Advanced search

Message boards : Number crunching : 45.000 credits for a "GIANNI"

Author Message
Aon
Send message
Joined: 16 May 11
Posts: 10
Credit: 167,698,252
RAC: 0
Level
Ile
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 22762 - Posted: 20 Dec 2011 | 17:18:02 UTC

My GTX460 just finished one of these wu's. Like always it took about 23 and a 1/2 hours. However, the amount of credit awarded is far less than the usual 67.500. Are the credits being recalculated for this type of wu or is it some kind of error? Thanks

http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=4687075

Toni
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 9 Dec 08
Posts: 1006
Credit: 5,068,599
RAC: 0
Level
Ser
Scientific publications
watwatwatwat
Message 22763 - Posted: 20 Dec 2011 | 17:37:42 UTC - in response to Message 22762.
Last modified: 20 Dec 2011 | 17:56:06 UTC

Should have been 45k x 1.5 = 67.5 since received-sent is (barely) within 24h. Edit: a strange interference occurred with another results. The BOINC thing copied the lower credit of the other result. We'll try to see if a fix is possible for this case.

T

Norman_RKN
Send message
Joined: 22 Dec 09
Posts: 16
Credit: 23,522,575
RAC: 0
Level
Pro
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 22764 - Posted: 20 Dec 2011 | 17:39:55 UTC

me too.

http://www.gpugrid.net/workunit.php?wuid=2940618
____________
http://www.rechenkraft.net

Toni
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 9 Dec 08
Posts: 1006
Credit: 5,068,599
RAC: 0
Level
Ser
Scientific publications
watwatwatwat
Message 22768 - Posted: 20 Dec 2011 | 17:51:39 UTC - in response to Message 22764.

Norman: yours is a different case - was returned in a short time window around 14/dec when we were fixing the credit calculations.

Aon
Send message
Joined: 16 May 11
Posts: 10
Credit: 167,698,252
RAC: 0
Level
Ile
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 22772 - Posted: 20 Dec 2011 | 18:16:33 UTC - in response to Message 22763.

Should have been 45k x 1.5 = 67.5 since received-sent is (barely) within 24h. Edit: a strange interference occurred with another results. The BOINC thing copied the lower credit of the other result. We'll try to see if a fix is possible for this case.

T


Thanks Toni for your quick response.

Norman_RKN
Send message
Joined: 22 Dec 09
Posts: 16
Credit: 23,522,575
RAC: 0
Level
Pro
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 22776 - Posted: 20 Dec 2011 | 19:48:32 UTC

OK.
thx Toni.
____________
http://www.rechenkraft.net

Spatzthecat
Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 09
Posts: 33
Credit: 1,282,387,913
RAC: 0
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 22837 - Posted: 27 Dec 2011 | 1:26:03 UTC

Could someonem please explain to me the 24hr rule and why it justifies an increase in credit? I have received 45000, 56000 and 67500 for various completed "GIANNI" wu's.

Dagorath
Send message
Joined: 16 Mar 11
Posts: 509
Credit: 179,005,236
RAC: 0
Level
Ile
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 22839 - Posted: 27 Dec 2011 | 1:47:53 UTC - in response to Message 22837.

The rule is that if you return the result within 24 hours you get a 50% bonus. Why? Well... why not?

MarkJ
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 24 Dec 08
Posts: 738
Credit: 200,909,904
RAC: 0
Level
Leu
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 22840 - Posted: 27 Dec 2011 | 3:39:26 UTC - in response to Message 22839.
Last modified: 27 Dec 2011 | 3:40:35 UTC

The rule is that if you return the result within 24 hours you get a 50% bonus. Why? Well... why not?


Well there is a bit more to it than that :-)

The results from one set of wu are used to create the next set. That is why the project rewards fast returns. The sooner they can get enough returned they can use the results to create the next set.

