| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Community
Forum: Chat Room
Thread: I made a new forum signature. |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 5541
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
My thinking would be that if you retain the daily export for 30 days and take the newest and one nearest the 30 day mark, take run time difference and divide by days between those 2 exports, you'd have a fair mean. For the starters you could accept to just use that formula or test join date against last export date to see if less than 30 days, and use that as an avarager... molto complicato ;? Either that, or keep stats for every day, and take the average of the last 30 'good' days (good being the days that the script succeeded in getting the data) and take average of that. This way there's a possibility to take the spikes out. Say: pick 30 days, take the 2 highest spikes and the 2 lowest spiks out, and devide the remainder by 26. Or something.. That's what I did way back when I created a signature only for myself, with the history available under my grid / my statistics history. As I commented in the ''Going under...'' and "Building 600 TFL machine" threads, [we] may have to review if to stick to the old 100 Cobblestones per GFL for performance indicating, or go the new BOINC 200 Cobblestones/GFL. For the moments the credits have though not at all doubled [to what SETI gives per second, but including their GPU credits] per the new server 7 credit system. We used to run 1.59 TFL per year and after few days on new system it's 1.806/year, so holding off for a little to maybe when we get GPU contributions running at WCG. Anticipating, but not overly, that this will lift credit substantially [not having been allowed to sniff the tech kitchen at all how the credits will be approached for that part. Time will though remain time as I understand 1 day GPU is 1 day runtime as clocked by the CPU elapsed, meaning the term Runtime has to remain and is not clean CPU time or GPU time [GPU's do not understand the time concept, which is why Elapsed it taken] Oops, that last statement surprised me. Do I understand correctly that for GPU work, all that's available will be elapsed time, not run time? Meaning that if you set the GPU to work only 50% on Boinc, it will still report a run time of 24 hours per day instead of 12? Then to GFL calculation. Do you know of any instance where 'our' GFLs have been compared to the real GFLs that a particular system is capable of. I suppose that the theoratical GFLs of a particular CPU can be found in some datasheet somewhere, or an application that tests and tells you the GFLs of your system. Of course Boinc has such a test if that's any good. Would be interesting to know if these values are close or way off. Perhaps that could bring us some closer to the multiplication value to settle for. Last 30 good stat days is fine too. Taking the increase between 2 dates and divide by days passed is I think as good. No need for the scientific down to the 8th decimal... cant imagine dogfights because one has 7.256 days and the other 7.255... it's general indicative to me in good jest. Yes, what BOINC logs is Elapsed time for GPU tasks. If this is throttled to 50% then that's reflected in the Elapsed time, don't think you'll get the ol UD agent running at 25% and still clocking 100% runtime per day. We-ll just have to wait what WCG decides on. BTW, I consider run-time and elapsed time interchangeable, a semantical variation that only slightly differs. For credit, the official wiki page was changed by admin on July 2010 from 100 to 200 credit per Ghz, the history http://boinc.berkeley.edu/w/?title=Computatio...;diff=2818&oldid=1126 . No notes as to the motivation [widespread hyperthreading?] Know no place other where than GFL we compute off the points/credits. Kind of not expecting a separate credit/time recording scheme for GPU, all expecting to go into a single HCC pool adding to the same badge. --//-- Hi Sek, have a look at this checkin-note: David 10 Jun 2010that I found here while doing some Google search on the subject: http://boinc.berkeley.edu/svn/tags/boinc_core_release_6_11_9/checkin_notes Could this be about the same 100/200 change we are debating here? Date seems to coincide nicely with the official wiki change. If 200 is the official word from Berkeley then I'm beginning to lean towards being in favour of changing it here too. Looks like that's the one. As yet though the new system is far from matching SETI credits. We did 2.13TFL/Yr yesterday compared to 1.59 before the change-over [where SETI gave double that of WCG]. Just going to be monitoring for the next month or more where this goes. --//-- P.S, There is no such thing as magic in numbers. The benchmarks over time have been allowed to go bananas and became fudge succeptive. There was no way around with all the many BOINC versions in circulation [and private builds] but to take the claimant side away from the clients, so what we now see is first signs of a uniform assessing of the client performance. You said you did not have a database behind your sigs yet, but I've got a history to recompute and make sure the old and new splices properly or all the ladadi becomes ladida "It aint half hot mum" ;>) [Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Mar 14, 2012 6:03:02 PM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I could like a signature also, that thing looks so nice.
