| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Community
Forum: Chat Room
Thread: Points Research |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 14
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Hi All
Here's my latest theory resulting from discussion in another thread, but belongs here. Remember this is research only. Please stay on topic My XP3000+ takes a little less than 6 hours, on average to complete a FAAH WU and claims 10.81 PPH for an average of 63.x PPWU My Celeron 1300 takes around 12 Hours to complete a FAAH WU and it claims 6.81 PPH at an average of nearly 80 PPWU The relationship between PPH and PPWU can be seen to be inconsistant, and both must be seen in context. Discussion of one will lead to the other in order to get a true view of what is happening. My observation from this, is that although the fastest machines claim more PPH than slower ones, they claim fewer PPWU due to completing the WU disproportionately faster. The result in a points quorum is that the fastest machines then have their effective PPH amplified by receiving the higher than claimed PPWU from the slower ones. I would like to out out a call for more datum so that this theory can be examined properly. What is needed? For this experiment please supply the type and speed of your CPU. A 'Cut & Paste' from some recently submitted and verified FAAH Work Unit results, BOINC only. These are available from 'My Grid-Device Manager-Results Status' Select the computer you have nominated in the left side drop down box and 'Valid' In the Results Status (right side) drop down window, then click 'Filter. From the reults shown, click on the name of a typical Work Unit and select the information shown in the pop-up window. Right click on your selection and select 'copy' from the dropdown box. You may then Paste the reults to this thread. It would help to underline the result from the nominated machine. Like this: faah0834_ bdb566_ mx1s6s_ 0C Valid 10/15/2006 11:02:38 10/16/2006 02:33:32 6.08 67 / 61 faah0834_ bdb566_ mx1s6s_ 0C Valid 10/15/2006 11:02:34 10/15/2006 19:13:11 5.68 61 / 61 faah0834_ bdb566_ mx1s6s_ 0C Valid 10/15/2006 10:54:55 10/16/2006 01:57:33 4.76 42 / 61 Thanks for you help. This is not intended to be a groan, it is designed to identify problems and perhaps lead to a viable solution to them. The more data collected the sooner theories can be confirmed or debunked. Either result is a step forward. Cheers. ozylynx  |
|||
|
||||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Originally posted by Olympic. Moved for context.
----------------------------------------These FAAH results are from my Intel E6400 running at 3.4GHz. I'll delete everything except CPU time and point claimed/granted status since that's what is relevent to this topic. 5.70.....33 / 63 5.47.....63 / 63 3.18.....64 / 63 18.66.....77 / 66 12.96.....60 / 66 3.31...... 66 / 66 3.22.....65 / 59 9.91.....59 / 59 5.21.....53 / 59 6.21.....47 / 52 6.71.....52 / 52 3.35.... 67 / 52 So it appears that on average, my machine is claiming more points per WU than the other machines. I think alot of this has to do with what is happening on the host machine when the benchmarks are run. If the user is playing a game or running any CPU intensive app the benchmarks will be slower than normal, thus affecting claimed credits for the following week. I've also witnessed wildly different benchmarks just by running them several times in a row. What we need is a more accurate and reliable benchmark that reflects a machines actual speed when crunching here on WCG. But there are so many variables that I don't know if that's even possible. ---------------------------------------- [Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Oct 16, 2006 9:14:24 AM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Thanks for the info olympic.
On the average it would seem that this computer is very well benchmarked. My own computers vary wildly, but predictably and are not affected by other tasks running as all but one are dedicated full time crunchers. Much more data will be needed to for anything like a clear picture. We have a start. Cheers. ozylynx |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I'll post the entire result entries, since otherwise I'll certainly be accused of faking the numbers in order to hide my cheating. My only FAAH results are from a few days ago, since I only do FAAH when HDC runs out, and they've been keeping me well stoked lately.
