fell on deaf ears or ears that didn't understand what they were hearing.
Just as your speciality is the science project you work on, mine is people.
35 years expecience of dealing with the public( I am 54) has taught me that the first thing you do is listen, second is digest and comprehend what has been said to you,formulate a response and then and only then reply.
You folks at Baker Labs may be brilliant and on to the best thing since sliced bread but what you need is someone with some good street sense to deal with these issues on this forum. These people don't want to see long flowery statements from anyone with 37 letter words in them that I expect 1/2 don't even understand. They want short,straight and to the point statements that leave no doubts as to their meaning.
As to hearing constantly" We don't have time"..Then hire someone who will have that time to deal with these issues. You think I have the 60+ hours a week that I put into this over the last few weeks? The answer is no but I cared so passionately that I knew these issues could not go unanswered.
They say to never give someone a problem without also offerring a solution and I can offer a solution. One of my more brilliant teamnates has figured out how to solve your credit issue to satisfy all. That will fix the credit issue.
As to the communication issue, you need a manager and I'm available for a reasonable salary. ( you can stop laughing now)
Movieman

---

As to the communication issue, you need a manager and I'm available for a reasonable salary. ( you can stop laughing now)
Movieman

Although he chooses for the wrong team, I would say, PAY HIM NOW!
I couldn't explain my feelings better, he just wrote down, like he did.

(oke, also because it's not writen in my native language :D )

---

XS_Vietnam_Soldiers,

please feel free to have your teamate email me about his/her credit system that will satisfy all. I could present it at the boinc workshop (unless he/she plans to, I don't know who is going to attend) as I am sure all would be interested.

Are you talking about this workshop?

The 2nd Pan-Galactic BOINC Workshop

yes

XS_Vietnam_Soldiers,

please feel free to have your teamate email me about his/her credit system that will satisfy all. I could present it at the boinc workshop (unless he/she plans to, I don't know who is going to attend) as I am sure all would be interested.

I had a short post up here for a couple minutes. Broke my own rule about digesting what I read.
After seeing that you only chose to respond to just the one point of a credit fix, I've changed my feelings. It's just not worth it. You folks will never open a dialogue. As stubborn as I am there comes a time when you have to tell yourself that it's a hopeless cause and to cut your losses and move on.
The "vocal" group got what they wanted. I suggest to further appease them you go and back date the credit system or they will harp on that even though you'd said not to.
You asked XS( Dr. Baker) to up what they could give over the hot summer months when the colleges were closed and I expect a good part of your processing power with it and we did. What did we get in return? Stabbed in the back..
Caesar said it well: "Et tu Brutus?"
Veni,vidi,vici..and now I am gone.
Anything further you wish to say to me can be done through my email, although I am sure at this point that you can't be bothered.
Movieman

---

..and now I am gone.
Movieman

Farewell, and serene crunching wherever you go, Movieman.

Just a quote

It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.
--Robert F. Kennedy

---

Not all Czech`s bounce but I`d like to try with Barbar ;-)

Make no mistake This IS the TEDDIES TEAM.

[quote]XS_Vietnam_Soldiers,

The "vocal" group got what they wanted. I suggest to further appease them you go and back date the credit system or they will harp on that even though you'd said not to.
You asked XS( Dr. Baker) to up what they could give over the hot summer months when the colleges were closed and I expect a good part of your processing power with it and we did. What did we get in return? Stabbed in the back..

"Hello! I must be going."

I have sat in the shadows and watched this situation unfold for some time. During this period, I have asked myself two questions: (a) Why didn't the ones complaining work within the system and use the same optimized clients? (b) Why would academia waste resources by placating to those with higher pitched voices who have refused to help themselves? The answers will not sit well with those suffering from Nocturnal enuresis.

First of all, academia has traditionally aligned itself with the lowest common denominator. It is no surprise that the tradition continues within this saga. Insulated from the real world through funding by government allotments and grants, academia can afford the luxury of the day-dream in which some are not lethargic, but are instead oppressed and defrauded by others. Therefore, if these cannot be brought to stand in equal light to the rest of a group, then the others of the group must be brought down to the level of "the cheated." This is called "fair," the net affect of which contributes to the benefit, or the simple pleasure, of the "oppressed" at the expense of the assiduous.

Now, don't get me wrong! This veneration of the torpid means that the right mindset is present to aid in the research for the cures of orphan disease, but it can never deliver a treatment to the public upon its own accord. For the delivery of treatment, you require the competition of the marketplace. Hence, the pharmaceutical industry with its diligent group of hard-charging "cheaters" is required to make the cure a reality. In this real world people endeavor to be the first to introduce something substantial and new to the marketplace. Therfore, they dig for any advantage they can to be able to come out on top. This attitude ensures the least possible time to market.

This spirit of competition could have led to the early success of Rosetta, but the recent concession to mediocrity has stifled any feasibility of an early ascendancy over disease under present investigation. To be certain, you have ensured that the least common denominator of will is the driving force, or the lack thereof, for your project. After all, if the motivation is not there for them to install an optimized client for their own benefit, then why should you believe that they would put in any extra effort for the sake of folding for anyone elses benefit???

