| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Support
Forum: BOINC Agent Support
Thread: Points Claimed a lottery even between rigs? |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 3
|
|
| Author |
|
|
OldChap
Veteran Cruncher UK Joined: Jun 5, 2009 Post Count: 978 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Somebody want to try to explain the current points claim system? Just the claim as I think I have an idea how awarded goes, well sort of anyway.
----------------------------------------Does it still rely on benchmarks? is it calculated from time to run a given wu? I ask because I currently have 2 VERY similar machines running.... One claims around 24 pts per thread/hour the other maybe 14. They are both running sn2s. The only difference between them is the former has done about a month crunching the other about 2 weeks Is there any rhyme or reason to this or should I consider Rob's previous comment as being the bottom line:.... Besides all that, the credit system is driven by a One Armed Bandit and for each science a different bandit is programmed to most always give you 3 rotten cherries as outcome... Figure that, momentarily all my CEP2 jobs get 2-3 times as much credit as FAHV, which gives a pathetic 10-11/hr, even when these run in 64 bits, which CEP2 can't. This system is so broken at the root, and compounded by those OAB rules per science, that the word 'system' really is best stricken from the WCG dictionary, a complete and utter waste of time to question or reflect on.... over the years a grand source of irritation to which sledge and wooden stick is best applied. For me, FAHV was better than CEP2 which in turn was better than FAAH. On the first machine SN2S about matches FAHV...... I would just like it to do the same on the second rig.  |
||
|
|
Sgt.Joe
Ace Cruncher USA Joined: Jul 4, 2006 Post Count: 7844 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
I ask because I currently have 2 VERY similar machines running.... One claims around 24 pts per thread/hour the other maybe 14. They are both running sn2s. The only difference between them is the former has done about a month crunching the other about 2 weeks You say similar, but not identical. There are probably some slightly different components in one vs. the other. This could be either hardware or software. Even if the hardware components are "identical" that may only apply to 5 or decimal places if they are tested. There is undoubtedly some variation in the manufacturing of any component which will vary at the atomic level. These very tiny variations will have a cumulative effect over the billions and billions of instruction executions contained in each job. This may not explain all of the differences you are experiencing with your two machines, but it may explain some of the variation. If the disparity is large, I would suspect some additional process or memory use in the OS or some hardware component is defective enough to slow one system. I have two identical Core 2 duo systems with exactly the same components and OS and yet one is consistently faster than the other one by a very slight margin. And yes, I would say Sekerob's comments on credit are spot on. Cheers
Sgt. Joe
*Minnesota Crunchers* |
||
|
|
OldChap
Veteran Cruncher UK Joined: Jun 5, 2009 Post Count: 978 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
A day later and a couple of run benchmarks together with a re-start for both machines. nothing else I could think of doing.
----------------------------------------Whether this is the result of my actions or of the work server "taking notes" about the performance but... The pendulum swings. Now seeing points on a par with FAHV at least, possibly even as good as when running GFAM which on a Vina project is kinda what I was hoping for. I will never understand how the system works, or should I say operates, though. I think I may just have to give this some time to see if it settles at these sort of levels or continues to adjust one way or another. Thanks for your thoughts Joe, yours are the sort of comments that encourage one to think more clearly but looking from here the disparity was too great for it to be even an accumulation of hardware differences |
||
|
|
|