Posts by Beyond
|
1)
Message boards :
Questions/Problems/Bugs :
Fixed Credits
(Message 134)
Posted 15 Oct 2009 by Beyond Post: Thanks for instituting the fixed credit system! |
|
2)
Message boards :
Questions/Problems/Bugs :
Fixed Credits
(Message 133)
Posted 14 Oct 2009 by Beyond Post: I didn't do that since the work units for a particular factorization can vary as much as 20-30% in the time they take to complete on a given reference system. I could simply choose an average and specify that as the credit per WU. Why would that be better than the current system based on FLOPS? Besides the cheating problem as mentioned above, the BOINC benchmark system is badly broken. Some types of CPUs benchmark way too high and some are way too low compared with their actualy performance. There is also a large variance based on OS and BOINC version. The problem has gotten worse with time as the BOINC benchmark is determined by a short loop run on a single core, while in actual use most CPUs are now multi core. The inaccuracies get pretty ridiculous when HT is thrown into the equation since on many projects machines with HT activated slow to around 2/3 speed while the BOINC benchmark is run at full speed. If the variance is only 20-30% it seems the average should even out pretty quickly with a fixed credit system. As WimTea suggested if you set an average and multiply it by some reasonable factor pretty much all the users will be happier, cheating will be nearly impossible and the BOINC credit guidelines should be fine. You'll get more users too as quite a few will not run projects that use the BOINC benchmark to determine credits. Everyone wins. Thanks for listening... |
|
3)
Message boards :
Questions/Problems/Bugs :
Credit modification proposal -- comments?
(Message 123)
Posted 7 Oct 2009 by Beyond Post: 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 |