If the scheduler or whatever program that stores the info about our systems could be made intelligent enough to read through the database of systems and their settings and say..oh..heres a system with 6 hour run times or longer, lets send a large model protien to it and then the same with lower run times and memory etc.
But I suppose such a program or whatever would take a lot of time to develop or is not possible at this time. That would take care of the over runs I would think.

Berkeley played with doing this type of thing, for units that were to be crunched and returned more quickly, but gave up on it. They said, at the time, that the way Boinc checks the computers isn't accurate enough. This was SEVERAL years ago.

---

I too have been noticing very erratic credits, this is a short list of some recent ones..

For most WU's the machines seem to be getting about 55 - 60% of their claimed value, but for others it's a bit higher than claimed.

220590191 	200971180  	13 Jan 2009 16:01:57 UTC  	14 Jan 2009 14:20:30 UTC  	Over  	Success  	Done  	43,126.96  	177.82  254.71
220586130 	200968009 	13 Jan 2009 15:40:28 UTC 	15 Jan 2009 3:55:44 UTC 	Over 	Success 	Done 	42,818.62 	123.67 	78.32
220584480 	199077349 	13 Jan 2009 15:32:11 UTC 	14 Jan 2009 19:22:20 UTC 	Over 	Success 	Done 	42,572.98 	202.28 	218.84
220583761 	200966362 	13 Jan 2009 15:28:02 UTC 	15 Jan 2009 3:44:36 UTC 	Over 	Success 	Done 	43,202.18 	205.27 	246.02
220899883 	201265495  	14 Jan 2009 19:26:40 UTC  	15 Jan 2009 12:27:31 UTC  	Over  	Success  	Done  	42,370.70  	111.30  69.84
220627702 	201006021  	13 Jan 2009 19:16:54 UTC  	14 Jan 2009 23:21:06 UTC  	Over  	Success  	Done  	41,901.18  	99.97  	57.82

---

"Every passing hour brings the Solar System forty-three thousand miles closer to Globular Cluster M13 in Hercules -- and still there are some misfits who insist that there is no such thing as progress." - Kurt Vonnegut

I too have been noticing very erratic credits, this is a short list of some recent ones..

For most WU's the machines seem to be getting about 55 - 60% of their claimed value, but for others it's a bit higher than claimed.

220590191 	200971180  	13 Jan 2009 16:01:57 UTC  	14 Jan 2009 14:20:30 UTC  	Over  	Success  	Done  	43,126.96  	177.82  254.71
220586130 	200968009 	13 Jan 2009 15:40:28 UTC 	15 Jan 2009 3:55:44 UTC 	Over 	Success 	Done 	42,818.62 	123.67 	78.32
220584480 	199077349 	13 Jan 2009 15:32:11 UTC 	14 Jan 2009 19:22:20 UTC 	Over 	Success 	Done 	42,572.98 	202.28 	218.84
220583761 	200966362 	13 Jan 2009 15:28:02 UTC 	15 Jan 2009 3:44:36 UTC 	Over 	Success 	Done 	43,202.18 	205.27 	246.02
220899883 	201265495  	14 Jan 2009 19:26:40 UTC  	15 Jan 2009 12:27:31 UTC  	Over  	Success  	Done  	42,370.70  	111.30  69.84
220627702 	201006021  	13 Jan 2009 19:16:54 UTC  	14 Jan 2009 23:21:06 UTC  	Over  	Success  	Done  	41,901.18  	99.97  	57.82

don't worry to much about the higher credits. that just means your machine processed those tasks faster than others crunching the same protein fragment.
the opposite is true for the lower credit, your machine was not able to crunch that protein fragment as fast as other machines.

in the end on your RAC it will even out.
it looks like they all ran the full run time with no errors which is a good thing.

ive grown used to seeing 30-40 point differences to the negative on some of the tasks. it stinks, but that's just the luck of the draw. usually due to the protein being large and complex. just remember they will all even out on your RAC.