ID 537602 |
||
|
|
Dango@poverty
Cruncher Joined: Jan 13, 2012 Post Count: 1 Status: Offline |
This looks so cool! I'd like this one XD
ID 733847 |
||
|
|
coolstream
Senior Cruncher SCOTLAND Joined: Nov 8, 2005 Post Count: 475 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Has anyone else noted a discrepancy between WCG total reported points and the total in their sig image? In my case, the image hasn't been updated for 3 days.
----------------------------------------At present, WCG reports Accumulated Points: 97,437,544 but my sig image reports 97,098,050  Crunching in memory of my Mum PEGGY, cousin ROPPA and Aunt AUDREY. |
||
|
|
SNURK
Veteran Cruncher The Netherlands Joined: Nov 26, 2007 Post Count: 1217 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Hi coolstream, the sigs just caught up after an error occured yesterday. Still seeing an old version should be down to caching now.
----------------------------------------Signatures added: http://i1007.photobucket.com/albums/af195/wcgsig/537602.gif ; Lagittaja http://i1007.photobucket.com/albums/af195/wcgsig/733847.gif ; Dango@poverty  SNURK |
||
|
|
coolstream
Senior Cruncher SCOTLAND Joined: Nov 8, 2005 Post Count: 475 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Hi SNURK. I don't normally scrutinise the sigs so closely. In fact it was a badge colour change (or lack of it more to the point) that drew my attention to it. All is well now.
----------------------------------------Once again I have to commend you for your work and your diligence! Crunching in memory of my Mum PEGGY, cousin ROPPA and Aunt AUDREY. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Thank you very much SNURK!
|
||
|
|
RCC_Survivor
Veteran Cruncher USA Joined: Apr 28, 2007 Post Count: 1329 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
SNURK,
----------------------------------------I love your signature and appreciate the time you give to share it with others. However, curiosity is killing me and I hope you can clear up one question. In the signature "Run time/project" calculation you use 20 as the number of projects. There are 21 total WCG projects. It is my understanding that Beta is not included in the calculation, which I agree with as it is not a real project. Also thought that AfricanClimate@Home was not included as it was a very short duration project, which is not typical for a WCG project. Based on the above the number of projects used in the calculation would be 19. Where did I go wrong? Say No to Schistosoma Active GO Fight Against Malaria Active Drug Search for Leishmaniasis Active Computing for Clean Water Active The Clean Energy Project - Phase 2 Active Help Cure Muscular Dystrophy - Phase 2 Active Help Fight Childhood Cancer Active Help Conquer Cancer Active Human Proteome Folding - Phase 2 Active FightAIDS@Home Active Discovering Dengue Drugs - Together - Phase 2 Intermittent Influenza Antiviral Drug Search Intermittent The Clean Energy Project Intermittent Discovering Dengue Drugs - Together Intermittent Beta Testing Intermittent Nutritious Rice for the World Completed AfricanClimate@Home Completed Help Cure Muscular Dystrophy Completed Genome Comparison Completed Help Defeat Cancer Completed Human Proteome Folding Completed  Be kinder than necessary, for everyone you meet is fighting some battle. Please join the team The survivors  |
||
|
|
KWSN - A Shrubbery
Master Cruncher Joined: Jan 8, 2006 Post Count: 1585 Status: Offline |
African Climate is included, that would account for your discrepancy.
---------------------------------------- Distributed computing volunteer since September 27, 2000 |
||
|
|
RCC_Survivor
Veteran Cruncher USA Joined: Apr 28, 2007 Post Count: 1329 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
I agree it is included, but why is it counted as a full project?
----------------------------------------If you look at my project badges I earned a bronze for running one day of African Climate. In that project they were giving badges away for reduced run times. What they did is a done deal and I do not expect that to change but why treat it as a project equal to the likes of HCC, or CEP2 when it clearly is not? I am NOT trying to start anything or be ungrateful, just trying to understand the rationale behind the numbers used in the calculation. Certainly I do agree to disagree. Be kinder than necessary, for everyone you meet is fighting some battle. Please join the team The survivors |
||
|
|
|