| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Community
Forum: Chat Room
Thread: Credits, Points, CPUs, GPUs, Badges ... |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Locked Total posts in this thread: 21
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Dataman
Ace Cruncher Joined: Nov 16, 2004 Post Count: 4865 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
... and whetstones, dhrystones, cobblestones, kidney stones and rolling stones.
---------------------------------------- As more and more GPU projects roll out, the DC world is on fire with discussions about credits. It has always been so but now the disparity between CPU credits and GPU credits and the credit disparity between projects is huge. Projects also use a credit multiplier to grant more credits than claimed credits. They do it of course to attract crunchers to their projects. Yesterday I completed one GPU wu at AQUA (33 hours) that granted 61,288 credits (that would be 429,016 WCG points). That was almost equal to the WCG points of my entire team for the day. Fair? Of course not! What can be done? Difficult to say. I (and hopefully others) would like to hear WCG members’ thoughts on credits, fair competition and the current state of crunching with these technologies. Cheers and Thanks!   |
||
|
|||
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
Well, 61,288 credit for a job must have felt like relief from blatherstone.
----------------------------------------The technology is there to measure strictly by F-POPS, I-POPS and G-POPS. They should be segregated in split stats for this is in it's present form a farce majeure. edit: added I-POPS
WCG
----------------------------------------Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! [Edit 1 times, last edit by Sekerob at Jun 7, 2009 4:40:15 PM] |
||
|
|
Sgt.Joe
Ace Cruncher USA Joined: Jul 4, 2006 Post Count: 7854 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
For those who are points oriented I suppose this is a big deal. The true purpose of doing the crunching here is the results, to do something useful for the rest of humanity.
----------------------------------------The points or BOINC crdits can be a useful tool to help determine the efficiency and speed of differnt machines, but only if everyone is using the same measuring stick. I also think this subject was discussed rather extensively in the past, but obviously the GPU addition has added a new element to the debate. Cheers
Sgt. Joe
*Minnesota Crunchers* |
||
|
|
Dataman
Ace Cruncher Joined: Nov 16, 2004 Post Count: 4865 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Yes Sek, the technology is there but that changes nothing. As to the "true purpose of crunching" there is none. Each has their reason for crunching and each can judge the other person's reasons. You only have to look in our threads for, "I don't crunch for credits BUT" ... and then it continues for paragraphs describing how they have been cheated. It is human nature.
----------------------------------------What I was interested in discussing is how the disparity could be changed ... if at all. |
||
|
|
keithhenry
Ace Cruncher Senile old farts of the world ....uh.....uh..... nevermind Joined: Nov 18, 2004 Post Count: 18667 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
I thought that was part of what the benchmarks in BOINC was for. To give you a way of comparing one machine against another using a standard unit of measurement. Maybe that's what BOINC uses to determine credit claimed so then the question becomes why granted would differ significantly from claimed ( presuming no attempts to skew claimed). Could the problem be in BOINC allowing a credit multiplier being used by a project?
---------------------------------------- |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
The only mistake is in anyone thinking for a moment that credits between different projects can be compared.
Admittedly, this was once a goal, but it has long ago become impossible. As for the inflated credits sometimes awarded for GPU computation - personally, I think it is an underhand thing to do, but in mitigation, we should remember that if particular results are more valuable to the project, then they can award what they like for them. |
||
|
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
To quote myself:
----------------------------------------They should be segregated in split stats... There is no parity, don't think there can be, but maybe there will be a reference coming, speak the WCG conversion if it happens of HCC. The resultant information should be equal to that on CPU. If anyone here is competent to assess the g-pops in ratio to f-pops or i-pops, s/he needs to speak up. Otherwise, grant same points per GPU hour as the pool of CPU's they're attached too (If that is actually measurable). This way a GTX260 result coming off a P4 host provides equal credit to sitting in an I7. Then take that credit mix of CPU's and apply that as were the card a core. Kevlar vest, latest state of the art on hand.
WCG
----------------------------------------Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! [Edit 1 times, last edit by Sekerob at Jun 7, 2009 5:37:37 PM] |
||
|
|
GIBA
Ace Cruncher Joined: Apr 25, 2005 Post Count: 5374 Status: Offline |
Yes Sek, the technology is there but that changes nothing. As to the "true purpose of crunching" there is none. Each has their reason for crunching and each can judge the other person's reasons. You only have to look in our threads for, "I don't crunch for credits BUT" ... and then it continues for paragraphs describing how they have been cheated. It is human nature. What I was interested in discussing is how the disparity could be changed ... if at all. Dataman, agree with you. I guess that will be hard to get a single answer for your question. Probably we will take long time in many discussions ways to "fix" it or to "change" it to another perspective which will converge for a single solution. Hard to predict it. Personally, I felt the same of you when I ran any WU using GPU's, and give up to try found a comparative basis to define if one way is better than other (CPU's). Think that GPU will hope a lot some specific kind of project, and CPU continue works better for other kinds. It depends on many factors and considerations. Hard to decide how approach is better or worst, once we need take assumptions in both cases that are distincts under technologies point of views, so GPU/CPU ran better for some projects and worst for another. Credits discussions and approach appear be a great measurement to rank colaborators, and probably as you mentioned, to atratck more crunchers for projects, in general. But, for instance in WCG, I guess that time measurement appear count much more for a huge group of crunchers, once based on that all colaborators get badges, despite of points ranking... I saw too, a lot of posts about badges here, compared with posts about points. Competition that move this world ? I don't know, but probably it's a human nature as you mentioned too.  
Cheers ! GIB@
Join BRASIL - BRAZIL@GRID team and be very happy ! http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/team/viewTeamInfo.do?teamId=DF99KT5DN1 |
||
|
|
Dataman
Ace Cruncher Joined: Nov 16, 2004 Post Count: 4865 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Great!!! This is what I was interested in. Can we stipulate that the technology is there to do it? Now should it be done? If so, how could it be done. What are the implications of doing it? And the nasy question, should it be regulated? (Booo Hisss)
----------------------------------------Didy makes an excellent point. I'm not sure I agree but why should not each science be permitted to credit whatever they choose too? Here at WCG, what happens if CEP decides to grant 10X more credits than HCMD2? Would that be OK? Where would our crunchers' crunch? Would HCMD2 be happy or would they raise their credits? I submit that the whole DC wide system is based on competition. WCG went to great lengths to implement team challenges and the pretty eye candy. Could it be to promote competition and therefore growth? Are they not competing with YoYo, Einstein, Milkyway and the rest? There are a finite number of us and more and more projects. I think there are a lot of aspects to this problem that could be explored albeit they may never be resolved. I am interested in your views. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Since all the internal World Community Grid projects are centrally controlled, allocating equal credit is easy. This is not the case with other, autonomous BOINC projects.
Each project at World Community Grid earns (on average) exactly the same credit/CPU second. |
||
|
|
|