Hi Vester, I'm sure I will see you around mate. :-) You know I respect you a lot and will always wish you well whatever you do. If there had'nt been all the talk about punishing people on Ralph, I might have still been here myself. As I've said a few times here before, it is not all about credits for me, there is a lot more to it than that. After all I am moving now with most of my team mates to a system that operates a quorum of 3.

Good luck Vester mate.

---

Ted3:

The new system is Lotto. My last 2 results:
CPU-time: 10,061.41 GC: 68.19
CPU-time: 9,951.78 GC: 105.76
... "Even out over time" ...

They do seem to even out over time. Although there's a few WUs with values that should be reported.

You've got two systems:
The lesser system has credit/seconds that prior to Aug 23, was hovering around 0.003 credits/second and since Aug 23 is just under 0.004 credits/second. There's two results that I'll post to the unusual credit list.

graph these 80 points, and see for yourself:
0.003785
0.003686
0.004013
0.003821
0.003726
0.00384
0.003547
0.003677
0.003671
0.003814
0.003813
0.003281
0.003475
0.003804
0.003571
0.003581
0.00371
0.003584
0.003785
0.004005
0.003045
0.003086
0.003051
0.003022
0.003501
0.003497
0.003005
0.003197
0.003241
0.002927
0.002899
0.002922
0.003029
0.003049
0.002858
0.002983
0.003059
0.008548
0.003168
0.003189
0.003406
0.003089
0.002956
0.003046
0.003393
0.003009
0.003053
0.003102
0.002817
0.002925
0.003161
0.002973
0.003123
0.003018
0.002932
0.003013
0.002925
0.002908
0.002745
0.002927
0.002908
0.002966
0.003082
0.00279
0.002837
0.00312
0.003037
0.002743
0.00325
0.003372
0.00284
0.003272
0.003166
0.00279
0.003339
0.002269
0.003129
0.003158
0.003327
0.003319

---------
The faster machine hovered around 0.006 credits/second until Aug 23rd, when it moved to hovering around the 0.0075 range. 6 WUs on the faster machine have out of spec credits, and there's a fair number of errors (both of which I'll post to the correct thread.)

I'm just eyeballing these charts, and it seems pretty easy to pick out the ones that deserve reporting. The majority of the points on the chart are pretty constant.

---

I'm confused. Someone please explain this graph:

http://www.boincstats.com/charts/chart_uk_rosetta_project_new_credits.gif



Personally, my chart shows a drop by about 50%, and my team's chart shows the same. I have looked at many of the top 25 teams out there, who have contributed 45% of the total credits, up to 7% each, and they are *way* down with the new credit system.

So how is it that the total credits have not dropped off? Increase in membership? Can it really be that much?

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

Here is a list of WUs that errored out. With the last decoy being bad, I can see it not having any credit granted, but for one of mine having gone 51k seconds, I'm suprised that I don't have any decoys that validated and got credit. The other two systems had a 3 hour run time, and should have created a few decoys before hitting the one that errored out.

Are these errored results being uploaded to the server and the models/decoys that didn't error out being validated? (and if not, why not?)

---

A fair portion of the time on the new credit system the validator was offline. Perhaps the various stats sites are at different states of reflecting all of the data.

Also, the major teams you refer to are more likely then the average to use the "optimized" clients, and therefore more likely to see fewer credits/day on the new system.

Also, perhaps many systems are now coming back to Rosetta to work, after paying off debts incurred to other projects during CASP running Rosetta.

---

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/

Also, the major teams you refer to are more likely then the average to use the "optimized" clients, and therefore more likely to see fewer credits/day on the new system.

Exactly, and those teams account for 45% of the credits per the old system. So, even if only te top 25 teams are using the optomized clients, and those machines are seeing a drop of *at least* 50%, then we should be seeing a drop of at least 22% overall in credits. So where is it?

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

Oh, and although a small percentage, there's also the linux clients that are seeing a bump in credits produced.

...in order to address your question, I guess one would require references to the rest of the data you're discussing. Without that, it seems you presume all team members are using optimized clients and that all are seeing a significant reduction in credits. Do you have any links that show this data?