E6400 @ 3.5 GHz: faah0809_ bdb016_ mx1mrw_ 02 Valid 10/07/2006 20:09:10 10/08/2006 08:09:32 4.22 63 / 57 faah0809_ bdb016_ mx1mrw_ 02 Valid 10/07/2006 20:06:52 10/08/2006 12:30:23 7.97 42 / 57 faah0809_ bdb016_ mx1mrw_ 02 Valid 10/07/2006 20:04:55 10/08/2006 01:52:54 2.76 57 / 57 faah0805_ bdb160_ mx1mer_ 07 Valid 10/02/2006 15:44:45 10/03/2006 03:55:10 7.18 56 / 58 faah0805_ bdb160_ mx1mer_ 07 Valid 10/02/2006 15:33:20 10/02/2006 21:41:59 2.98 62 / 58 faah0805_ bdb160_ mx1mer_ 07 Valid 10/02/2006 15:31:32 10/03/2006 16:36:13 9.00 58 / 58 faah0804_ bdb628_ mx1lzq_ dry_ 02 Valid 10/02/2006 01:41:37 10/02/2006 21:00:29 9.79 58 / 58 faah0804_ bdb628_ mx1lzq_ dry_ 02 Valid 10/02/2006 01:40:51 10/02/2006 08:59:03 6.54 47 / 58 faah0804_ bdb628_ mx1lzq_ dry_ 02 Valid 10/02/2006 01:37:37 10/02/2006 07:56:13 2.89 60 / 58 faah0804_ bdb556_ mx1lzq_ dry_ 00 Valid 10/01/2006 23:41:33 10/03/2006 00:43:40 5.65 67 / 66 faah0804_ bdb556_ mx1lzq_ dry_ 00 Valid 10/01/2006 23:38:53 10/02/2006 18:21:40 10.39 57 / 66 faah0804_ bdb556_ mx1lzq_ dry_ 00 Valid 10/01/2006 23:37:18 10/02/2006 05:29:43 3.17 66 / 66 Seems pretty close in general, but 3 of the 4 WUs included a response from someone else that was notably lower than the other 2. AMD 4800+ @ 2.64 GHz: faah0807_ bdb021_ mx1met_ dry_ 00 Valid 10/05/2006 00:29:13 10/05/2006 10:50:57 5.71 43 / 55 faah0807_ bdb021_ mx1met_ dry_ 00 Valid 10/05/2006 00:25:37 10/07/2006 00:42:37 10.87 59 / 55 faah0807_ bdb021_ mx1met_ dry_ 00 Valid 10/05/2006 00:15:27 10/05/2006 07:43:48 4.38 55 / 55 faah0805_ bdb404_ mx1mer_ 00 Valid 10/03/2006 01:21:38 10/03/2006 23:35:58 6.40 77 / 77 faah0805_ bdb404_ mx1mer_ 00 Valid 10/03/2006 01:16:42 10/03/2006 08:34:50 4.99 63 / 77 faah0805_ bdb404_ mx1mer_ 00 Valid 10/03/2006 01:07:50 10/07/2006 09:06:54 9.90 146 / 77 faah0804_ bdb851_ mx1m0b_ dry_ 02 Valid 10/02/2006 09:51:02 10/08/2006 09:51:10 7.39 57 / 63 faah0804_ bdb851_ mx1m0b_ dry_ 02 Valid 10/02/2006 09:48:04 10/04/2006 14:44:14 6.79 63 / 63 faah0804_ bdb851_ mx1m0b_ dry_ 02 Valid 10/02/2006 09:47:48 10/02/2006 17:46:48 5.09 64 / 63 Another lowball result in the first one. Some jerk trying to claim double credit in the 2nd one, but it didn't do any good, as usual. |
||
|
|
olympic
Senior Cruncher Joined: Jun 12, 2005 Post Count: 156 Status: Offline |
Here's another of my machines. This is a dedicated cruncher, no monitor or input devices are hooked up to it. AMD Opteron 170 @ 2.8GHz. Last 5 FAAH results:
----------------------------------------4.33.....68 / 61 10.53.....58 / 61 6.83.....61 / 61 5.12.....43 / 65 4.13.....65 / 65 5.59.....67 / 65 5.76.....48 / 48 4.36.....69 / 48 5.64.....33 / 48 4.27.....67 / 67 8.14.....53 / 67 21.35...80 / 67 4.07.....64 / 68 25.22....71 / 68 5.47.....68 / 68 So the points it is claiming per hour are very consistant, it's just that the three machines in the quorum can never seem to agree how much to claim per WU. Some quorums are close, less than 5 points between high and low claim. Others are way out of wack, sometimes with 20+ point spreads. Likely due to something happening at the time of the benchmark that affects the results, or the benchmarks inability to accuartely gauge the power of the machine.  |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Hi all
