Hi!

NO COMMENT just link...:

0.26 for 12,585s
1.22 for 9,565s.
3.56 for 5,911s
8.95 for 11,077s
14.07 for 21,950s.

OMG...

---

WWW of Polish National Team - Join! Crunch! Win!

Hello,

The credit variation that you're seeing is a characteristic of the *gbn* simulations. In addition to jobs that show low per-WU credit, you will also see high per-WU credit, which, over time, averages out. I've commented on this variability in the ROSETTA 2.05 and in the protein-interface design threads, and briefly the idea is that in order to save time, these simulations try to identify simulations that would not yield good models early and triage those (short runs). On the other hand, those simulations that seem to yield good results will be tried again and again to improve them (long runs). Over time, any particular machine will receive jobs of both kinds and its credit will be appropriately averaged. The bottomline is that though at any given moment it might seem that the credit is unevenly allocated, over a longer period of time it smooths out.

That said, I'm testing now a second type of protocol which is efficient even if simulations are not triaged early (the jobs will be named "tyrsim"). It's a different (complementary) approach to the problem of finding a binder and I'm waiting to see how it behaves on ROSETTA @ HOME. If it allocates credit more evenly over time we will shift our focus to using this protocol.

Thanks, Sarel.

Hi!

NO COMMENT just link...:

0.26 for 12,585s
1.22 for 9,565s.
3.56 for 5,911s
8.95 for 11,077s
14.07 for 21,950s.

OMG...

---

Thank You for the explanation.

---

WWW of Polish National Team - Join! Crunch! Win!

I'm very credit oriented when it comes to DC projects. But since R@H is very important to me, I don't mind the "disadvantage" we have over other projects when it comes to getting credit. It'd be cool if the R@H team could figure out how to fix this "problem".

---

Anyhow, level credits pher WU shuld be increased.
I hafe heard, that Rosetta will need more computing power for "protein-protein interfaces" program.

Increasing credits will stimulate users to join or restart this great project.

Apart from rosettas goal. Increasing the credit/WU ratio would be a good marketing move. Plenty of people seeing the increase would witch to rosetta from other projects. And since Rosetta is not the best crediting project, this would not be seen as "inflation" of the credit system.

---

... until other projects simmilaly increase theirs to retain their credit obsessed crunchers.

It would be best if all projects used the same rules for issuing credit, but of course, there will always be cheats, so fixes, and more cheats and more fixes.

---

Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream.

... until other projects simmilaly increase theirs to retain their credit obsessed crunchers.

It would be best if all projects used the same rules for issuing credit, but of course, there will always be cheats, so fixes, and more cheats and more fixes.

I think a baseline would be best and then let projects go up or down from there. Some projects obviously want to limit the users to keep the costs down, others have more resources so to pad their own stats they want more users. I think to say 'this is the formula and everyone will use it' is not a viable option. Other than that I agree with you.

I got 0.39 for over 60,000 secs

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/workunit.php?wuid=289735541

---

I got 0.39 for over 60,000 secs

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/workunit.php?wuid=289735541

Usually those tyrsim jobs generate hundreds of decoys in few hours. You got unlucky and crunched very long runs on two decoys, so validator gave you only small fraction of credit that you should have earned.

---