{edit}
Found one.
Seems to support your assertions about the top teams, but shows the large drop on August 26, the graph of Rosetta credits issued was only through the 25th. So, I believe you will be proven correct as soon as the date line rolls around to boincstats' charts.

---

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/

Found one.

Very interesting. So there seems to be a portion, even among the larger and medium-sized teams, that were more or less flat last week (Phoenix Rising, AMD User, to pick some examples). I also find it interersting that some of the national teams (Czech national team, Hungary) saw considerable gains last week. There could be several reasons for that but one that comes to mind is that these countries might have fairly large shares of Linux users...

---

Team betterhumans.com - discuss and celebrate the future - hoelder1in.org

Found one.
Seems to support your assertions about the top teams, but shows the large drop on August 26, the graph of Rosetta credits issued was only through the 25th. So, I believe you will be proven correct as soon as the date line rolls around to boincstats' charts.

People should look quickly before the old system daily team scores drop off the 7 day rolling window.


This is very confusing to me. BOINCstats is updated daily. They feed on the same data BOINCsynergy does. You can see the decline kicking in on the 23rd. Today being the 25th (PDT), we should see the impact on BOINCstats daily chart (that I posted earlier). Something is not adding up.

FWIW, my team (Team MacNN!!) shows it's members a rolling 24hr stat. When the new credit method kicked in, I switched to 1hr (minimum) run time, hoping to hit the credit lotto. My rolling 24 hr average was ~5k/24hrs. Then we had the verification server glitch. We first thought that the PTB had instituted a delay in granting credits to remove the lotto driver. So at that time, I increased my runtime to 6 hours. In the couple of days since then, my average has increased to ~7k/24hrs.

Of course, with this new credit method, this could mean something, or absolutely nothing. No way to know.

I just increased my run time to 8 hours. We'll see what happens.

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

Another point with the big, competitive teams is that they compete with each other. If one team suddenly decides to move resources to another project, the others follow suit in order not to be left behind.

Our team does not bother with such matters. We have seen an influx of members from other teams, the new members being fed up with serving the teams whims, and ignoring the scientific benefit of what the projects are doing.

---

Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.

[quote]Found one.quote]

People should look quickly before the old system daily team scores drop off the 7 day rolling window.

This Chart shows that Teams Daily Stats for almost the last 30 days ...

http://stats.free-dc.org/new/teamrank.php?proj=rah&team=XtremeSystems

Found one.
Seems to support your assertions about the top teams, but shows the large drop on August 26, the graph of Rosetta credits issued was only through the 25th. So, I believe you will be proven correct as soon as the date line rolls around to boincstats' charts.

People should look quickly before the old system daily team scores drop off the 7 day rolling window.


This is very confusing to me. BOINCstats is updated daily. They feed on the same data BOINCsynergy does. You can see the decline kicking in on the 23rd. Today being the 25th (PDT), we should see the impact on BOINCstats daily chart (that I posted earlier). Something is not adding up.

FWIW, my team (Team MacNN!!) shows it's members a rolling 24hr stat. When the new credit method kicked in, I switched to 1hr (minimum) run time, hoping to hit the credit lotto. My rolling 24 hr average was ~5k/24hrs. Then we had the verification server glitch. We first thought that the PTB had instituted a delay in granting credits to remove the lotto driver. So at that time, I increased my runtime to 6 hours. In the couple of days since then, my average has increased to ~7k/24hrs.

Of course, with this new credit method, this could mean something, or absolutely nothing. No way to know.

I just increased my run time to 8 hours. We'll see what happens.

Unless there is a large loss of users the credit/day should not drop a lot since rather than having large claims, middle claims and low claims, it now all just the average of that. Hence the total is the same even if the individuals are different.
Though XtremeSystems has dropped of the charts it not that much in the scheme of things, 400000 a day credits (about 10% of the overall and about 1 of the divisions in the graph shown above/below), don't forget only 19% of Rosetta users are in a team.

---

Team mauisun.org

Another point with the big, competitive teams is that they compete with each other. If one team suddenly decides to move resources to another project, the others follow suit in order not to be left behind.

Our team does not bother with such matters. We have seen an influx of members from other teams, the new members being fed up with serving the teams whims, and ignoring the scientific benefit of what the projects are doing.