You can exclude the "long" wu if you have a slower graphics card so that you have a better chance of getting them completed within 24 hours. Check your account preferences on the web site. Another thing to do is run with a minimum cache so you don't have wu sitting in "ready to start" status.

Spatzthecat
Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 09
Posts: 33
Credit: 1,282,387,913
RAC: 0
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 22842 - Posted: 27 Dec 2011 | 12:11:02 UTC - in response to Message 22840.

Does this 24 hr rule apply to all Long wu's or just the "GIANNI"wu's

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3968
Credit: 1,995,359,260
RAC: 0
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 22844 - Posted: 27 Dec 2011 | 15:32:27 UTC - in response to Message 22842.

All tasks of all types and size.
____________
FAQ's

HOW TO:
- Opt out of Beta Tests
- Ask for Help

Spatzthecat
Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 09
Posts: 33
Credit: 1,282,387,913
RAC: 0
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 22845 - Posted: 27 Dec 2011 | 17:12:57 UTC

My concerns are that if credits are awarded based on an estimate of the amount of flops based on number of iterations, (as far as I am aware all BOINC projects calculate in a similar manner) and we enhance the credits based on a particular time frame to suit the project, which has nothing to do with that, are we "BOINC legal"?
I am not trying to put a fly in the ointment but it may appear to other projects that we are not playing by the rules.

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3968
Credit: 1,995,359,260
RAC: 0
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 22846 - Posted: 27 Dec 2011 | 18:15:20 UTC - in response to Message 22845.

At GPUGrid tasks are generated from the results of other tasks. Therefore the project needs a rapid turn around. You could just as equally consider the 24h time as 100% and take off 25% for a <2day return and 50% for a >2day but <5day return! Then there is a long task bonus, as this also helps the project.

This project rewards similarly to some other GPU projects. The maths based projects are the real culprits as their credit systems take no account of app complexity, and throw crazy credits GPU's.

As far as I am aware, few if any projects Fully implement the latest incarnation of the credit system, and it has not been calibrated. Unless all projects do it, the system is pointless.

Task credit should be awarded across every project in the same way (or as close as possible), despite the CPU type or GPU type; if a task takes 1h on a CPU and gets 50credits, it should get 50 credits on all devices (various CPU's, GPU's, multiple GPU's or combinations of CPU and GPU) no matter how long it takes to run the task.

If a project wants to average it's task credit to some extent, say by rewarding fast return and reducing credit for slow return, then I think there should be some discretion allowed; slow returns slow the research down, and fast returns expedite the research.
____________
FAQ's

HOW TO:
- Opt out of Beta Tests
- Ask for Help

Spatzthecat
Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 09
Posts: 33
Credit: 1,282,387,913
RAC: 0
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 22847 - Posted: 27 Dec 2011 | 18:33:05 UTC - in response to Message 22846.

Many thanks
How do I reduce the cache to its minimum

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3968
Credit: 1,995,359,260
RAC: 0
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 22849 - Posted: 27 Dec 2011 | 20:55:48 UTC - in response to Message 22847.

Boinc Manager (Advanced view),

For Boinc 6.10.x,
Advanced, Preferences, and set the Additional work buffer to 0.1 or 0.01

For Boinc 6.12.x or Alpha versions,
Tools, Computing Preferences, and set the Additional work buffer to 0.1 or 0.01, but keep the connect every setting to above 0.1.

