I seem to be getting only half of the claimed credit for ALL of my WU's. Any idea why this is? I accumulate a good share of credit a day on SET@home and World Community Grid, but get almost no credit off of Rosetta@home and they are all allotted the same amount of resources.

Rosetta tasks do not have a strictly predictable runtime, and there is variation from one model to the next. To prevent credit spoofing, and attempt to align credit granted with work performed, Rosetta grants credit based on the number of models actually completed and the credit granted is based on the average completion reports of others working on the same batch of tasks.

So, if your granted credit is consistently around half of your claimed credit, it simply is an indication that your machine is taking more time to do things than other machines have required.

It looks like the machine you observed half credit on was this one:
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=1693333

It has 4 CPUs and 8GB of memory, but only a 256K L2 cache reported. So presuming typical BOINC Manager preferences for memory usage, that should be plenty of memory. But if the 256K is accurate on the L2 cache, that may be a chokepoint. Rosetta runs best on CPUs with large L2 cache. This sort of variation between machines is a part of why the work-based credit system was adopted. Your machine might do great running BOINC's benchmarks (which are the basis of the claimed credit figure), but if it doesn't actually crunch Rosetta models better, then it's granted credit will reflect that.

You have another machine here:
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=1693326

12 CPUs, 16GB of memory, NICE! It shows 256K L2 cache as well, but I seem to recall there were some BOINC Manager problems in reporting that correctly (which was the reason for some tentative wording above).

If this will be a nearly fulltime cruncher, I'd highly suggest increasing the runtime preference (which is done via the project website in the Rosetta preferences). Changes there WILL impact your current work on deck, so I generally suggest keeping a small cache, working through tasks so you don't have a lot onboard, and changing the preference gradually over the course of a week. This helps BOINC Manager adapt to the changing runtimes and avoids downloading more tasks than you can complete before the 10 day deadline.

The default runtime preference is 3hrs., the max is 24hrs. So why download 96 tasks to have a day of work when you can just get 12 and run them longer? This was another advantage to the per-model basis of the Rosetta credit system. Each user can establish their own runtime objective to help suit the way they like to use their machine. Crunch a task for more hours, you will complete more models, and more credit will be issued for the task. Credit per minute or per hour is the same. It just saves you (and the project) the bandwidth. Also saves a bit of overhead in getting a new task up and running many times per day.

Welcome to Rosetta!

---

Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Sense

Rosetta tasks do not have a strictly predictable runtime, and there is variation from one model to the next. To prevent credit spoofing, and attempt to align credit granted with work performed, Rosetta grants credit based on the number of models actually completed and the credit granted is based on the average completion reports of others working on the same batch of tasks.

So, if your granted credit is consistently around half of your claimed credit, it simply is an indication that your machine is taking more time to do things than other machines have required.

It looks like the machine you observed half credit on was this one:
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=1693333

It has 4 CPUs and 8GB of memory, but only a 256K L2 cache reported. So presuming typical BOINC Manager preferences for memory usage, that should be plenty of memory. But if the 256K is accurate on the L2 cache, that may be a chokepoint. Rosetta runs best on CPUs with large L2 cache. This sort of variation between machines is a part of why the work-based credit system was adopted. Your machine might do great running BOINC's benchmarks (which are the basis of the claimed credit figure), but if it doesn't actually crunch Rosetta models better, then it's granted credit will reflect that.

You have another machine here:
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=1693326

12 CPUs, 16GB of memory, NICE! It shows 256K L2 cache as well, but I seem to recall there were some BOINC Manager problems in reporting that correctly (which was the reason for some tentative wording above).

If this will be a nearly fulltime cruncher, I'd highly suggest increasing the runtime preference (which is done via the project website in the Rosetta preferences). Changes there WILL impact your current work on deck, so I generally suggest keeping a small cache, working through tasks so you don't have a lot onboard, and changing the preference gradually over the course of a week. This helps BOINC Manager adapt to the changing runtimes and avoids downloading more tasks than you can complete before the 10 day deadline.

The default runtime preference is 3hrs., the max is 24hrs. So why download 96 tasks to have a day of work when you can just get 12 and run them longer? This was another advantage to the per-model basis of the Rosetta credit system. Each user can establish their own runtime objective to help suit the way they like to use their machine. Crunch a task for more hours, you will complete more models, and more credit will be issued for the task. Credit per minute or per hour is the same. It just saves you (and the project) the bandwidth. Also saves a bit of overhead in getting a new task up and running many times per day.

