| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Completed Research
Forum: The Clean Energy Project - Phase 2 Forum
Thread: Progressive decline in credit awarded |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 23
|
|
| Author |
|
|
StopSocialExclusion
Cruncher Joined: Dec 13, 2011 Post Count: 13 Status: Offline |
Ok, here's the issue. RIght now I am crunching the Clean Energy Project phase 2 like mad for a team challenge on the grid. However, there is a very irritating issue I have noticed regarding the credits awarded on the workunits. WHen I began really crunching this, I was getting about 140 credits per 12 hour workunit. However, this suddenly declined to below 100 later on, then to below 90, and has even gone to just 71 credits for the last workunits I returned. Keep in mind that the CPU time for all these workunits has stayed at 12.00 hours and the run-time has fluctuated between like 12 1/2 hours and 13 1/2 hours, so it's not like the work units are getting shorter to justify the credits lowing. Now I will say, I am not just in it for the credit, but awarding 71 credits for 12 hours of computation is just too low. Seriously, I could do a work unit for docking@home which awarded twice as much credit and took half as long to complete!!! I just think the grid needs to fix this issue or they will probably end up losing crunchers. I myself am not as enthused as I could be, and I actually have some control over my greed. WHat will people who just care about credits do when they discover the WCG is only awarding 1/4 as much credit as other projects??? I thnk we all know the answer. SO I ask you, please fix the credits. IT is quite dissatisfying to see this happen.
|
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
CEP2 units have gotten drastically shorter recently. Past month?
|
||
|
|
StopSocialExclusion
Cruncher Joined: Dec 13, 2011 Post Count: 13 Status: Offline |
More like the past few days. I think a week ago it was about 140 credits per work unit and it has kept falling while the run time dtays about the same. Heck, I just returned two CEP workunits and got 67.2 credits for each one, down from 71.1 either yesterday or the day before. My intent is not to whine, but seriously what gives?
|
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
haven't had anything over 7 hours in the last 2 months....wu's seem to have been cut in half....
|
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
There is a credit proration for those in quorum 2 for CEP2, depending on the number of jobs [max 16], that get completed in 12 hours. Those that run CEP2 alone, in zero redundancy, get what is claimed i.e. if 71 is claimed, 71 is granted. Crystal Pellet once worked out the formula. A result that ran full 12 hours max but *not* all 16 jobs, matching with another wingman that manages to do all 16 in under 12 hours, would typically show quite divers credit grants. This will partially go away when the cut-off is extended from maximum 12 hours to 24 hours. That will I think be opt-in too... to run up to 24 hours.
----------------------------------------Nothing will be done about any credit disparities AFAIAT]. WCG techs are working to upgrade the BOINC server software, that comes with a revised credit award logic. Only when that is fully tested could there be work done to set exception/special rules for what we know as ''outlier'' conditions.... such as for heavy over or under claiming. Not going to debate current disparities, real or imaginative [there are a few bad matches for sure, as there are inter WCG sciences inequalities... my I7 regularly gets granted P4 level credit, because there are clients around that claim poorly... e.g. the badly benchmarking 6.10.17 on which I made a Chat Room topic asking to upgrade... these are crunchers though that clearly do *not* do this for credit, but for results. Set to run, full tilt and forget... maybe business environments. That's to be fully respected, but highlights the granting rule weakness]. --//-- [Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Feb 27, 2012 11:47:29 AM] |
||
|
|
StopSocialExclusion
Cruncher Joined: Dec 13, 2011 Post Count: 13 Status: Offline |
DOwn to 63.2 credits for 12 hours of computation!!!! THe grid really needs to fix this issue before everyone starts fleeing to milkyway@home and docking@home and other projects which pay better, because I can tell you 5 credits an hour is unsatisfying and I'm not in it for the credits. WHat will people who are in it for credit think...
|
||
|
|
gb009761
Master Cruncher Scotland Joined: Apr 6, 2005 Post Count: 3010 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Thing is StopSocialExclusion, of those 12 Hrs of processing, how much WORK got processed?
----------------------------------------Just recently, CEP2 had some "easier" WU's, and thus, more work could have been processed in a 12 Hr window - whilst now (I believe), the WU's are getting harder and hence, not as many of the 16 steps may be being completed - resulting in a lower points/hr tally.  |
||
|
|
KWSN - A Shrubbery
Master Cruncher Joined: Jan 8, 2006 Post Count: 1585 Status: Offline |
Credits have been brought up and discussed at length a few times before. There are definitely issues that need to be resolved, but nothing can or will be done on that front until after the server software upgrade that Sekerob mentioned.
----------------------------------------As for the credits one can get at other projects, this is undeniable. There has been for years now unchecked competition for volunteers and many projects have pursued the path of credit inflation in order to attract those to whom credits really matter. Traditionally, WCG has always granted a low amount of credits compared to other BOINC projects and the amounts granted within WCG vary between the sciences even though they keep those disparities to a minimum. The short answer is until the BOINC community bands together and addresses the disparities, there will be huge inequities in credits awarded between projects. The server code upgrade will address this to an extent, but desperate projects will find a way around any limitations on credit inflation. All this over just numbers that have no worth or meaning except bragging rights. I pay no attention to credit numbers unless I am comparing credits awarded by a given project to other crunchers on the same project. Any cross project comparison is meaningless at best. I prefer to volunteer for sciences I find rewarding rather than pursue greater credits. This is the mindset you will see here predominately because most people pursuing pure numbers have already moved on.  Distributed computing volunteer since September 27, 2000 |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
My opinion is that the points are not the most important thing. They work as good motivator, it's always funny to collect stuff and climb the ladder (ranking).
I don't know exactly how points are calculated but I think that it should be the same for all projects at WCG so people don't chose projects after how much points they give. That it's different to non WCG projects I guess is out of WCG's control. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
care less about the point's. I only crunch for tasks completed and runtime. but the cure's are the most important than anything.....If i wanted just points i'd be looking for aliens at seti.
|
||
|
|
|