____________
FAQ's

HOW TO:
- Opt out of Beta Tests
- Ask for Help

Spatzthecat
Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 09
Posts: 33
Credit: 1,282,387,913
RAC: 0
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 22851 - Posted: 27 Dec 2011 | 22:52:05 UTC
Last modified: 27 Dec 2011 | 23:09:47 UTC

Thank you MarkJ and skgiven for being available at this holiday time it is a pleasure being part of arguablly one of the most worthwhile/best projects within BOINC

TheFiend
Send message
Joined: 26 Aug 11
Posts: 99
Credit: 2,543,081,891
RAC: 2,153,607
Level
Phe
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 22853 - Posted: 28 Dec 2011 | 15:14:17 UTC

My GTX550TI can do the GIANNI WU in just under the 24 hours to qualify for the full bonus. :)

MarkJ
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 24 Dec 08
Posts: 738
Credit: 200,909,904
RAC: 0
Level
Leu
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 22863 - Posted: 29 Dec 2011 | 12:37:47 UTC - in response to Message 22849.
Last modified: 29 Dec 2011 | 12:39:22 UTC

Boinc Manager (Advanced view),

For Boinc 6.10.x,
Advanced, Preferences, and set the Additional work buffer to 0.1 or 0.01

For Boinc 6.12.x or Alpha versions,
Tools, Computing Preferences, and set the Additional work buffer to 0.1 or 0.01, but keep the connect every setting to above 0.1.


I set the "connect every" to 0.1 and have zero in the "additional work buffer". I have the network activity always available. When a wu gets to about 95% done it requests a new wu, so it's got another one by the time the current wu has finished.

Granite T. Rock
Send message
Joined: 7 Sep 09
Posts: 3
Credit: 7,778,853
RAC: 0
Level
Ser
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 23012 - Posted: 19 Jan 2012 | 15:10:47 UTC - in response to Message 22846.

I upgraded my video card recently and saw my daily stats shoot through the roof. Then I realized I was getting the long WU's. I turned GPUgrid off and just ran seti for a day to see what kinda stats I would get. GPUgrid definately seem to give a significant bonus over other projects. I guess my only concern is the cobblestone was meant to be a reflection of work done... giving bonuses kinda skews things a bit. Maybe the who cobblestone thing is broken anyways. If you want such fast return times why not just set short deadlines? Do people care enough about these things that a credit war could start between projects who add bonuses to try and attract people? I just pick interesting projects. Give them similar priorty and let them go.

Toni
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 9 Dec 08
Posts: 1006
Credit: 5,068,599
RAC: 0
Level
Ser
Scientific publications
watwatwatwat
Message 23015 - Posted: 19 Jan 2012 | 16:53:08 UTC - in response to Message 23012.
Last modified: 19 Jan 2012 | 16:57:08 UTC

Granite -

In the past we tuned WUs so that they were in line (actually, lower than) with SETI @ home. (We still use the same credit factor for short WUs.) However, things became complicated over time as various things changed - most notably other projects were significantly over-granting credits. More recently, SETI completely overhauled the credit system (NewCredit). Most projects, including ours, did not adhere to NewCredit for a variety of reasons. Finally, last time I checked NewCredit's GPU factors still had to be tuned (in non-trivial ways).

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3968
Credit: 1,995,359,260
RAC: 0
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 23018 - Posted: 19 Jan 2012 | 18:35:45 UTC - in response to Message 23012.
Last modified: 19 Jan 2012 | 18:38:21 UTC

Cross-project credit equality took a giant step forward with CreditNew; it makes it possible, but it would still take cross-project adaption, and that cannot really happen until there is GPU to CPU calibration. At present there probably isn't enough projects to make this step solid, but I still expect a method to turn up this year.
Even then there is still questions about app performance (OpenCL vs ATI(14) vs CUDA) and considerations such as GPU Utilization, power usage, and non-complicated GPU projects (relatively simple maths) vs complex apps and mixed CPU/GPU apps.

