Credit
log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Number crunching : Credit

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 10 · Next
Author Message
Profile Slicker
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Jun 09
Posts: 2525
Credit: 740,580,099
RAC: 1
Message 1330 - Posted: 18 Sep 2009, 18:52:29 UTC - in response to Message 1310.

What about all those pending WU's that were completed before the reduced credits jumped in. Will they receive the original credit amount or will they receive the reduced amount?


Well, the roll out was supposed to be much more controlled than it was. If fact, the rollout wasn't even supposed to happen yesterday. But, somehow, even though I only sent the ATI 2.0 app out to a small group from various teams to assist with testing the Vista and Win7 versions, many more people got a hold of the app. The only fair thing was to allow everyone to have it. That of course, has brought about problems of its own since I couldn't really release the 2.0 ATI app and not the CPU or CUDA apps and additional testing was needed there. So please forgive me if I haven't covered all the bases here. Next time I'll just build something into the validator that will give negative credit to anyone not sanctioned to be running the new apps.

I'd be willing to increase the credit for the valid work but to be fair, I should also reduce the credit by 10x for anything received yesterday then. How's that sound?

Bymark
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 28 Jul 09
Posts: 78
Credit: 591,638,000
RAC: 1,235,083
Message 1333 - Posted: 18 Sep 2009, 19:26:04 UTC - in response to Message 1330.

You must do something, my rac here is falling like a stone, now with 3 260 cards attached, yesterday I had one here, rac still falling after 2 moore 260 attached, Wingmen faults, sounds ok, do something, like: "be willing to increase the credit for the valid work"

Profile Beyond
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 30 Jul 09
Posts: 213
Credit: 939,653,252
RAC: 3,256
Message 1364 - Posted: 19 Sep 2009, 0:52:07 UTC - in response to Message 1330.

Well, the roll out was supposed to be much more controlled than it was. If fact, the rollout wasn't even supposed to happen yesterday. But, somehow, even though I only sent the ATI 2.0 app out to a small group from various teams to assist with testing the Vista and Win7 versions, many more people got a hold of the app. The only fair thing was to allow everyone to have it. That of course, has brought about problems of its own since I couldn't really release the 2.0 ATI app and not the CPU or CUDA apps and additional testing was needed there. So please forgive me if I haven't covered all the bases here.

Personally I think it was right to put out the v2.00 when you did. It runs far more smoothly already, does much more science, and has an excellent bouquet :-) While everyone is taking a hit on the old credits, it's well worth it IMO and kudos on the quick and relatively smooth rollout of a major upgrade.

StandardbredHorse
Send message
Joined: 17 Jul 09
Posts: 10
Credit: 3,097,897
RAC: 0
Message 1472 - Posted: 19 Sep 2009, 23:01:49 UTC - in response to Message 1364.

Would you consider altering my credit a bit for this? I spent quite a bit of CPU energy, and had gotten anywhere from 80-160 credits for previous WUs. I turned this one in yesterday and got 17.79 for 82000 CPU secs. That seems quite disproportionate.

The WU is 723225 http://boinc.thesonntags.com/collatz/results.php?userid=925. Please have a look and consider adjusting..I have set to NNT and will stop crunching if this isn't fixed. Naturally I'm just one cruncher, no big deal, right? I'd still like to receive the credit I feel I deserve for that kind of CPU time.

Thanks,

StandardbredHorse

StandardbredHorse
Send message
Joined: 17 Jul 09
Posts: 10
Credit: 3,097,897
RAC: 0
Message 1473 - Posted: 19 Sep 2009, 23:01:51 UTC - in response to Message 1364.

Would you consider altering my credit a bit for this? I spent quite a bit of CPU energy, and had gotten anywhere from 80-160 credits for previous WUs. I turned this one in yesterday and got 17.79 for 82000 CPU secs. That seems quite disproportionate.

The WU is 723225 http://boinc.thesonntags.com/collatz/results.php?userid=925. Please have a look and consider adjusting..I have set to NNT and will stop crunching if this isn't fixed. Naturally I'm just one cruncher, no big deal, right? I'd still like to receive the credit I feel I deserve for that kind of CPU time.

Thanks,

StandardbredHorse

Wolfram1
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 09
Posts: 36
Credit: 94,882,264
RAC: 0
Message 1512 - Posted: 20 Sep 2009, 8:11:41 UTC - in response to Message 1473.

Hi StandardredHorse,

yes the situation is for you and any other people here not lucky.
But it is also difficult for Slicker to find the right way.

Slicker has a hard job to bring out the Version 2.0

And we should accept the bad crerdits for the old WUs.

The future will be good. With 2.0 we all more credits per day as before. Tomorrow we all will be lucky. :-)

StandardbredHorse
Send message
Joined: 17 Jul 09
Posts: 10
Credit: 3,097,897
RAC: 0
Message 1577 - Posted: 20 Sep 2009, 19:59:42 UTC - in response to Message 1512.

