Well I am just completing a number of Rosetta work units that have taken nearly 7 hours each, the claimed credit was around 87, but the granted credit was only 20. Other recent work units on this same machine were under three hours and granted 40 odd credits each, so more than double the work for less than half the credits, not a good deal. I have noticed on Rosetta that similar work units get significantly different granted credits .... in the subject time window, each work unit was taking about 3 hours each, the 8 core Power Mac gets nearly 80 credits, the Mac Mini gets 44 credits, the XP machine only gets 21 credits .... I think I will be quitting Rosetta, it is just too inconsistent as well as parsimonious with it's credit system.

Well I am just completing a number of Rosetta work units that have taken nearly 7 hours each, the claimed credit was around 87, but the granted credit was only 20.

One of my 8 hour long-running jobs claimed 77 and granted 108. Inconsistent, yes, though that's hardly a problem. Parsimonious, you're probably right. It depends if you're running for the credits or for the project. For me it's the latter.

The first graph compares all hosts that run both or one of the two projects, the second graph only compares the hosts running both projects.

I guess that makes sense. The implication is that WCG has a different profile of machine among its active users, resulting in a higher average award than Rosetta overall, but when the same machine runs both, comparing like with like, it's Rosetta that actually awards slightly more.

Looking at Conan's sig, it looks like MW is his favourite, partly because it awards 2.74 times as much in credits per CPU second (or Rosetta only 0.365 as much). I've just taken a look at MW to see what's so attractive about it and nothing grabbed me at all, but still, who can blame him?

I know it's hardly the most principled thing in the world to do, but why doesn't this project just add 50-100% to its credits? Human nature will do the rest...

If they just do what you suggest, not that you REALLY suggested actually doing it, alot of people will come potentially causing a TON of work for everyone involved with the project! Lots more units will have to be made and then worked on when they are returned causing a ton of work for the Server potentially requiring more hard drive space, meaning more money spent! More people also means more folks here on the boards requiring more time spent answering all the newbie questions and then censoring all the inappropriate stuff. More people means alot more work, it also means more units getting crunched and the project getting thru its goals faster. A balancing act is what is required and most projects have trouble maintaining a happy medium. Too few credits and people leave, too many credits and too many people come!

I'd like to see more effort into fixing the known bugs in the software, and making sure that all new versions get more of a test at Ralph@home before they arrive at Rosetta@home. Do you think the project team is trying to limit their work by leaving bugs in place? It looks like that's part of what they're accomplishing, even if they don't want to.

If Rosetta@home home needs more money to pay for more researchers, more staff, and more hard drives, I believe they're in Washington state, and therefore already somewhat favored if they ask for grants for medical research from this group:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_and_Melinda_Gates_Foundation

As for more credits, they could see if they can get enough money to pay the GPUGRID project to become a remote site for Rosetta@home, and therefore get a new program that already uses GPUs and therefore has a good reason for granting many more credits for the same amount of time. GPUGRID has already done some work related to Alzheimer's, even though they seem to be working mostly on schizophrenia now.

If Rosetta@home home needs more money to pay for more researchers, more staff, and more hard drives, I believe they're in Washington state, and therefore already somewhat favored if they ask for grants for medical research from this group:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_and_Melinda_Gates_Foundation

As for more credits, they could see if they can get enough money to pay the GPUGRID project to become a remote site for Rosetta@home, and therefore get a new program that already uses GPUs and therefore has a good reason for granting many more credits for the same amount of time. GPUGRID has already done some work related to Alzheimer's, even though they seem to be working mostly on schizophrenia now.

They received a share of $10m (IIRC) from Billy and Mel not too long ago. I can imagine that kind of money can be spent quickly on front line research though.

---