The badges will help keep things real; give a different perspective, especially the project badges which will show your relative contribution to each completed project. Each completed project will of course have resulted in publications, presentations, displays and will often have facilitated both new GPUGrid research and other research projects...
____________
FAQ's

HOW TO:
- Opt out of Beta Tests
- Ask for Help

Profile nenym
Send message
Joined: 31 Mar 09
Posts: 137
Credit: 1,308,230,581
RAC: 0
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 23019 - Posted: 20 Jan 2012 | 12:11:40 UTC - in response to Message 23012.
Last modified: 20 Jan 2012 | 12:58:38 UTC

By my point of wiev; GPUGRID is not in a credit war. Compare to other project (GTX560Ti factory OC 900 MHz)
1. PG PSA tpsieving - theoretical RAC ~ 800 k, 4-6% CPU consumption, 99% GPU load
2. DistrRTGen theoretical RAC ~ 500 k (process tammed to realtime resp. -20), 98 % CPU consumption, 99% GPU load
3. PG PPSE Sieving theoretical RAC ~ 250 k (november 2011), 4-6 % CPU consumption, 99% GPU load
4. PG GWC Sieving theoretical RAC ~ 125 k (november 2011), 4-6% CPU consumption, 99% GPU load
5. GPUGRID longrun tasks, SwanSync=0, + 50% time bonus <24 hours
-- theoretical RAC max 105 k with NATHAN_CB/TONI_FAAEAC tasks only, 100% CPU consumption, 99% GPU load
-- theoretical RAC < 95 k with other longrun tasks, 100% CPU consumption, 86% GPU load
Where can you see the overcrediting of GPUGRID?
Do not compare to Einstein or Seti (apps of both projets runs fine on CC 1.1 GPU, not on CC 1.3+ GPU). To crunch that projects by CC 1.3+ GPU (without using app_info) is not a good idea. From the other side - try to crunch NATHAN_CB or TONI_FAAEAC by a 9600GT (suitable GPU for Seti, Albert & Einstein).....have you tried it? Now you can see overcredited is Seti, Albert & Einstein, as any credit > zero credit.
I did not compare GPUGRID to ATI GPU efficient projects (MW, Collatz, Moo!), as i mean that it would be waste of eletricity power and GPU cycles to crunch these project by nV GPU. Only for info (much cheaper and low power consumption HD 4770)
1. Moo! - theoretical RAC ~ 86 k, 100% CPU consumption, 99% GPU load
2. MW - theoretical RAC ~ 68 k, 5% CPU consumption, 99% GPU load
3. Collatz - theoretical RAC ~ 65 k, 1% CPU consumption, 99% GPU load
1-4. POEM++ ATIOpenCL, using CreditNew that looks like a joke, for near the same run time (about one hour) was granted credit between 2,5 k - 10 k.
By the way - DistrRTgen used the CrediNew for a time, but has been left as unusable for app of the project.

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3968
Credit: 1,995,359,260
RAC: 0
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 23025 - Posted: 20 Jan 2012 | 17:21:07 UTC - in response to Message 23019.

You put a bit of work into that analysis, and it's sound.
____________
FAQ's

HOW TO:
- Opt out of Beta Tests
- Ask for Help

Toni
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 9 Dec 08
Posts: 1006
Credit: 5,068,599
RAC: 0
Level
Ser
Scientific publications
watwatwatwat
Message 23026 - Posted: 20 Jan 2012 | 17:28:49 UTC - in response to Message 23025.

Yes, very useful. Thanks.

Spatzthecat
Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 09
Posts: 33
Credit: 1,282,387,913
RAC: 0
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 23192 - Posted: 31 Jan 2012 | 0:53:47 UTC

Just had a GIANNI wu completed and returned within 24 hrs but have been cedited with 45000

Spatzthecat
Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 09
Posts: 33
Credit: 1,282,387,913
RAC: 0
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 23207 - Posted: 1 Feb 2012 | 16:32:08 UTC
Last modified: 1 Feb 2012 | 16:34:11 UTC

There seems to be a very large difference in the time taken on the "GIANNI" wu's on the same machine. As low as 17hrs and up to double that. No changes or use on that machine.

Windows 7 Ultimate, i7 920 running @ 3002MHz in an Asus P6T motherboard running a cool GTX 285 (60-65C) in prefer maximum performance mode and 6G memory.
Any ideas as to why there should be such a time range?

