So I was taking alook at the top 20 Rosetta crunchers by RAC, and noticed this. How is that possible?

(edited to clean up bbcode)

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

So I was taking alook at the top 20 Rosetta crunchers by RAC, and noticed this. How is that possible?
this. How is that possible?

Checking it out. . will let you know.

---

RAC >> Total usually happens on the first few results that a computer returns and mostly on projects with high per-WU-credits AND instant credits for this result (quorum of 1 or co-crunchers have been faster)

It might mean that PF2002 collected a bunch of results on hosts that he has fresh attached and delivered them all in one pile.

On the first few results of a host, the RAC can be thousand-fold higher than the real capabilities of that computer. Usually nothing to worry about.

If the user is "new", then this is possible, and just a display/calculation error. RAC is "weighted" and without the data to weigh against, this high reading is possible. Otherwise, it really needs checking out,especially if he has 33K credit tomorrow, LOL. I see he joined in Jan 2006, but that doesn't necessarily mean he did much/any crunching.

If the user is "new", then this is possible, and just a display/calculation error. RAC is "weighted" and without the data to weigh against, this high reading is possible. Otherwise, it really needs checking out,especially if he has 33K credit tomorrow, LOL. I see he joined in Jan 2006, but that doesn't necessarily mean he did much/any crunching.

BOINCstats shows no credits in the last 30 days, but does show the RAC of 30k. So it looks like it has been this way for a while now.

Did someone perhaps have a fit over the new credit syetem, and ask to have his credits deleted?

Just thinking out loud.

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

AFAIK, this is because the decay function for the RAC has been implemented on Rosetta, so that RAC is only recalculated when a result is returned under that account. That would mean that as this RAC was initially very high and hasn't been recalcuated since, it will stay as is until a result is returned or the decay script is implemented.

If anyone thinks/knows my understanding is wrong pls update me ;)

---

The lack of a decay script has been mentioned in regards to a number of high RACs that stay high after someone suddenly stops producing.

DCDC:
It would make a little more sense if you change the sentence to read that the decay script has NOT been implemented here.

---

oops! Meant to say:

AFAIK, this is because the decay function for the RAC hasn't been implemented on Rosetta, so that RAC is only recalculated when a result is returned under that account. That would mean that as this RAC was initially very high and hasn't been recalcuated since, it will stay as is until a result is returned or the decay script is implemented.

cheers BR!

---

It's always easier to catch errors in what others write, as we tend to mentally add in the missing words when we read our own writing. :)

---

So I was taking alook at the top 20 Rosetta crunchers by RAC, and noticed this. How is that possible?
this. How is that possible?

Checking it out. . will let you know.

Looks like it's been fixed! Others too, because I just jumped up from 4 spots (RAC).

Thanks!

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

Ooo! And it updated the machine RAC too. Thanks again!

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

I updated the user, host, and team RAC and I'll have them update once a week.

I updated the user, host, and team RAC and I'll have them update once a week.

Thanks David.

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

edit: Upps, accidentally I posted in my native language, so excited am I. :-)

Finally you can spot interesting hosts like this one. Boincstats has this nice graph for that host. :-)

edit: Upps, accidentally I posted in my native language, ...

Let me guess: you wrote "Ichwillauchsoeins" - which was about the thought that I had when I saw it ;-)