Posts by Nightlord

1) Message boards : Number crunching : RAC cheats, is this a problem (Message 12355) Posted 20 Mar 2006 by Nightlord Post: to Nightlord: I do use the truXoft client enabled only for SETI - the results for all the other projects will be unmolested using this method. You might ask why I want to adjust my credits (for SETI) - this is accepted in the SETI project since I am also using an optimized SETI app on a P4HT which you may not know receives an unrealistic benchmark because of the HT. I once used the Crunch3r optimized Boinc client and do not use it now for the very reason that it is an unfair credit exploit in the other projects. The solution for me, I think, is to just chill out - and don't look at the credits - if I really don't care. So, I won't look any more. I won't! I won't! I won't! Do you think that will work? Fair enough. Are you aware that turning off the calibration in the truXoft client does not remove the benchmark optomisation which is performed by that client? Your benchmarks and hence claimed credit on Rosetta will be higher than the standard boinc client would return. However, I can now see that is not your intention. Briefly switch back to the standard client, run the benchmarks and compare to confirm if you wish. [edit] Be sure to back-up your boinc directory before switching clients. I accidentally just trashed a cache full of WU in verifying this. [/edit]
2) Message boards : Number crunching : RAC cheats, is this a problem (Message 12253) Posted 19 Mar 2006 by Nightlord Post: Looking at some of the top computers shows that they may be (are!) exploiting the credit system. My computer with a standard Boinc client charges about 14 credits per hour ..... Any fool can create a 'compile your own' Boinc client containing any number of credit exploits. All reputable Boinc projects should ONLY allow an official Boinc client - self compiled clients should be strictly prohibited. ...... I find this credit exploitation offensive and the failure by the developers to take any action equally offensive. I contribute my computer time because I believe the science being done here is important. Perhaps I am the crazy one. So, how come you are using the truXoft optomised boinc client?
3) Message boards : Number crunching : Miscellaneous Work Unit Errors (Message 11882) Posted 11 Mar 2006 by Nightlord Post: WU 4385833 "Work unit error - check skipped" Never seen that before. It was issued to me before the other cruncher returned their result which was subsequently validatedhere with no error. Reviewing the summary for the WU here, it says the unit was cancelled. This must have been after the original cruncher returned his result, but before I returned mine. Are there more units that have been cancelled after issuing to crunchers and if so how many? Can they be identified so we can abort them please.
4) Message boards : Number crunching : Points Per Day Averages (Message 11862) Posted 10 Mar 2006 by Nightlord Post: As I continue to research, I find more and more stuff that ****. Thsi cruncher is an example: http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/results.php?hostid=160017&offset=140 On March at 11:38 his computer turned in results for a HBLR_1.0_1dtj_348_5529_0 and claimed 56 points for that work unit with a little over 7000 seconds CPU time to complete. Almost exactly 6 hours later his computer turned in results for a HBLR_1.0_1mky_348_5534_0 and claimed 228 points for that work unit with a little over 29000 seconds CPU time to complete. Every work unit since then has been in the 200+ point category. Something smells fishy. How did he suddenly start getting only 200+ point work units? I think you need to look at his results a bit more carefully. The 200 point units took 4 times longer than the 50 point units - Simple arithmetic. There are clearly many machines that are dirty, but I happen to know this machine is clean and probably one of the highest (if not the highest) producer. Be careful whom you tar with that brush my friend.
5) Message boards : Rosetta@home Science : Not clear what these 8 hour stints are. (Message 10883) Posted 18 Feb 2006 by Nightlord Post: It's pretty simple. With the new app, all work units should run for approximately 8 hours by default. The application will figure out how many predictions to make based on this 8 hour limit which can be thought of as a "target cpu run time". You will be able to change this limit as a project specific preference. To do so: 1, click on the "Participants" link above and login if you have to. 2. click on the "View or edit Rosetta@home preferences" link. 3. click on the "Edit Rosetta@home preferences" link. 4. select a "Target CPU run time" from the pull down menu. 5. click the "Update preferences" button. How does the app know how many predictions to make within the specified run time? Is it based on the benchmarks?