Profile nenym
Send message
Joined: 31 Mar 09
Posts: 137
Credit: 1,308,230,581
RAC: 0
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 23208 - Posted: 1 Feb 2012 | 17:28:15 UTC - in response to Message 23207.

Any ideas as to why there should be such a time range?
Some. Compare time per step of these tasks. Maybe admins will answer you better as your hosts are hidden.

Spatzthecat
Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 09
Posts: 33
Credit: 1,282,387,913
RAC: 0
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 23209 - Posted: 1 Feb 2012 | 17:47:41 UTC - in response to Message 23208.

Hosts should now be showing

Spatzthecat
Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 09
Posts: 33
Credit: 1,282,387,913
RAC: 0
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 23250 - Posted: 4 Feb 2012 | 16:57:36 UTC

Hosts are now showing.

raTTan
Send message
Joined: 17 Mar 11
Posts: 7
Credit: 28,985,881
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 23408 - Posted: 12 Feb 2012 | 6:48:06 UTC - in response to Message 23250.
Last modified: 12 Feb 2012 | 7:22:10 UTC

Hosts are now showing.


Not anymore. Don't understand why one would have any desire to hide them anyhow.

That aside I have noticed that different work units in this project give vastly different credit even for a given run time. Does the amount of computation done per second actually vary that much from one task type to another? (b/c gpu utilization seems to be fairly similar) Don't know if i've seen much variation in credit within a specific task name however I suppose I've seen time variations. Perhaps the calculatons can vary substantially within a task type?

BTW I haven't seen any task type use more than ~90% gpu often only using ~80%. Is this normal for a 460?
____________

Spatzthecat
Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 09
Posts: 33
Credit: 1,282,387,913
RAC: 0
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 23414 - Posted: 12 Feb 2012 | 11:46:04 UTC - in response to Message 23408.

Thanks for the response but I think it was simply the cards downclocking ... now sorted.

Simba123
Send message
Joined: 5 Dec 11
Posts: 147
Credit: 69,970,684
RAC: 0
Level
Thr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 23438 - Posted: 13 Feb 2012 | 3:49:34 UTC - in response to Message 23019.

By my point of wiev; GPUGRID is not in a credit war. Compare to other project (GTX560Ti factory OC 900 MHz)
1. PG PSA tpsieving - theoretical RAC ~ 800 k, 4-6% CPU consumption, 99% GPU load
2. DistrRTGen theoretical RAC ~ 500 k (process tammed to realtime resp. -20), 98 % CPU consumption, 99% GPU load
3. PG PPSE Sieving theoretical RAC ~ 250 k (november 2011), 4-6 % CPU consumption, 99% GPU load
4. PG GWC Sieving theoretical RAC ~ 125 k (november 2011), 4-6% CPU consumption, 99% GPU load
5. GPUGRID longrun tasks, SwanSync=0, + 50% time bonus <24 hours
-- theoretical RAC max 105 k with NATHAN_CB/TONI_FAAEAC tasks only, 100% CPU consumption, 99% GPU load
-- theoretical RAC < 95 k with other longrun tasks, 100% CPU consumption, 86% GPU load
Where can you see the overcrediting of GPUGRID?
Do not compare to Einstein or Seti (apps of both projets runs fine on CC 1.1 GPU, not on CC 1.3+ GPU). To crunch that projects by CC 1.3+ GPU (without using app_info) is not a good idea. From the other side - try to crunch NATHAN_CB or TONI_FAAEAC by a 9600GT (suitable GPU for Seti, Albert & Einstein).....have you tried it? Now you can see overcredited is Seti, Albert & Einstein, as any credit > zero credit.
I did not compare GPUGRID to ATI GPU efficient projects (MW, Collatz, Moo!), as i mean that it would be waste of eletricity power and GPU cycles to crunch these project by nV GPU. Only for info (much cheaper and low power consumption HD 4770)
1. Moo! - theoretical RAC ~ 86 k, 100% CPU consumption, 99% GPU load
2. MW - theoretical RAC ~ 68 k, 5% CPU consumption, 99% GPU load
3. Collatz - theoretical RAC ~ 65 k, 1% CPU consumption, 99% GPU load
1-4. POEM++ ATIOpenCL, using CreditNew that looks like a joke, for near the same run time (about one hour) was granted credit between 2,5 k - 10 k.
By the way - DistrRTgen used the CrediNew for a time, but has been left as unusable for app of the project.