Hi StandardredHorse,

yes the situation is for you and any other people here not lucky.
But it is also difficult for Slicker to find the right way.

Slicker has a hard job to bring out the Version 2.0

And we should accept the bad crerdits for the old WUs.

The future will be good. With 2.0 we all more credits per day as before. Tomorrow we all will be lucky. :-)



Thanks for the friendly message, Wolfram1. I posted this immediately after finding out about the credit I earned for such a big WU. I've got 2.0 now and hopefully as you say, it's better for all of us. I appreciate your message.

I hope you're right! Perhaps we'll be lucky :o)

Take care,

StandardbredHorse

Profile Slicker
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Jun 09
Posts: 2525
Credit: 740,580,099
RAC: 1
Message 1589 - Posted: 20 Sep 2009, 22:49:17 UTC
Last modified: 20 Sep 2009, 22:51:53 UTC

I just adjusted the credit for any results with an app version less than 2.0 which received less than 140 credits for a WU since most of the v1.10 were in the 150-160 credit range.

Actually, I screwed up the query on the first couple batches and it granted the 160 credits to both the user who used v1.10 and also his wingman who may or may not have used v2.0. I'm not going back and trying to figure out who got the extra. In other words, free credit for some. You are welcome.

What that does mean is that if you see a result where one person used v1.10 and another used v2.0, they will have been awarded different amounts of credit. The credit is proportionate to the time spent on the WU though. In other words, you will now see results where the v1.10 result received 160 credits but the wingman's v2.0 result received around 16.

[Edit]This is a manual process and must be re-run every day ot two until there are no v1.10 pendings left. So please don't get your grundies in a bind if you have a WU that hasn't been processed yet. All in good time.[/Edit]

frankhagen
Send message
Joined: 12 Jul 09
Posts: 188
Credit: 14,219,347
RAC: 1,380
Message 1592 - Posted: 20 Sep 2009, 22:55:17 UTC - in response to Message 1589.

fair enough - thanks for the hard work!
____________

Profile Bruce
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 15 Jul 09
Posts: 294
Credit: 12,203,827
RAC: 0
Message 1593 - Posted: 20 Sep 2009, 23:02:06 UTC

Thanks for that Slicker!!! We know its more work for you, so thanks fer the effort, at least you did what is fair. A lot of projects would have said "too bad". Bruce ;-p
____________

Profile Dan T. Morris
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Aug 09
Posts: 32
Credit: 33,120,054
RAC: 0
Message 1604 - Posted: 21 Sep 2009, 6:18:56 UTC
Last modified: 21 Sep 2009, 6:25:36 UTC

Houston I think we have a problem..

See...

http://boinc.thesonntags.com/collatz/result.php?resultid=1638042


Can I have 3 or 4 of these?
____________

Profile TomaszPawel
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 13 Jul 09
Posts: 29
Credit: 23,946,954
RAC: 0
Message 1606 - Posted: 21 Sep 2009, 6:36:12 UTC - in response to Message 1604.
Last modified: 21 Sep 2009, 6:41:16 UTC

WooooooooW

114 554 437 credits!!!! for 741s....

WooooooooW

No comment!

WooooooooW

Another master of crunching

http://boinc.thesonntags.com/collatz/result.php?resultid=1599766

WooooooooW
____________
POLISH NATIONAL TEAM - Join! Crunch! Win!

_hiVe*
Send message
Joined: 9 Aug 09
Posts: 106
Credit: 162,673,032
RAC: 0
Message 1609 - Posted: 21 Sep 2009, 8:30:54 UTC - in response to Message 1606.
Last modified: 21 Sep 2009, 8:31:51 UTC

WooooooooW

114 554 437 credits!!!! for 741s....

WooooooooW

No comment!

WooooooooW

Another master of crunching

http://boinc.thesonntags.com/collatz/result.php?resultid=1599766

WooooooooW


Holly mother-load fff. fff. f wtf? :)
[...think I lost my right eye, it popped out :D]

Is that award permanent? :O

Profile Gipsel
Volunteer moderator
Project developer
Project tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Jul 09
Posts: 279
Credit: 77,436,650
RAC: 76,989
Message 1611 - Posted: 21 Sep 2009, 9:07:08 UTC - in response to Message 1609.

WooooooooW

114 554 437 credits!!!! for 741s....

WooooooooW

No comment!

WooooooooW

Another master of crunching

http://boinc.thesonntags.com/collatz/result.php?resultid=1599766

WooooooooW


Is that award permanent? :O


I don't think so.

Looks like a validator glitch. The WU got calculated three times. One of it is invalid and from the task details it looks like the owner was playing around a bit too much with the clocks (which explains the invalid result). He reported an insane amount of steps.

