Posts by InterKOT

1) Message boards : Number crunching : Rosetta\'s credit granting compared to others (Message 71006)
Posted 10 Aug 2011 by InterKOT
Post:

So in your opinion an i5/i7 CPU @ 4GHz should get the same credit per second as a celeron 400 from 1999? You might want a higher average credit, but CPU time is irrelevant to the project - the important thing is work done and that\'s what credit is granted against.


Why does it have to be \"per second\" ?
I have to admit that I may not fully understand all the nuances, but there is concrete quantitative factor, called number of floating-point operations.
In fact, on my account page in the Rosetta project there is a link called \"Certificate\" which reads when clicked, that I have contributed 588.81 quadrillion floating-point operations to the project. Why can\'t this number be a simple and straight-forward cross-project factor to represent my total credit? Obviously, if you have a faster CPU( more floating operations per second ) you will get a bigger number - bigger credit over the same elapsed period of time.


What other project has very similar science?


I meant to say, similar projects in the area of biology and medicine, such as POEM, SI MAP, DOCKING and others.

Docking project, for example also \".. aims to help cure diseases such as Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV).\"
2) Message boards : Number crunching : Rosetta\'s credit granting compared to others (Message 70972)
Posted 8 Aug 2011 by InterKOT
Post:
Well, after reading through all the opinions, I have come to a conclusion that the system of calculating and granting of credit in R@H at least is somewhat inefficient. In my opinion, what really should matter is the total actual accumulative and may be normalized amount of CPU time in general spent for processing a unit and accumulated within the project or across the projects for all processed units.
Think about this, running a computer at 100% load is equal to a 100 Wt bulb at least, and is something you need pay for in your electricity bill! Well, at least getting a higher credit can be considered a \"reward\" sort of, especially when you participate in one of the meaningful projects, like folding proteins or similar, aimed to find cures for diseases. I would never spend a second of CPU time for projects like SETI( as I personally do not believe in such things as extraterrestrial intelligence ) or pursuing the mathematical challenges on the other hand.
In any case, I am out of Rosetta for good, in favor of other similar projects, which give better credits for the very similar science behind.
3) Message boards : Number crunching : Rosetta\'s credit granting compared to others (Message 69922)
Posted 2 Apr 2011 by InterKOT
Post:
I\'ve noticed that Rosetta grants credit very poorly, compared to some other projects and I don\'t understand why.

For example, this is a Rosetta work unit:

CPU time,sec claimed credit granted credit
10,282.01 51.30 76.79

This is from another project:

CPU time,sec claimed credit granted credit
10,297.95 48.87 143.37

These results are very consistent, it is not only one instance.
Can somebody please explain this to me, as I have already started to move away from Rosetta in favor for other similar projects, which give better credit.






©2017 University of Washington
http://www.bakerlab.org