Posts by Trog Dog

21) Message boards : Cafe Rosetta : Word Link 4 (Message 26820)
Posted 15 Sep 2006 by Profile Trog Dog
Post:
Christopher
22) Message boards : Cafe Rosetta : Word Link 4 (Message 26752)
Posted 14 Sep 2006 by Profile Trog Dog
Post:
bull
23) Message boards : Cafe Rosetta : Word Link 4 (Message 26694)
Posted 13 Sep 2006 by Profile Trog Dog
Post:
Ruby
24) Message boards : Cafe Rosetta : Word Link 4 (Message 26595)
Posted 11 Sep 2006 by Profile Trog Dog
Post:
powder
25) Message boards : Cafe Rosetta : Word Link 4 (Message 26508)
Posted 10 Sep 2006 by Profile Trog Dog
Post:
Death Star
26) Message boards : Number crunching : RAC dropping (Message 26507)
Posted 10 Sep 2006 by Profile 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 Profile Trog Dog
Post:
camouflage
28) Message boards : Cafe Rosetta : Word Link 4 (Message 26433)
Posted 9 Sep 2006 by Profile Trog Dog
Post:
kharma
29) Message boards : Number crunching : RAC dropping (Message 26432)
Posted 9 Sep 2006 by Profile 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 Profile Trog Dog
Post:
monkey
31) Message boards : Cafe Rosetta : Word Link 4 (Message 25886)
Posted 2 Sep 2006 by Profile Trog Dog
Post:
sound
32) Message boards : Number crunching : Old/New Credit system comparisons (Message 25133)
Posted 27 Aug 2006 by Profile Trog Dog
Post:

OK, I've set all other projects to no new work, its part way crunching a long Einstein and it's got a couple of SIMAP wu's to crunch. I'll post once it's cleared it's cache. BTW here's the box


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 Profile Trog Dog
Post:
Trog Dog, I don't understand how increasing the runtime will alter teh credits ?

Since 1x4 result should be the same as 4x1 results, else there is a major flaw in the system?

It may 'look' better in the stats listing since the average of your result over 24hrs should be more consistent when shouwn as a bulk credit, than seeing them scored individually. But the overall amount will (should hopefully!) be the same.


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 Profile Trog Dog
Post:

Yes, but to effectively profit from this you need:
1) Overclaim points only for some type of specially selected WU(which is relatively easy to implement)
2) Get thouse WU you are overclaiming on average more often than non cheating computer gets.
The problem is 2). Hm... Yes, you can count only WU of that type you are overclaiming! Just return all other types with errors, and wait until server give you thouse WU you really want!

So, solution to the topic question found, am I right?


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 Profile Trog Dog
Post:

You are welcome to look at my computers before they don't have anything to show anymore.

They are,

131105 - daves-bronze.local = 500mhz G4 - dedicated
174102 - dave-1-8-ghz = P4 3.0 ghz - dedicated
198349 - daves-1gx2.local = Duel 1 ghz G4 - dedicated
193340 - dave-g5.local = Duel 2.5 ghz G5 - occasional editing jobs
195348 - daves-2x500.local = Duel 500mhz G4 - dedicated
191526 - davesti.local = 1 ghz G4 - used for email
195357 - dave-bw-g3.local = 400mhz G3 - dedicated
203677 - si-studio-imac.local = 400mhz G4 - dedicated

The results may not stay for long since I have stopped all machines for now.
They were very consistent to the point that if I did an editing job that took the G5 off line for 3 hours I could see it in the RAC and the daily totals.
These should cover your low,middle and high end Macs.

Dave


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 Profile Trog Dog
Post:


Furthermore. At the top of the thread it was suggested that if big enough team over claim points - they will eventually get more points. That is true, but ironically that would not help cheating team. Simply because by over claiming they increasing amount of points not just for themselves, but also for there rivals/competitors! The only effects would be that the project as whole, Rosetta at home will claim slightly more boinc points compare to Einstein@Home / ClimatePrediction.Net...


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 Profile 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 Profile Trog Dog
Post:


All of mine apart from 1 or 2 are granted less than claimed.
Stock everything. (edit)


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 Profile Trog Dog
Post:
All PowerMACs with the old IBM processors get less than 50%. For example here:
http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=167475

Pentium 3 and Pentium M seem to gain above average.


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 Profile Trog Dog
Post:
Are there any hosts that run a standard client and unmodified xml benchmarks that are getting less granted than claimed?

Yes, I have some WU's.

click here


Cheers

It will be interesting to keep an eye on how the results pan out for this box.

Any others?


Previous 20 · Next 20



©2022 University of Washington
https://www.bakerlab.org