Posts by Sorceress

1) Message boards : Number crunching : Claimed Credits vs Granted credits (Message 74104)
Posted 26 Oct 2012 by Profile Sorceress
Looks like the WUs are finnishing correctly now. I replaced the PSU with a higher wattage and havent gotten any vid driver errors which may have caused the first two WUs to error out even though they supposedly finnished successfully. Yeah!
2) Message boards : Number crunching : Claimed Credits vs Granted credits (Message 74085)
Posted 23 Oct 2012 by Profile Sorceress
Why: Your computer simply did not return a valid result. As you can see from the sterr_out I posted above from one of the tasks your PC crunched, there was no output file. The project validator saw that work was at least attempted and gave you 20 instead of 0.

Now, since it's happening consistently there are several things that could be happening.

1. Check "leave applications in memory when suspended" in BOINC, under Tools -> computing preferences. Disk and memory usage tab.

2. You have such a small resource share set for Rosetta that it switches to another project before it checkpoints, saving no data for work performed. This is just a guess, as you have a reasonably modern PC and only 3 total results showing in the database.

3. Frequent reboots or otherwise exiting and restarting BOINC.

4. Unlucky with bad tasks. Someone else has said on here that they always have trouble with hyb* series tasks. I haven't noticed any problems when I run them, so I can't be of any help there.

I'm sure I'm leaving some other possibilities out but there's a start.

I see. One was a hyb_ WU and one was a rb_ WU. Resource share is 100% as is all my projects. I rarely reboot. BOINC runs 24/7. I run v6.12.34. Some one said that running GPU projects can interfere with Rosetta. That I do. If Rosetta can't work with GPU's running it's bye bye. My complaint is putting 29k+ time in on a WU but getting only 20 credits. If the WU is defective then it should be ID'd as so, but they were stated as completed and validated.

Thanks for the help. I am not a whiz a determining what is wrong with a WU that fails so I have to ask someone who is. :p! I will look at my system again and see if anything you mentioned might be causing this. I am upgrading my PSU because I think my new GPU card is taking too much power. I have had a couple of vid driver failures which might have been the cause. I will see if the problem persists with the new PSU.

3) Message boards : Number crunching : Claimed Credits vs Granted credits (Message 74082)
Posted 23 Oct 2012 by Profile Sorceress
Check this thread.

That link didnt tell me squat. I want to know why I wasn't paid at least the claimed credits. I have one more work unit in my que. If it pays less than the claimed credits, I will drop this project.
4) Message boards : Number crunching : Claimed Credits vs Granted credits (Message 74076)
Posted 22 Oct 2012 by Profile Sorceress
I have another WU489808486 that only paid 20credits for 29,302sec. Claimed credit was 114. I'm not going to continue to do this. Can someone tell me why this is happening? I would like to get paid correctly for my work!
5) Message boards : Number crunching : Claimed Credits vs Granted credits (Message 74047)
Posted 18 Oct 2012 by Profile Sorceress
Can someone tell me why my claimed credits are 111 and my granted credits are 20? WU 488772542. WU ran 29k+ secs.
6) Message boards : Number crunching : Credit always low (Message 66472)
Posted 5 Jun 2010 by Profile Sorceress
I will not be drawn in to a credit value discussion, but I did want to point out that if you believe the credits are truly your only reward and return on investment, then you are missing the point of Rosetta@home. The point being that you have helped conduct research that may save your life some day. And when there is another worldwide pandemic or epidemic, indeed it may some day prevent a virus from killing 30% of the world's population the way the black plague did.

While I am not a scientist, I am attached to this project BECAUSE of the reasons you pointed out. BUT, if I(we) are going to help you do this 'important' research then you should reward us far better than you do. The credit reward system you now have in place is too low for the work done. Example: After a year and a half of work for this project, all I have to show for it is 14,000 credits. In contrast, I have been in DNET for less that two months and have 40,000 credits, in Collatz less than a year and have 360,000, all using the same computer. Is their 'work' more important than yours?? This is MY point.

Since credits are not 'real' money out of your pocket, it would not cost you much(if any) to appoint a higher credit return for our time and effort. Instead of 50 credits allowed, make it 150. Instead of 100, make it 300 hundred. If I never find a cure for some 'plague', then all I DO have for reward is the 'credits' for the use of my computer time. Your credits do not pay for the electricity this computer uses, but a better credit reward system would make it easier for ME to. Don't be so stingy! Ante up on the credits! Make me smile :)
7) Message boards : Number crunching : Credit always low (Message 66449)
Posted 3 Jun 2010 by Profile Sorceress

I have followed this thread and I believe that over time, Rosetta does not compensate its user's well for the work that is done.

Overall, it's very stingy.

The 'nickle and dime' mentality used here is laughably 'non-gratis'. 51 credits for 13,000 sec work is downright robbery. Period!

The point the gurus miss is that credits are ALL the rewards we have for the help we provide. Credits don't cost anything, no money out of the pocket and they aren't worth anything, you can't buy a cup of coffee with them, nor are they edible. It is expensive to run a computer 24hrs p/day, so It would be nice to be reasonably compensated for doing so. There is no reason for the credit rewards to be so low. (It's NOT MONEY people!) 13,000 sec of time for any work done should be worth 150 or more credits, no matter the work unit type, the computer MO or any other ridiculous reason. So why is Rosetta, like many of the projects, so adverse to a GENEROUS reward system? A few of the projects seem to understand 'reward system' and have no problem compensating its user well. Let Roseeta be one of them!! Raise the bar!

©2020 University of Washington