21)
Message boards :
Cafe Rosetta :
Word Link 4
(Message 26820)
Posted 15 Sep 2006 by Trog Dog Post: Christopher |
22)
Message boards :
Cafe Rosetta :
Word Link 4
(Message 26752)
Posted 14 Sep 2006 by Trog Dog Post: bull |
23)
Message boards :
Cafe Rosetta :
Word Link 4
(Message 26694)
Posted 13 Sep 2006 by Trog Dog Post: Ruby |
24)
Message boards :
Cafe Rosetta :
Word Link 4
(Message 26595)
Posted 11 Sep 2006 by Trog Dog Post: powder |
25)
Message boards :
Cafe Rosetta :
Word Link 4
(Message 26508)
Posted 10 Sep 2006 by Trog Dog Post: Death Star |
26)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
RAC dropping
(Message 26507)
Posted 10 Sep 2006 by Trog Dog Post: Ok, here's a real live example to follow. I've posted in Ralph because it's a Ralph wu. Currently this wu is worth .329 credits per decoy. Obviously if nobody else posts their results in the thread it will be pretty impossible to track. |
27)
Message boards :
Cafe Rosetta :
Word Link 4
(Message 26482)
Posted 10 Sep 2006 by Trog Dog Post: camouflage |
28)
Message boards :
Cafe Rosetta :
Word Link 4
(Message 26433)
Posted 9 Sep 2006 by Trog Dog Post: kharma |
29)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
RAC dropping
(Message 26432)
Posted 9 Sep 2006 by Trog Dog Post: I can see where Whl is coming from. It all depends on whether the benchmarks (which are still used for the claimed credit, and therefore affect the average) actually reflect the performance of each machine. Put simply would a machine that has twice the benchmarks produce exactly twice as much work? |
30)
Message boards :
Cafe Rosetta :
Word Link 4
(Message 26413)
Posted 9 Sep 2006 by Trog Dog Post: monkey |
31)
Message boards :
Cafe Rosetta :
Word Link 4
(Message 25886)
Posted 2 Sep 2006 by Trog Dog Post: sound |
32)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Old/New Credit system comparisons
(Message 25133)
Posted 27 Aug 2006 by Trog Dog Post:
It's only crunching Rosetta now. HT is on, it's a prescot and the target runtime is not set(default). It'll crunch 100% rosetta for the next 48 hours then I'll turn HT off. |
33)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
How to fake out the new credit system
(Message 25132)
Posted 27 Aug 2006 by Trog Dog Post: Trog Dog, I don't understand how increasing the runtime will alter teh credits ? Since the credit granted is based on the models/decoys found it's just a check of whether the incidence of models/decoys in a wu increases or decreases over time. So if the rate is constant within a wu (ie if you find 1 in a 1 hour wu, then you will find 10 in a 10 hour wu) then you have more chance of influencing the score by returning smaller wu's, because you are returning them quicker you get more bites at the cherry. |
34)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
How to fake out the new credit system
(Message 25131)
Posted 27 Aug 2006 by Trog Dog Post:
That's why the high cache, presuming that wu are relaeased in batches. 10 day cache you would presume a higher cluster of the same wu's than .1 day cache. |
35)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Old/New Credit system comparisons
(Message 25120)
Posted 27 Aug 2006 by Trog Dog Post:
Isn't 4.44 an optimised client? A drop would be expected. |
36)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
How to fake out the new credit system
(Message 25119)
Posted 27 Aug 2006 by Trog Dog Post:
True, but if a team or teams (or any group together) set a high cache, overclaim, and have relatively quick machines they should be able to manipulate the system. Whether it's worth it is another matter. The high cache is necessary to get wu's of the same type, and/or to make an influence in a wu batch as early as possible. They will raise everybody elses score initially but the more standard client, and slower hosts return results the average will drop. If they are returning results faster than the averge host then this will help too. |
37)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
How to fake out the new credit system
(Message 25117)
Posted 27 Aug 2006 by Trog Dog Post: Those mac results really throw a mental spanner in the works. Because we're now using a system that deals wih averages I would've expected the higher scoring (performing) hosts to take a minor drop while the lower scoring hosts take a rise. Intuitively, I would have expected a slight drop in standard AMD's as reported by mnb-fin and Bird-Dog. AMD's were afterall (reportedly) the top of the heap. The problem with this line of reasoning is the PowerMacs, does it really take one approximately 50% longer to create/find/calculate a model as indicated by David Kim's machine as compared to the "average" machine. Are the results reported by David Kim's machine indicative of all powermacs? |
38)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
How to fake out the new credit system
(Message 25112)
Posted 27 Aug 2006 by Trog Dog Post:
Does it make any difference if you increase the target run time? |
39)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
How to fake out the new credit system
(Message 25108)
Posted 27 Aug 2006 by Trog Dog Post: All PowerMACs with the old IBM processors get less than 50%. For example here: Wow! So that means in the terms of the new credit system that powermacs either take longer to do the same work as the "average" host or that the standard boinc client overestimates the benchmarks for macs. |
40)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
How to fake out the new credit system
(Message 25098)
Posted 27 Aug 2006 by Trog Dog Post: Are there any hosts that run a standard client and unmodified xml benchmarks that are getting less granted than claimed? Cheers It will be interesting to keep an eye on how the results pan out for this box. Any others? |
©2024 University of Washington
https://www.bakerlab.org