Second, why would the chronic malcontents seek to negate the gains of others rather than strive to increase their own pleasure and success??? A study published in January by Nature reports that many people would rather have pain inflicted on someone else before having their own personal desires (pleasures) satiated! Nothing else remains to be said.

I am going off to crunch for the problem of chronic Nocturnal enuresis so that the condition of those that instigated this saga can be treated.

The way I see it and the reason I have pulled all 12.3 GHz of my processing power from all projects is,
the credits are not balanced between platforms or machines.

Simply,

When,
12.3 GHz on Windows gets the same credit as,
12.3 GHz on Linux and as you seem to forget most,
12.3 GHz on the Mac,
all running for the same dedicated time, should get the same credit, then I will return.

If you can not get the clients to the produce the same on each platform it will be quiet and cool with an extra $350 per month in my pocket.

It is not only about credit it is about equality.

My take on the developers of the clients, Work on Windows, Windows, Windows, at lunch work on the Mac, Work on Windows, Windows, afternoon break work on Linux, Work on Windows, Windows, Windows, Go home feeling complete.

What ever the truth is this is how it looks.

Dave

---

(a) Why didn't the ones complaining work within the system and use the same optimized clients? (b) Why would academia waste resources by placating to those with higher pitched voices who have refused to help themselves?

For the delivery of treatment, you require the competition of the marketplace. Hence, the pharmaceutical industry with its diligent group of hard-charging "cheaters" is required to make the cure a reality. In this real world people endeavor to be the first to introduce something substantial and new to the marketplace. Therfore, they dig for any advantage they can to be able to come out on top. This attitude ensures the least possible time to market.

(a) and (b) Get out your dictionary and look up the word ethics.

Big Pharma has only one goal: to make the largest profit. This is not entirely a bad thing for the general public and certainly not a bad thing in a capitalist economy. But, don't expect the pharmaceutical industry to be thinking about how they can lower the cost of their product through the application of technology. Still, that's the price you and I pay, and if it saves your life, I guess it was worth it.

The way I see it and the reason I have pulled all 12.3 GHz of my processing power from all projects is,
the credits are not balanced between platforms or machines.

Simply,

When,
12.3 GHz on Windows gets the same credit as,
12.3 GHz on Linux and as you seem to forget most,
12.3 GHz on the Mac,
all running for the same dedicated time, should get the same credit, then I will return.

If you can not get the clients to the produce the same on each platform it will be quiet and cool with an extra $350 per month in my pocket.

It is not only about credit it is about equality.

My take on the developers of the clients, Work on Windows, Windows, Windows, at lunch work on the Mac, Work on Windows, Windows, afternoon break work on Linux, Work on Windows, Windows, Windows, Go home feeling complete.

What ever the truth is this is how it looks.

Dave

I don't agree with you GHz relation.

If the 12.3GHz under Linux worked slower than the 12.3GHz under Windows then it does less work. Be it the fault of the Operating System, the Compiler that compiler Rosetta, so what since it's crunches at a slower wait.
Similar thing with the Mac.
It's the through put of actual useful calculations that is the measure. Not just a frequency of cycles on a CPU.

A computer that does a job/task/work unit should get the exact same 'points/credit/work done' as another computer that does that same workunit no matter what type of computer it is.


What I would like to know is if the Rosetta Windows compile is slower or faster than the Rosetta Linux compile.
Has anyone seen (or can anyone run a task manually) to find out ?

---

Team mauisun.org

Just a thought.
If compitition is voor de stupid folks, why don't just stop giving credits for work. ?
I surely know that everyone here crunch for mankind and not for credits.

---

Just a thought.
If compitition is voor de stupid folks, why don't just stop giving credits for work. ?
I surely know that everyone here crunch for mankind and not for credits.

I don't quite understand what you mean? The new credit system was invented BECAUSE the project team acknowledges that credits matter and that there should be a fair competiton and a level playing field. I'm wondering why all those competition guys complain about the much fairer (while not flawless) new credit system instead of praising it: Now the competition starts!

I was not happy with some actions during the transition but I'm glad the project did not bog down to the demands to leave a flawed credits system in place.

I don't agree with you GHz relation.

If the 12.3GHz under Linux worked slower than the 12.3GHz under Windows then it does less work. Be it the fault of the Operating System, the Compiler that compiler Rosetta, so what since it's crunches at a slower wait.
Similar thing with the Mac.
It's the through put of actual useful calculations that is the measure. Not just a frequency of cycles on a CPU.

A computer that does a job/task/work unit should get the exact same 'points/credit/work done' as another computer that does that same workunit no matter what type of computer it is.


What I would like to know is if the Rosetta Windows compile is slower or faster than the Rosetta Linux compile.
Has anyone seen (or can anyone run a task manually) to find out ?

Well you managed to slide right past my point.

It has been said that the clients are not equal.
The Mac client does not use Altivec therefore missing a major part of the processor.
Linux has always been shunned by the small credit for their work. The new credit system shows that they were shortchanged.
Windows gets the most attention by the developers.
None of these clients are using all of the processors power in any platform.
This is what needs to get fixed for my computers to go back online.
If all the clients were written to take advantage of all the features of operating system including hardware (Optimized) there would be a balance between them.
Then the project would get so much more science done than they know what to do with.

---