Message boards : Number crunching : High Scores Anyone?
Author | Message |
---|---|
![]() Send message Joined: 3 Nov 05 Posts: 1829 Credit: 119,132,248 RAC: 4,847 ![]() |
Some of the credit given for these results is slightly high! It's a Celeron 2.8 with a RAC of over 5k: https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=260872 It looks like the decoys are being considered complete and so are getting full credit even though some are only running for a few seconds. This one too: https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=319789 |
![]() Send message Joined: 17 Sep 05 Posts: 93 Credit: 946,359 RAC: 0 |
Unfortunately no high credits for me :) But my last 6 or 8 results are all credited granted = claimed. Never seen this in the last 6 or 8 weeks. Something is really strange here... |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 15 Dec 05 Posts: 761 Credit: 285,578 RAC: 0 |
Unfortunately no high credits for me :) If you look at your results on the website after they have been returned, are they failing in some way? If so the fact that grant = claim could simply reflect the fact that the project team are giving you credit for time spent on broken software, which has been Rosetta policy since late 2005. R~~ |
BennyRop Send message Joined: 17 Dec 05 Posts: 555 Credit: 140,800 RAC: 0 |
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/result.php?resultid=44436068 https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/result.php?resultid=44392864 328 and 545 points for 18? seconds seems a bit out of line. :) |
![]() Send message Joined: 17 Sep 05 Posts: 93 Credit: 946,359 RAC: 0 |
Unfortunately no high credits for me :) No, all results seem to be OK. Claimed = Granted only happened with FRA_t368-WUs, DOC-WUs are granted different to claimed. |
Jose Send message Joined: 28 Mar 06 Posts: 820 Credit: 48,297 RAC: 0 |
Some of the credit given for these results is slightly high! It's a Celeron 2.8 with a RAC of over 5k: Interesting numbers for his Celerons. In many cases some of the computers identified (recognized by the Rosetta Server) as Celerons are getting more credits than the Pentiums. ¿Could it be a case of a bad id, that the comps are not Celeries? Or a case of bad validation? A quirk at the validator level? This and no other is the root from which a Tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.†Plato |
Mats Petersson Send message Joined: 29 Sep 05 Posts: 225 Credit: 951,788 RAC: 0 |
I had a look, and it seems like several decoys are attempted with very short runtime before the watchdog kills the process - I'm not sure what happens, but one had about 10 attempts to get going before it was ultimately killed, all within 10 minutes (600 seconds). That could account for a quick accumulation of points... -- Mats |
AMD_is_logical Send message Joined: 20 Dec 05 Posts: 299 Credit: 31,460,681 RAC: 0 |
Perhaps this person is sneakernetting several machines and is using this machine to upload? |
![]() Send message Joined: 3 Nov 05 Posts: 1829 Credit: 119,132,248 RAC: 4,847 ![]() |
the problem is the decoys are being counted and credited as valid even though they only run for a few seconds. |
AMD_is_logical Send message Joined: 20 Dec 05 Posts: 299 Credit: 31,460,681 RAC: 0 |
the problem is the decoys are being counted and credited as valid even though they only run for a few seconds. It's true those decoys couldn't have been generated in just a few seconds. However, If he's using some strange method of uploading sneakernetted results from other machines, then the reported run times might not reflect the actual run times. |
Chu Send message Joined: 23 Feb 06 Posts: 120 Credit: 112,439 RAC: 0 |
We are looking into this issue right now. For the stderr output, it looks like a file clean-up issue as it constains many copies of "normal exit". Hopefully we will be able to reproduce it locally to confirm that. More to come... |
Message boards :
Number crunching :
High Scores Anyone?
©2024 University of Washington
https://www.bakerlab.org