If you are not going to equalize the credits granted between the various types of work you are giving out for the time it takes to run them....ie: GPUTEST...USPME....and ....US...you will notice a lot of work that is being aborted so that crunchers can pick up only the GPUTESTS which pay the best for the time spent.

I would think it would be in the projects best interests to do something about the disparity of credit granted ASAP

Hopefully, users aborting tasks just to pick up some more credit is not the general rule and they are in the minority. I have obviously noticed the discrepancy (with the 18xx credit WU's), but it never even crossed my mind to abort WU's.

I agree something should be done to minimize any difference in the WU's credits / time worked, however in the end this is about science and not personal gain.

Just my opinion...

The admins have been aware of this for a while. They chose to do nothing about it, so sometimes users need to take actions on their own when the admins don't seem to care.

Xaak:

Actually, after checking my last 40 WU's (in progress and completed), 13 where aborts. 4 out of 7, 1887 credit WU's were aborts as well as 3 out of 7 2435 credit WU's were aborts. This would mean that over half of my lower end WU's were aborted by other users.

Could this be a trend, I don't know. I would hope not.

However since going to the 4 different types of WU's my RAC has dropped 5000-6000 a day. Do I care, no but this was done to allow lower end GPU's to run. There is no discimination though. WU's get assigned randomly and not according to GPU. So they should just go back to one WU unless there is going to be some future change to the program.??

Jayargh:

The time/steps don't equalize, and they are aware of this problem. GDF does know that the 1887 credit WU take longer. I do believe that they are going to sort something out and patience would be a prudent course of action.

Pat

Jayargh:

The time/steps don't equalize, and they are aware of this problem. GDF does know that the 1887 credit WU take longer. I do believe that they are going to sort something out and patience would be a prudent course of action.

Pat

That doesn't mean I won't start aborting.....I bought these cards to crunch and not for gaming and I expect fair payment for work done.......I spent big $ on hardware and spend major $ on juice for credit.Anyone who thinks most users put science before credit is only fooling themselves.

If anyone is just buying extra hardware for the sole purpose of doing this just to get a big number and say "I have more credits than you", it might be good idea to look into a more productive hobby.

I think this has probably gotten a little out of hand. Feel free to crunch as you would like, as everyone else should and will do the same. To each his own.

I was just expressing my opinion that BOINC projects are a donation of everyone's time, money, and cpu/gpu cycles.

I too hope the admins will review the issue of the 18xx WU's not being quite equal to all the others. It is probably just not their biggest concern at the moment.

If anyone is just buying extra hardware for the sole purpose of doing this just to get a big number and say "I have more credits than you", it might be good idea to look into a more productive hobby.

I have obviously noticed the discrepancy (with the 18xx credit WU's), but it never even crossed my mind to abort WU's.

I always have been a Credit Whore I guess but I always have thought of it as just trying to get as much Credit as I can & in the process maybe/hopefully I'll do the a Project & their Science some good. After all the more I crunch the more Credit I get & the more I do for Science or am I wrong on that ... ;)

Happy to crunch for worthwhile science - but I also want to be paid credits for my outlay.

Whilst some may naively believe that no one would abort an incorrectly tariffed WU or choose not to believe that people may spend more resources here for credits than elsewhere - let's acknowledge that the Project team have decided that they need to attract volunteers by paying credits in the first place.

In a nutshell - I do crunch for credits, I have bought hardware for crunching purposes, when I do crunch I want the best credit return available & I am a member of a team that 'races' other teams in Boinc projects. I would be crunching elsewhere if this project did not grant credits.

How worthwhile my choice of hobby is I decide - and I expect others to make their own choices in that respect and not judge my choices. Whatever my motivations, lots of science is being done.

Just my £0.02 worth.

Um, rising to your defense I don't think you are quite THAT much of a, um, well, not what you said you were ...

Um, rising to your defense I don't think you are quite THAT much of a, um, well, not what you said you were ...

Well I was just "Quoting what others have called me at times Paul, and yes I stil consider you a Friend or at least somebody I can talk to fairly level headedly without a lot of Trash Talk thrown in ... :)

Thanks GDF!

I would offer a suggestion if it is planned to continue with different kinds of workunits that have different set structures (by this I mean a limited set of workunit types--e.g., the 4 types we have now--rather than continuously varying types). Several projects utilize server features that offer the option to the user to select the type of work that they will crunch. A good example can be found at the PrimeGrid project where the feature list also includes a setting that alows the user to choose to crunch "other available work if the type(s) that they have chosen is/are not available." The MalariaControl project also used this feature, but with particular emphasis on allowing users to opt-in for crunching "test" units (e.g., beta application versions) which might also be of interest here at GPUGRID.

WU's get assigned randomly and not according to GPU. So they should just go back to one WU unless there is going to be some future change to the program.??
Pat

Just my thoughts ... not that they are different than what others have said ... I just felt like "talking" ....

I have noted to myself and my own private amusement that many of those that claim that credit is not why they attach to a project, yet they have their posts tagged with a signature banner announcing their totals to the world as I do (well, everywhere but here as I cannot get the preferences page to work, or anyone in the project to acknowledge that there is a problem, but I digress...)

I don't know that I really regard it as keeping score as much as I see it as measuring my contribution ...

Its threads development like these with tit for tat points that makes me wish we a had POLL!

...same elapsed time approximatively and same credits/day.

gdf

Dear all,
the "reduced credits" WUs should in fact return more credits than the normal one.
This is not the case, because we could not measure all the flops accurately as we use precompiled libs from nvidia. We have asked help from them to have a better way to measure this in the future.

For the time being we will set the credits to be the same. The delay in doing this change is that we had a very bad period with the server scheduler which drained a lot of human resources.

We are also looking at the avatar problem.

For the time being we will set the credits to be the same. The delay in doing this change is that we had a very bad period with the server scheduler which drained a lot of human resources.

We are setting up a new Windows build system.
A couple of days, maybe less.

gdf

We are setting up a new Windows build system.
A couple of days, maybe less.

gdf

Are these going to be the New Equalized Credit Wu's for Windows Box's > SH2_US_3-0-40-SH2_US ??? If so they take about 30-60 Minutes longer on my GTX 260-280 Cards than the ones that Paid 3232.06 Credits but these only Pay 2831.95 Credits ...

I ask that because I haven't seen them before but now it seems thats about all I'm getting since last night ...