Welcome to Rosetta!

Thank you! Something that completely makes sense here. The second machine certainly isn't a "full time" cruncher, but at least a good half of the day it's running BOINC and nothing else. The L2 Cache is accurate it's just that the second machine/processor also has a 12MB L3 Cache. I'll definitely start trying to adjust some of these settings you're talking about, I like to get maximum performance out of my projects when I'm running them. =)

I dont know if my question is the same topic but i will try.
Till last week i was running a i5-3570S CPU @ 3.10GHz and for every task i got arround 300 points. Now i have a i7-3770K CPU @ 3.50GHz which handles more tasks at the same time with the same runtime and i get for the tasks 17 !!! Points ?!

What is wrong?

Interesting, your benchmarks between the two machines would indicate that the new one is not as capable as the old one. But credit is not strictly based on your benchmarks anyway (although this is the basis for the "claimed" credit). Is the machine doing a lot of other work, where BOINC tasks are getting swapped out of memory frequently?

Go to the advanced view, then click the advanced pulldown menu and run the CPU benchmarks. Currently your new host is recorded at 1000 million floating point operations per second and 1000 million integer operations per second as well. Seems odd that the two would be the same.

You have numerous tasks that seem to be getting restarted many times, and then hitting long-running models that take the task over it's preferred runtime and so the watchdog is cutting it off and reporting it back.

If you look at your BOINC preferences, what do you have for your memory settings? And is the machine idle, or in-use most of the time? And I'd suggest you check the box to keep tasks in memory while suspended, so they don't have to be restarted.

---

Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Sense

hmm no the machine is not doing much work and i have 32gb ram so nothing needs to be kicked out of the ram. I run a Benchmark and i get the following:
29.10.2016 22:19:30 | | Running CPU benchmarks
29.10.2016 22:19:31 | | Suspending computation - CPU benchmarks in progress
29.10.2016 22:20:02 | | FP benchmark ran only 0.436803 sec; ignoring
29.10.2016 22:20:02 | | FP benchmark ran only 1.123207 sec; ignoring

And a Screenshot for the memory Settings:
https://abload.de/img/unbenanntqxs99.png

hmm no the machine is not doing much work and i have 32gb ram so nothing needs to be kicked out of the ram. I run a Benchmark and i get the following:
29.10.2016 22:19:30 | | Running CPU benchmarks
29.10.2016 22:19:31 | | Suspending computation - CPU benchmarks in progress
29.10.2016 22:20:02 | | FP benchmark ran only 0.436803 sec; ignoring
29.10.2016 22:20:02 | | FP benchmark ran only 1.123207 sec; ignoring

And a Screenshot for the memory Settings:
https://abload.de/img/unbenanntqxs99.png

Something going very wrong there. One of my PCs which is much less powerful than yours is here - measured FPS speed is 3 times as much, Integer 7 times as much.

From your screenshot, you should allocate 6Gb or 8Gb of disk space for an 8-core PC in the 1st field and tick the last box to leave non-GPU tasks in memory while suspended, but it'll be more useful to have an image of the first tab for your compute settings. I'm not expecting a problem there. Something seems wrong with your whole machine to give those kind of low benchmarks. Very strange.

---

:( That sounds bad.... this are the other settings: http://abload.de/img/unbenannt1234wuwq.png

I noticed yesterday a message, that there is not enough space so i set it to 40 gb ^^

Are the pc statistics with floating automatic or can i run a test? I dont understand why i get so bad results here, the machine is running fine.

Edit: I have running a new benchmark:
30.10.2016 08:57:36 | | Running CPU benchmarks
30.10.2016 08:57:36 | | Suspending computation - CPU benchmarks in progress
30.10.2016 08:58:08 | | Benchmark results:
30.10.2016 08:58:08 | | Number of CPUs: 8
30.10.2016 08:58:08 | | 4129 floating point MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU
30.10.2016 08:58:08 | | 10963 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU


And i noticed this messages:
30.10.2016 07:38:04 | rosetta@home | Task FFF_7601dea19215f38a35aa335b8c5d3d73_bontchip2016_Thu_Sep_29_02_01_51_PDT_2016_0006621_abinitio_SAVE_ALL_OUT_441320_39_0 exited with zero status but no 'finished' file
30.10.2016 07:38:04 | rosetta@home | If this happens repeatedly you may need to reset the project.
30.10.2016 07:40:40 | rosetta@home | Task FFF_aad3b94883d940f0e3ee633eab93f375_bontchip2016_Wed_Sep_28_20_48_56_PDT_2016_0000429_abinitio_SAVE_ALL_OUT_441320_40_0 exited with zero status but no 'finished' file
30.10.2016 07:40:40 | rosetta@home | If this happens repeatedly you may need to reset the project.
30.10.2016 07:53:31 | rosetta@home | Task FFF_aad3b94883d940f0e3ee633eab93f375_bontchip2016_Wed_Sep_28_20_48_56_PDT_2016_0000429_abinitio_SAVE_ALL_OUT_441320_40_0 exited with zero status but no 'finished' file
30.10.2016 07:53:31 | rosetta@home | If this happens repeatedly you may need to reset the project.
30.10.2016 07:57:48 | rosetta@home | Task FFF_7601dea19215f38a35aa335b8c5d3d73_bontchip2016_Thu_Sep_29_02_01_51_PDT_2016_0006621_abinitio_SAVE_ALL_OUT_441320_39_0 exited with zero status but no 'finished' file
30.10.2016 07:57:48 | rosetta@home | If this happens repeatedly you may need to reset the project.


So i run a reset.

From your results page it looks like things are running much more efficiently now and that your machine has download a bunch of new work. So it looks like things are going well now.

---

Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Sense

It looks a little bit better but the claimed/granted points are still under 100 and with the other cpu ive got 300 per Task :-/

I think one of the problems was the missing reset of the bios after changing the cpu, now i get better results but not the score i want.. :(

:( That sounds bad.... this are the other settings: http://abload.de/img/unbenannt1234wuwq.png

I noticed yesterday a message, that there is not enough space so I set it to 40 gb ^^

10Gb ought to be more than you'll ever need, but if you have the disk space to spare that's fine

Edit: I have running a new benchmark:
30.10.2016 08:57:36 | | Running CPU benchmarks
30.10.2016 08:57:36 | | Suspending computation - CPU benchmarks in progress
30.10.2016 08:58:08 | | Benchmark results:
30.10.2016 08:58:08 | | Number of CPUs: 8
30.10.2016 08:58:08 | | 4129 floating point MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU
30.10.2016 08:58:08 | | 10963 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU

That's what I'd expect. Looks good.

And I noticed this messages:
30.10.2016 07:38:04 | rosetta@home | Task FFF_7601dea19215f38a35aa335b8c5d3d73_bontchip2016_Thu_Sep_29_02_01_51_PDT_2016_0006621_abinitio_SAVE_ALL_OUT_441320_39_0 exited with zero status but no 'finished' file
30.10.2016 07:38:04 | rosetta@home | If this happens repeatedly you may need to reset the project.
30.10.2016 07:40:40 | rosetta@home | Task FFF_aad3b94883d940f0e3ee633eab93f375_bontchip2016_Wed_Sep_28_20_48_56_PDT_2016_0000429_abinitio_SAVE_ALL_OUT_441320_40_0 exited with zero status but no 'finished' file
30.10.2016 07:40:40 | rosetta@home | If this happens repeatedly you may need to reset the project.
30.10.2016 07:53:31 | rosetta@home | Task FFF_aad3b94883d940f0e3ee633eab93f375_bontchip2016_Wed_Sep_28_20_48_56_PDT_2016_0000429_abinitio_SAVE_ALL_OUT_441320_40_0 exited with zero status but no 'finished' file
30.10.2016 07:53:31 | rosetta@home | If this happens repeatedly you may need to reset the project.
30.10.2016 07:57:48 | rosetta@home | Task FFF_7601dea19215f38a35aa335b8c5d3d73_bontchip2016_Thu_Sep_29_02_01_51_PDT_2016_0006621_abinitio_SAVE_ALL_OUT_441320_39_0 exited with zero status but no 'finished' file
30.10.2016 07:57:48 | rosetta@home | If this happens repeatedly you may need to reset the project.


So I run a reset.

This occasionally happens, but most often when you have "Lasse nicht-GPU Aufgaben im Speicher, wenn sie pausiert sind" unticked. Tick it.

On the first tab, Processorzeit should be 100%. Last week someone reported strange problems when it was set below the maximum. This may result in some heat problems, but your credit figures will go up a lot.

I see you're already getting over 200 now, but you should reach nearer 300 for an 8-hour task.

---

Yes its getting slowly better with the points.

The gpu box is activated since i have run the reset but i still get the message. :-/

I changed the proceccortime to 100%.