Bad thing is, the validator took this amount of steps to determine the credit for the two participants returning the valid result.

Profile DeleteNull
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 Sep 09
Posts: 29
Credit: 2,087,516,533
RAC: 0
Message 1616 - Posted: 21 Sep 2009, 11:22:54 UTC - in response to Message 1611.

Seems to be a validator error.

1 result was marked as invalid...
1 result is valid...
and my result contains no data:

<core_client_version>6.10.3</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<stderr_txt>

</stderr_txt>
]]>
but was marked as valid (?)

All my other results are correct and valid, but what happend with this result???
No idea, the graphic cards are running with the default params, speed, etc.

Profile Logan
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 2 Jul 09
Posts: 124
Credit: 37,455,338
RAC: 0
Message 1618 - Posted: 21 Sep 2009, 11:26:10 UTC

And 70,395,274.17 in this one...

http://boinc.thesonntags.com/collatz/workunit.php?wuid=662334
____________
Logan.

BOINC FAQ Service (Ahora, también disponible en Español/Now available in Spanish)

Profile Gipsel
Volunteer moderator
Project developer
Project tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Jul 09
Posts: 279
Credit: 77,436,650
RAC: 76,989
Message 1619 - Posted: 21 Sep 2009, 11:31:45 UTC - in response to Message 1616.
Last modified: 21 Sep 2009, 12:37:00 UTC

Seems to be a validator error.

Yes, exactly.

and my result contains no data:

<core_client_version>6.10.3</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<stderr_txt>

</stderr_txt>
]]>
but was marked as valid (?)

All my other results are correct and valid, but what happend with this result???
No idea, the graphic cards are running with the default params, speed, etc.

The diagnostic output in the stderr.txt doesn't matter, it just serves the curios cruncher or the developer if some bug appears. It has no influence on the validation.

Windows/MSVC has the sometimes the strange "feature" that it doesn't write the file to disk fast enough at the end of the WU even if instructed to flush the write buffer. The boinc client uploads an empty file then. As long as it isn't the result file, it should be only a minor inconvenience.

Profile STE\/E
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Jul 09
Posts: 581
Credit: 761,710,729
RAC: 0
Message 1625 - Posted: 21 Sep 2009, 12:36:55 UTC - in response to Message 1618.
Last modified: 21 Sep 2009, 12:41:14 UTC

And 70,395,274.17 in this one...

http://boinc.thesonntags.com/collatz/workunit.php?wuid=662334


Yes, that's one of mine that I just noticed and was going to Post, I haven't been doing anything to warrant an Anomoly like that other than Upgrading everything to the BOINC 6.10.6 Client. I haven't even touched that Box in the last 4-5 Day's.

Maybe Slicker just gave the Credit to me for the 150+ Completed but Inconclusive Wu's I have plus all the other WU's Credit should have been given on ... :P

_hiVe will be happy with the Credits too ... :P :P

_hiVe*
Send message
Joined: 9 Aug 09
Posts: 106
Credit: 162,673,032
RAC: 0
Message 1628 - Posted: 21 Sep 2009, 13:13:00 UTC - in response to Message 1625.
Last modified: 21 Sep 2009, 13:16:04 UTC

And 70,395,274.17 in this one...

http://boinc.thesonntags.com/collatz/workunit.php?wuid=662334


Yes, that's one of mine that I just noticed and was going to Post, I haven't been doing anything to warrant an Anomoly like that other than Upgrading everything to the BOINC 6.10.6 Client. I haven't even touched that Box in the last 4-5 Day's.

Maybe Slicker just gave the Credit to me for the 150+ Completed but Inconclusive Wu's I have plus all the other WU's Credit should have been given on ... :P

_hiVe will be happy with the Credits too ... :P :P


lolol like my wish coming true =)
Even if only temporary, it feels nice that this kind of sh1t can happen to me xD

EDIT: too bad this wasn't a lottery ^^
(i'd gladly share with you folks)

Profile Slicker
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Jun 09
Posts: 2525
Credit: 740,580,099
RAC: 1
Message 1634 - Posted: 21 Sep 2009, 14:32:49 UTC

First, the invalid credit for those two WUs has been fixed. Second, the validator has been adjusted so that there will be a max credit awarded. Third, the validator has been set to be a little more lenient resulting in fewer inconclusive WUs. We still need to figure out why the apps total steps don't match exactly when they did with the smaller WU sizes.

I still need to change the validator to make sure it uses the valid one to calculate the credit rather than the fist result with output that it finds. That's what caused the huge credit problem (pun intended) in the first place.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 10 · Next
Post to thread

Message boards : Number crunching : Credit


Main page · Your account · Message boards


Copyright © 2018 Jon Sonntag; All rights reserved.