I'm so glad to hear from someone who has some common sense after hearing so much from the vocal minority. I think most people feel the same as you've said and don't constantly barrage the forum with repeated posts about how bad the new credit system is. I think you know now who the vocal minority is (this is a deliberate poke at certain teams).

My take on the new credit system: I'm not entirely satisfied because it does not accurately represent my contribution to the project. I was (for a short time) using the 5.5.0 BOINC client and inflated my credits by 3 times over the 5.4.9 client. I gladly switched back to the 5.4.11 client before the new credit system came on line.

Now I'm getting 40..50% more credit awarded than claimed. Don't get me wrong - I'll gladly accept the extra. But, what this means is that the average claim must be much larger (or at least somewhat larger) than my stock claim. This also means that there are still too many overclaiming clients being used which is artificially pushing up the average. Or, my poor P4 has been consistantly underclaiming and continues to do so. It's just a minor annoyance to me and really isn't a complaint, just an observation.

My interpretation of the new credit system is that it intends to give to all users the benefit of any advantage that any user's overclaiming client gives. I think the project developers think this would tend to make it less productive and therefore less desirable for any user to implement an overclaiming client. However, it will still increase the averages to use an overclaiming client (as long as it's still not prohibited) so that if enough users (read: teams) use an overclaiming client those users will artificially inflate the credit system to the point that it no longer represents reality.

I thought that there once was discussion of using a fixed credit based on a 'golden' standard WU (or a 'golden' standard machine), adjusted of course to each different type of WU. I personally think that's the only reality based credit system, unless you were to implement a FLOP counting method which I understand the programmers have discounted because of the difficulty in coding.

This is probably quite representative of what is happening in a lot of teams right now. This is my team BTW.

---

This is probably quite representative of what is happening in a lot of teams right now. This is my team BTW.

Looks like someone has you covered though.




Which project have you all moved to WCG ?

---

Team mauisun.org

Looks like someone has you covered though.

Ah this is where all the new hosts come from - at least some of them. :-)

I'm sorry guys, but this happened to my team:

---

And I'm proud of it!

I'm sorry guys, but this happened to my team:

Yes but your team asked everyone that wanted to run Rosetta still to er leave the team. Stange 'team'. You last my respect doing that.


Also my teams graph looks similar but no one has left and credits have only dropped slightly. Overall some members up, some down.

XtremSystem is unfortunatly (though fortunatly to Rosetta) a small amount of the work contributed (about 10% in old credits, so max 5% in new credits).

---

Team mauisun.org

XtremSystem is unfortunatly (though fortunatly to Rosetta) a small amount of the work contributed (about 10% in old credits, so max 5% in new credits).

You take one team, please take the whole complete top30

We will see, I'll take a look to the outputstats of the top10 (33% in old credits, 15 in new ?) and all teams are going down to almost zero, I don't looked at the teams beneath them, but I think you see this trend in almost the complete top30.

So rosetta lost say 20% of their CPUpower, just to keep a few people satisfied.
Even a scientist must see that he was betting on the wrong horse.

---

XtremSystem is unfortunatly (though fortunatly to Rosetta) a small amount of the work contributed (about 10% in old credits, so max 5% in new credits).

You take one team, please take the whole complete top30

We will see, I'll take a look to the outputstats of the top10 (33% in old credits, 15 in new ?) and all teams are going down to almost zero, I don't looked at the teams beneath them, but I think you see this trend in almost the complete top30.

So rosetta lost say 20% of their CPUpower, just to keep a few people satisfied.
Even a scientist must see that he was betting on the wrong horse.

I have nothing against the reasons for why they want to leave (since I agree with most of them :-)) but I can get over it and hope bakerlabs will learn from it.


I don't like the fact they told team members to leave there team, go to other teams trying to rally support and leave Rosetta etc..
Oh and I only replied to that post.


(33% in old credits, 15 in new ?)
Not sure really, Crunch3rs was usualy 300% over the norm (well that what I generally got across a range of CPU's) so I would assume they move to an average somewhere between 1/3 and 1/2 of their total.

---

Team mauisun.org