log in

Credit modification proposal -- comments?

Message boards : Questions/Problems/Bugs : Credit modification proposal -- comments?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
Greg
Project administrator

Send message
Joined: 26 Jun 08
Posts: 591
Credit: 242,515,472
RAC: 3,747
Message 102 - Posted: 27 Sep 2009, 6:19:33 UTC

Looking at the NFS@Home column of the project credit comparisons, it does not appear inappropriate to double the current amount of credit awarded for a completed work unit. In addition, while I will continue to factor in the credit claimed by the client as the number of calculations in the work units does vary, I propose to narrow the allowed credit range to within 20% of the credit of a "reference" work unit. Comments on this proposal?
ID: 102 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
verstapp

Send message
Joined: 23 Sep 09
Posts: 3
Credit: 1,734,906
RAC: 0
Message 103 - Posted: 28 Sep 2009, 3:27:25 UTC - in response to Message 102.  

> it does not appear inappropriate
Math/Law? :)
I have no objections.

Semi-OT - are there any plans to offer a GPU client for this project?
If so then kidnapping Cluster Physik from Collatz/Milkyway would be a good first step.
ID: 103 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Greg
Project administrator

Send message
Joined: 26 Jun 08
Posts: 591
Credit: 242,515,472
RAC: 3,747
Message 104 - Posted: 28 Sep 2009, 6:52:58 UTC - in response to Message 103.  

Unfortunately, not anytime soon. I'm aware of one attempt to do lattice sieving in CUDA, and it was significantly slower than the CPU version we are currently using.
ID: 104 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Greg
Project administrator

Send message
Joined: 26 Jun 08
Posts: 591
Credit: 242,515,472
RAC: 3,747
Message 105 - Posted: 28 Sep 2009, 6:54:08 UTC - in response to Message 104.  

The changes to the granted credit have been made. I'm currently using a multiplier of 2, but that may be tweaked over time.
ID: 105 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
BlackGoose05

Send message
Joined: 10 Sep 09
Posts: 1
Credit: 395,615
RAC: 0
Message 106 - Posted: 28 Sep 2009, 11:32:54 UTC - in response to Message 105.  

The changes to the granted credit have been made. I'm currently using a multiplier of 2, but that may be tweaked over time.


Thank you for adjusting the granted credit. It seems more 'fair' now compared to the other BOINC projects.

BlackGoose05

ID: 106 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
NotAlwaysPC

Send message
Joined: 8 Sep 09
Posts: 2
Credit: 4,314
RAC: 0
Message 108 - Posted: 29 Sep 2009, 2:31:35 UTC
Last modified: 29 Sep 2009, 2:42:38 UTC

Thank you :)
ID: 108 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Odd-Rod

Send message
Joined: 7 Sep 09
Posts: 3
Credit: 330,893
RAC: 82
Message 110 - Posted: 29 Sep 2009, 18:29:52 UTC - in response to Message 106.  

Thank you for adjusting the granted credit. It seems more 'fair' now compared to the other BOINC projects.


Agreed. Thank you!
ID: 110 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
NekdDrgn

Send message
Joined: 19 Sep 09
Posts: 1
Credit: 1,070,587
RAC: 86
Message 119 - Posted: 5 Oct 2009, 15:53:50 UTC

Nice! I'll be back once my monthly run of SIMAP is done. Happy crunching!
ID: 119 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Beyond

Send message
Joined: 5 Oct 09
Posts: 3
Credit: 16,672,709
RAC: 86,107
Message 123 - Posted: 7 Oct 2009, 2:44:38 UTC - in response to Message 102.  

Looking at the NFS@Home column of the project credit comparisons, it does not appear inappropriate to double the current amount of credit awarded for a completed work unit. In addition, while I will continue to factor in the credit claimed by the client as the number of calculations in the work units does vary, I propose to narrow the allowed credit range to within 20% of the credit of a "reference" work unit. Comments on this proposal?

Why not just set a fixed credit amount for the WUs here since they seem quite predictable? It looks like the cap is set at 28 for the current WUs so why not set that as the fixed amount? The BOINC benchmark system is totally broken so any credit calculations based on it are silly. Stop cheating before it starts, give equal credit for equal work: many other projects have recently moved to fixed, server based credit systems. There are a lot of users that will not run projects based on the BOINC benchmarks. Server based credits are easy to implement and no one can complain about them not being fair. Maybe set up a poll and let people vote. Docking did that and the vote was 50 something to 0 in favor of fixed or server based credits. Thanks for a really nice running project!

Regards/Beyond
ID: 123 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote

Message boards : Questions/Problems/Bugs : Credit modification proposal -- comments?


Home | My Account | Message Boards