High Scores Anyone?

Author	Message
dcdc Send message Joined: 3 Nov 05 Posts: 1832 Credit: 119,860,059 RAC: 2,520	Message 30240 - Posted: 29 Oct 2006, 19:27:29 UTC Last modified: 29 Oct 2006, 19:29:15 UTC 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 ID: 30240 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

scsimodo Send message Joined: 17 Sep 05 Posts: 93 Credit: 946,359 RAC: 0	Message 30248 - Posted: 29 Oct 2006, 20:57:14 UTC - in response to Message 30240. 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... ID: 30248 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

River~~ Send message Joined: 15 Dec 05 Posts: 761 Credit: 285,578 RAC: 0	Message 30250 - Posted: 29 Oct 2006, 21:38:52 UTC - in response to Message 30248. 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... 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~~ ID: 30250 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

BennyRop Send message Joined: 17 Dec 05 Posts: 555 Credit: 140,800 RAC: 0	Message 30252 - Posted: 29 Oct 2006, 22:00:48 UTC 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. :) ID: 30252 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

scsimodo Send message Joined: 17 Sep 05 Posts: 93 Credit: 946,359 RAC: 0	Message 30253 - Posted: 29 Oct 2006, 22:01:39 UTC - in response to Message 30250. Last modified: 29 Oct 2006, 22:04:26 UTC 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... If you look at your results on the website after they have been returned, are they failing in some way? No, all results seem to be OK. Claimed = Granted only happened with FRA_t368-WUs, DOC-WUs are granted different to claimed. ID: 30253 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Jose Send message Joined: 28 Mar 06 Posts: 820 Credit: 48,297 RAC: 0	Message 30288 - Posted: 30 Oct 2006, 14:28:47 UTC - in response to Message 30240. 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 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.â€ Plato ID: 30288 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Mats Petersson Send message Joined: 29 Sep 05 Posts: 225 Credit: 951,788 RAC: 0	Message 30289 - Posted: 30 Oct 2006, 14:53:41 UTC 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 ID: 30289 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

AMD_is_logical Send message Joined: 20 Dec 05 Posts: 299 Credit: 31,460,681 RAC: 0	Message 30301 - Posted: 30 Oct 2006, 19:02:25 UTC Perhaps this person is sneakernetting several machines and is using this machine to upload? ID: 30301 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

dcdc Send message Joined: 3 Nov 05 Posts: 1832 Credit: 119,860,059 RAC: 2,520	Message 30302 - Posted: 30 Oct 2006, 19:07:36 UTC the problem is the decoys are being counted and credited as valid even though they only run for a few seconds. ID: 30302 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

AMD_is_logical Send message Joined: 20 Dec 05 Posts: 299 Credit: 31,460,681 RAC: 0	Message 30317 - Posted: 30 Oct 2006, 21:05:25 UTC - in response to Message 30302. 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. ID: 30317 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Chu Send message Joined: 23 Feb 06 Posts: 120 Credit: 112,439 RAC: 0	Message 30377 - Posted: 31 Oct 2006, 17:07:23 UTC 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... ID: 30377 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote