> Now if Dennis is here for the competition then I can understand why it would
> not be fair to allow someone to get out front by a months worth of cpu cycles.
> I thought the same when 4 hours after it opened I join a team and some peoples
> already have hundreds of thousands of points. Well that sucks!! cause I am
> here for the competition.
It will always be unfair to those who just recently joined. You're here since 19, I'm since 15, so I had a jumpstart although I joined after official public opening.
If you want to be compared just with people with the same start date / number of hosts / nationality / whatever, go to the stats-pages. The first 3 features are on offer at least @boincstats (link in my sig), but I think on the other sites as well.
A good step towards fairness was the 'validated credit' counting instead of just (faked/cheated) sent WUs. The other 'fairness' gizmo is the RAC, which devalues old results.
I do not see you're problem. Or, better said, I do not see your proclaimed 'problem' as that.
> Me for instance, I'm new and how does it look to me when you are dogging out
> another new guy just cause he asked a question you feel to high and above to
> understand from his stand point.
>
> That being said again I am new and I am here for the points. It's more a
> competition of machines for me and those I get into distributed computing. The
> science is cool and if I am helping so be it. I mostly will never understand
> the science behind it.
>
> >
> Now if Dennis is here for the competition then I can understand why it would
> not be fair to allow someone to get out front by a months worth of cpu cycles.
>
>
> I thought the same when 4 hours after it opened I join a team and some peoples
> already have hundreds of thousands of points. Well that sucks!! cause I am
> here for the competition.
>
I am not here just for points. I came to help the science. I have asked about the science, but no one ever talks science and what all the number crunching does. I would love to know how the program looks for pulsars and what my machine is doing. Instead, it is all computer talk of overclocking, what they did in some other BOINC project years ago, and comments like listen to the people who have more credits.
If the point of the project is to get everyone to share computer time, then why not give month-by-month listings of teams/individuals? Perhaps just list the top people/computers for each month. That would be fair for all. And new people would not be "turned off" but could get an even playing field no matter when they joined. After all the power of the project is to get LOTS of people involved and not just a few. Make it fun for us newbies.
I am sitting here now with almost 700 credits pending but when I check the WU’s I have finished they have not even been sent to anyone else. I will wait…… But the lack of the science information about the project is the most worrying. I would like to know that how the project works and if it has sound science foundations.
I was just trying to point out how the system looks from a newbie’s point of view. I will try to just go quietly away into the shadows and let them play their games they way they have been – perhaps there are reasons – unknown to me- why they have structured it without wanting a lot of new computers and people to feel as welcomed as the old-timers.
> I am not here just for points. I came to help the science. I have asked
> about the science, but no one ever talks science and what all the number
> crunching does. I would love to know how the program looks for pulsars and
> what my machine is doing. Instead, it is all computer talk of overclocking,
> what they did in some other BOINC project years ago, and comments like listen
> to the people who have more credits.
I think one of the main problems with this forum is, it's now to overcrowded for it's structure.
There has to be soon some distinct parts for -science, -crunching, -small talk, -bugs etc.
It's mentioned here already, but nothing has happened so far:(
I still don't see your point. By your line of thought, I should be upset because even though I've been a member since 22 Jan 2005 13:27:37 UTC, there've also been members who joined on:
18 Oct 2004 23:36:26 UTC
8 Nov 2004 20:01:55 UTC
11 Nov 2004 8:08:19 UTC
4 Jan 2005 17:26:38 UTC
and thus have had EVEN MORE of a head-start to crunch numbers.
Surprise -- I don't care!! From a strictly numbers game, I see it as that much more of a challenge to pass them. And by the way, the Top Participants are ranked by Recent Average Credit, meaning that some folks with huge numbers early on who've turned off some machines since then(or whatever) are no longer in the top ranks. By all rights, that presents a project ranking that is MORE FAIR than most other projects out there!
And by the way, I've got about 4,200 credits pending myself, and before you go off thinking I'm bragging, I'm not. My point is that I've crunched a whole bunch of work that I haven't been awarded credit for yet - some it as far back as the 29th of January. And again, you know what? No worries! :) If I get awarded credit, great, if I don't, no big deal -- crunch on.
"Chance is irrelevant. We will succeed."
- Seven of Nine
to be here only for science orientation = OK
to be here only for "points" = OK
to be here only for science orientation and as goodie getting points = very OK
Depending the mood, the favorite orientation can change.
I think the "points" are an additional motivation to the modest work for the project.
It's probaly the only way to reflect an individuals effort in term spending some cpu cycles.
It's a team work oriented stuff, the work have to be passed to several members with their hosts for getting finaly grants
Basically me too still feeling as a newbe, here only from early january.
Appart from the social aspect of "doing something together", I like
the comparison which amd/intel 2400 for example is returning a certain work faster or why is it slower?
I'm convinced (überzeugt) that in the deepness of the forum, a lot of common knowlege is written, at least myself can alway find something interesting to read/learn.
Don't forget the fun level, even supporting the scientific part of analyzing then collected datas, there is still a big portion of *fun* to do it.
Every single (distributed processing) effort is welcomed to the project, due it helps the men/wimen in white coats and black pairs of sunglasses;-) to be lucky.
It's not a question of the number of hosts involved.
Einstein told us something about the relativity, if I'm not bad, this lovely project is "only" running since a couple of month.
In point of view taking the "run time" of the SETI Classic project, it's a relatively short time period.
> If it is Threadmaster, where did Throttle come from?
>
> found this under "Genera Preferences" under "your account".
>
> Use no more than 100% of total virtual memory
You gotta admit, that's sounds kinda funny, thx Tony.
Actually I already had that tuned down to 75%, I'll drop to 25% and see what happens (to the Task Manager graph) because other than that, I absolutely cannot even tell that BOINC is running on my box (so consider this a little experiment of mine (where I'll just put it back to 75% at the end, like it just was)
But, this isn't working anyway because I have a real-time running graph on my desktop displaying WMI values for PF, RAM & Virtual MEMORY and right now, I am only using 50MB of virt with 1998MB free, so what "use no more than 75%"? It's more like "use no more than 2.5%" lol
.
I HAVE BEEN RUNNING 24/7 SINCE (not counting server WAIT times lol), CHECKOUT MY STATS!
I'm a complete neewbie, but just want to clarify what happens with the data I crunch. Personally, I couldn't care less about credits, but I can also see where others could have a lot of fun with them. Either way, what about the bottom line, data integrity?
Do credits and the scoring system have anything to do with the actual usefullness of the packets I'm crunching? Are the results of the WU thrown out if for whatever reason, my packet is the high or low one?
If a WU is discarded, is that just as helpful to the project as one that is not, or was it just a waste of 10 hours of my PC?
I'm a bit confused, please let me know what I'm misunderstanding:
-Credits are assigned as an incentive for those motivated by competition to participate more.
-To prevent cheating, the high and low claims are discarded.
--IF this means that those results are excluded from whatever compilation they're being used for, does that mean that the two middle scores are the ones that get passed along for further work?
If for some reason my claimed credit is the highest, does that mean that there is an error in my computations? If there are errors in the computations, is that because of a coding error for my machine/platform, or did my computer "make a mistake?"
> I'm a bit confused, please let me know what I'm misunderstanding:
> -Credits are assigned as an incentive for those motivated by competition to
> participate more.
Yes, that's more or less right. It's also an indicator for your 'dedication to science' (if you need some more sincere reason ;-)
> -To prevent cheating, the high and low claims are discarded.
No, the results will be validated, i.e. compared or so, and if they are reasonable close to each other (at best the same ;-), they are awarded with credits.
The amount is calculated from your puters benchmark, the amount of CPU-time you needed, and some scaling factor. As the benchmarks are not something like the platin meter in Paris, they differ from OS to OS and from CPU to CPU.
All valid results are rewarded with the same amount of 'granted credit'.
> -IF this means that those results are excluded from whatever compilation
> they're being used for, does that mean that the two middle scores are the ones
> that get passed along for further work?
> If for some reason my claimed credit is the highest, does that mean that there
> is an error in my computations? If there are errors in the computations, is
> that because of a coding error for my machine/platform, or did my computer
> "make a mistake?"
If you get no credit granted, your result was 'invalid'. It could have several reasons, AFAIK one is overclocking. Or UL/DL hickups, or OS hickups or....
If it happens regularely, you should become suspicious ;-)
> Now if Dennis is here for
)
> Now if Dennis is here for the competition then I can understand why it would
> not be fair to allow someone to get out front by a months worth of cpu cycles.
> I thought the same when 4 hours after it opened I join a team and some peoples
> already have hundreds of thousands of points. Well that sucks!! cause I am
> here for the competition.
It will always be unfair to those who just recently joined. You're here since 19, I'm since 15, so I had a jumpstart although I joined after official public opening.
If you want to be compared just with people with the same start date / number of hosts / nationality / whatever, go to the stats-pages. The first 3 features are on offer at least @boincstats (link in my sig), but I think on the other sites as well.
A good step towards fairness was the 'validated credit' counting instead of just (faked/cheated) sent WUs. The other 'fairness' gizmo is the RAC, which devalues old results.
I do not see you're problem. Or, better said, I do not see your proclaimed 'problem' as that.
Grüße vom Sänger
> Me for instance, I'm new
)
> Me for instance, I'm new and how does it look to me when you are dogging out
> another new guy just cause he asked a question you feel to high and above to
> understand from his stand point.
>
> That being said again I am new and I am here for the points. It's more a
> competition of machines for me and those I get into distributed computing. The
> science is cool and if I am helping so be it. I mostly will never understand
> the science behind it.
>
> >
> Now if Dennis is here for the competition then I can understand why it would
> not be fair to allow someone to get out front by a months worth of cpu cycles.
>
>
> I thought the same when 4 hours after it opened I join a team and some peoples
> already have hundreds of thousands of points. Well that sucks!! cause I am
> here for the competition.
>
I am not here just for points. I came to help the science. I have asked about the science, but no one ever talks science and what all the number crunching does. I would love to know how the program looks for pulsars and what my machine is doing. Instead, it is all computer talk of overclocking, what they did in some other BOINC project years ago, and comments like listen to the people who have more credits.
If the point of the project is to get everyone to share computer time, then why not give month-by-month listings of teams/individuals? Perhaps just list the top people/computers for each month. That would be fair for all. And new people would not be "turned off" but could get an even playing field no matter when they joined. After all the power of the project is to get LOTS of people involved and not just a few. Make it fun for us newbies.
I am sitting here now with almost 700 credits pending but when I check the WU’s I have finished they have not even been sent to anyone else. I will wait…… But the lack of the science information about the project is the most worrying. I would like to know that how the project works and if it has sound science foundations.
I was just trying to point out how the system looks from a newbie’s point of view. I will try to just go quietly away into the shadows and let them play their games they way they have been – perhaps there are reasons – unknown to me- why they have structured it without wanting a lot of new computers and people to feel as welcomed as the old-timers.
> I am not here just for
)
> I am not here just for points. I came to help the science. I have asked
> about the science, but no one ever talks science and what all the number
> crunching does. I would love to know how the program looks for pulsars and
> what my machine is doing. Instead, it is all computer talk of overclocking,
> what they did in some other BOINC project years ago, and comments like listen
> to the people who have more credits.
I think one of the main problems with this forum is, it's now to overcrowded for it's structure.
There has to be soon some distinct parts for -science, -crunching, -small talk, -bugs etc.
It's mentioned here already, but nothing has happened so far:(
Grüße vom Sänger
Dennis, I still don't see
)
Dennis,
I still don't see your point. By your line of thought, I should be upset because even though I've been a member since 22 Jan 2005 13:27:37 UTC, there've also been members who joined on:
18 Oct 2004 23:36:26 UTC
8 Nov 2004 20:01:55 UTC
11 Nov 2004 8:08:19 UTC
4 Jan 2005 17:26:38 UTC
and thus have had EVEN MORE of a head-start to crunch numbers.
Surprise -- I don't care!! From a strictly numbers game, I see it as that much more of a challenge to pass them. And by the way, the Top Participants are ranked by Recent Average Credit, meaning that some folks with huge numbers early on who've turned off some machines since then(or whatever) are no longer in the top ranks. By all rights, that presents a project ranking that is MORE FAIR than most other projects out there!
And by the way, I've got about 4,200 credits pending myself, and before you go off thinking I'm bragging, I'm not. My point is that I've crunched a whole bunch of work that I haven't been awarded credit for yet - some it as far back as the 29th of January. And again, you know what? No worries! :) If I get awarded credit, great, if I don't, no big deal -- crunch on.
"Chance is irrelevant. We will succeed."
- Seven of Nine
to be here only for science
)
to be here only for science orientation = OK
to be here only for "points" = OK
to be here only for science orientation and as goodie getting points = very OK
Depending the mood, the favorite orientation can change.
I think the "points" are an additional motivation to the modest work for the project.
It's probaly the only way to reflect an individuals effort in term spending some cpu cycles.
It's a team work oriented stuff, the work have to be passed to several members with their hosts for getting finaly grants
Basically me too still feeling as a newbe, here only from early january.
Appart from the social aspect of "doing something together", I like
the comparison which amd/intel 2400 for example is returning a certain work faster or why is it slower?
I'm convinced (überzeugt) that in the deepness of the forum, a lot of common knowlege is written, at least myself can alway find something interesting to read/learn.
Don't forget the fun level, even supporting the scientific part of analyzing then collected datas, there is still a big portion of *fun* to do it.
Every single (distributed processing) effort is welcomed to the project, due it helps the men/wimen in white coats and black pairs of sunglasses;-) to be lucky.
It's not a question of the number of hosts involved.
Einstein told us something about the relativity, if I'm not bad, this lovely project is "only" running since a couple of month.
In point of view taking the "run time" of the SETI Classic project, it's a relatively short time period.
Happy crunching!
"I would love to know how the
)
"I would love to know how the program looks for pulsars and what my machine is doing"
http://www.physics2005.org/events/einsteinathome/index.html
And for the credit
)
And for the credit watch:
These are the last days:
Grüße vom Sänger
> If it is Threadmaster,
)
> If it is Threadmaster, where did Throttle come from?
>
> found this under "Genera Preferences" under "your account".
>
> Use no more than 100% of total virtual memory
You gotta admit, that's sounds kinda funny, thx Tony.
Actually I already had that tuned down to 75%, I'll drop to 25% and see what happens (to the Task Manager graph) because other than that, I absolutely cannot even tell that BOINC is running on my box (so consider this a little experiment of mine (where I'll just put it back to 75% at the end, like it just was)
But, this isn't working anyway because I have a real-time running graph on my desktop displaying WMI values for PF, RAM & Virtual MEMORY and right now, I am only using 50MB of virt with 1998MB free, so what "use no more than 75%"? It's more like "use no more than 2.5%" lol
.
I HAVE BEEN RUNNING 24/7 SINCE (not counting server WAIT times lol), CHECKOUT MY STATS!
I'm a complete neewbie, but
)
I'm a complete neewbie, but just want to clarify what happens with the data I crunch. Personally, I couldn't care less about credits, but I can also see where others could have a lot of fun with them. Either way, what about the bottom line, data integrity?
Do credits and the scoring system have anything to do with the actual usefullness of the packets I'm crunching? Are the results of the WU thrown out if for whatever reason, my packet is the high or low one?
If a WU is discarded, is that just as helpful to the project as one that is not, or was it just a waste of 10 hours of my PC?
I'm a bit confused, please let me know what I'm misunderstanding:
-Credits are assigned as an incentive for those motivated by competition to participate more.
-To prevent cheating, the high and low claims are discarded.
--IF this means that those results are excluded from whatever compilation they're being used for, does that mean that the two middle scores are the ones that get passed along for further work?
If for some reason my claimed credit is the highest, does that mean that there is an error in my computations? If there are errors in the computations, is that because of a coding error for my machine/platform, or did my computer "make a mistake?"
> I'm a bit confused, please
)
> I'm a bit confused, please let me know what I'm misunderstanding:
> -Credits are assigned as an incentive for those motivated by competition to
> participate more.
Yes, that's more or less right. It's also an indicator for your 'dedication to science' (if you need some more sincere reason ;-)
> -To prevent cheating, the high and low claims are discarded.
No, the results will be validated, i.e. compared or so, and if they are reasonable close to each other (at best the same ;-), they are awarded with credits.
The amount is calculated from your puters benchmark, the amount of CPU-time you needed, and some scaling factor. As the benchmarks are not something like the platin meter in Paris, they differ from OS to OS and from CPU to CPU.
All valid results are rewarded with the same amount of 'granted credit'.
> -IF this means that those results are excluded from whatever compilation
> they're being used for, does that mean that the two middle scores are the ones
> that get passed along for further work?
> If for some reason my claimed credit is the highest, does that mean that there
> is an error in my computations? If there are errors in the computations, is
> that because of a coding error for my machine/platform, or did my computer
> "make a mistake?"
If you get no credit granted, your result was 'invalid'. It could have several reasons, AFAIK one is overclocking. Or UL/DL hickups, or OS hickups or....
If it happens regularely, you should become suspicious ;-)
BTW:
A good manual for Boinc is Paul D. Bucks BOINC Powered Projects Documentation and his FAQ therein.
For information regarding Credits look here!
Grüße vom Sänger