Just a question on this one. you refer to the GPuGrid longruns with 100% cpu consumption.
Are you referring there to not having any other tasks running on your computer at all apart from running the GpuGrid task?

I ask because I currently run an i7-2600k@4.5 under win7 64bit that crunches 8 WCG tasks and 2 gpugrid tasks (560ti2gb @ 860Mhz and a 460 1gb @800Mhz) and have no trouble completing Nathans in around 32k for the 460 and 26k for the 560.

both normally return 35811points, though I've just noticed a couple of 31500. not sure what that's about.

Profile nenym
Send message
Joined: 31 Mar 09
Posts: 137
Credit: 1,308,230,581
RAC: 0
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 23448 - Posted: 13 Feb 2012 | 11:54:52 UTC - in response to Message 23438.

Are you referring there to not having any other tasks running on your computer at all apart from running the GpuGrid task?
I am running 3 CPU tasks and 1 GPUGRID task (4CPU Xeon, set "use at most 99% of the processors").
both normally return 35811points, though I've just noticed a couple of 31500. not sure what that's about.
....NATHAN_CB1... gives 35,811 credits, ...NATHAN_FA5...gives 31,500 credits, both with 50% time bonus.

Simba123
Send message
Joined: 5 Dec 11
Posts: 147
Credit: 69,970,684
RAC: 0
Level
Thr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 23449 - Posted: 13 Feb 2012 | 11:58:46 UTC - in response to Message 23448.

ah. ok thanks.

Lagittaja
Send message
Joined: 1 Nov 10
Posts: 6
Credit: 4,539,537
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwat
Message 23766 - Posted: 5 Mar 2012 | 10:55:51 UTC

Im currently running my 470 at 800 core and I have swan_sync=0 and in boinc manager settings I have set on multiprocessor systems use at most 75%.
I got 3 primegrid pps llravx running and they take all other three cores and usually all long runs hog completely the spare core I give them. Although the task says its running 0.44 cpu + 1.0 gpu.
Cpu is 2500K@4.5Ghz

mikey
Send message
Joined: 2 Jan 09
Posts: 297
Credit: 6,502,928,468
RAC: 18,095,531
Level
Tyr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 23773 - Posted: 5 Mar 2012 | 13:22:31 UTC - in response to Message 22844.

All tasks of all types and size.


So how do we know if the credits are doubled or not? People here are talking about getting up to 67,500 credits for one units yet I am getting a fairly consistent 35,000 for per unit. Here is one of my units:
http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=5048734

I KNOW there are MANY reasons for different credits being awarded to different people, I just don't know how to tell if I am getting double credits for returning them on time.

Profile skgiven
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Apr 09
Posts: 3968
Credit: 1,995,359,260
RAC: 0
Level
His
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 23774 - Posted: 5 Mar 2012 | 13:49:03 UTC - in response to Message 23773.

There is no credit breakdown, or formula, just "Credit 35,811.00".
The old site gave more info; claimed credit and awarded credit.

So you would need to accept the bonus system is 50% for <24h return, 25% between 24h and 48h. Then you can see from the result that it returned inside 24h so would have been granted full credit.

____________
FAQ's

HOW TO:
- Opt out of Beta Tests
- Ask for Help

Post to thread

Message boards : Number crunching : 45.000 credits for a "GIANNI"

//