I don't know if this is any use to you. I'm not that bothered about points but if it helps here goes. My system is an intel P4 3.0 ghz running boinc latest client for linux. Linux version is Simply Mepis 6.0. With 2 gig memory. Here's the last couple of valid results for FAAH. faah0833_ bdb154_ mx1s65_ dry_ 01 domain Valid 10/13/2006 11:12:58 10/14/2006 16:13:45 3.46 21 / 26 faah0833_ bdb015_ mx1s65_ 03 domain Valid 10/13/2006 08:17:20 10/14/2006 11:17:41 3.38 21 / 34 faah0832_ bdb498_ mx1rq9_ 01 domain Valid 10/12/2006 17:24:36 10/13/2006 19:19:25 3.75 23 / 23 |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Some jerk trying to claim double credit in the 2nd one, but it didn't do any good, as usual. Thanks Rick. I'll reserve judgement on unusual claims. My PIII 598Mhz Dell Optiplex regularly claims over 100 PPWU. Everything totally stock. That's the kind of anomolly I'm trying to find answers to. Mind you that's after 36 Hours or so to crunch a WU  Must admit to being very surprised by the C2Ds I really expected much lower claims. That's what we're here for though. Cheers. ozylynx |
||
|
|
Electrolyte
Cruncher Joined: Jun 20, 2006 Post Count: 13 Status: Offline |
Here are both of my machines, running Linux and on optimised BOINC clients:
----------------------------------------Intel Pentium 4 Northwood Extreme Edition @ 3.2GHZ (HT enabled, so another WU would have finished around the same time as this one) 4.87.........20 / 21 18.84.......30 / 21 5.98.........21 / 21 AMD FX-55 ClawHammer @ 2.6GHZ 2.74.........28 / 28 9.42.........35 / 28 4.32.........20 / 28  |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Thanks everyone for the input so far.
A very long way from building a useful picture as yet but getting there. Electrolyte: Concentrating on Window results right now but will definately use the Linux stuff later. So much to learn about. e.g. overall performance characteristics of a given computer being diferent betweem HDC and FAAH. One thing at a time for now though. Cheers. ozylynx |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Data drying up so I will post my own:
P4 3.0Ghz Prescott. (HT Shared resources with BBC Climate Change).(Dedicated Cruncher 24/7 headless) faah0835_ bdb467_ mx1sbg_ 04 Valid 10/16/2006 15:12:32 10/17/2006 04:35:19 10.56 63 / 63 faah0835_ bdb467_ mx1sbg_ 04 Valid 10/16/2006 15:12:22 10/17/2006 02:43:08 9.31 52 / 63 faah0835_ bdb467_ mx1sbg_ 04 Valid 10/16/2006 15:08:15 10/17/2006 07:04:36 5.00 63 / 63 faah0835_ bdb179_ mx1s6s_ dry_ 03 Valid 10/17/2006 07:42:07 10/17/2006 16:46:54 4.48 63 / 63 faah0835_ bdb179_ mx1s6s_ dry_ 03 Valid 10/16/2006 03:48:03 10/17/2006 03:53:19 19.40 73 / 63 faah0835_ bdb179_ mx1s6s_ dry_ 03 Error 10/16/2006 03:47:28 10/17/2006 07:37:43 5.46 23 / 0 faah0835_ bdb179_ mx1s6s_ dry_ 03 Valid 10/16/2006 03:43:38 10/16/2006 17:25:43 10.47 62 / 63 faah0834_ bdb692_ mx1s6g_ dry_ 02 Valid 10/15/2006 15:10:20 10/16/2006 05:58:05 10.49 63 / 57 faah0834_ bdb692_ mx1s6g_ dry_ 02 Valid 10/15/2006 15:10:11 10/16/2006 03:38:35 5.86 57 / 57 faah0834_ bdb692_ mx1s6g_ dry_ 02 Valid 10/15/2006 15:07:38 10/16/2006 12:08:38 9.84 56 / 57 AMD AthlonXP-3200+ (Main computer, varied use including Home Entertainment Centre, games etc.,) faah0835_ bdb185_ mx1s6s_ dry_ 03 Valid 10/16/2006 03:54:26 10/16/2006 18:25:59 4.42 63 / 63 faah0835_ bdb185_ mx1s6s_ dry_ 03 Valid 10/16/2006 03:49:04 10/16/2006 12:53:51 5.88 66 / 63 faah0835_ bdb185_ mx1s6s_ dry_ 03 Valid 10/16/2006 03:45:36 10/16/2006 16:18:33 10.08 56 / 63 faah0835_ bdb003_ mx1s6s_ dry_ 04 Valid 10/16/2006 15:35:11 10/17/2006 03:58:23 7.59 60 / 65 faah0835_ bdb003_ mx1s6s_ dry_ 04 Valid 10/15/2006 21:38:47 10/16/2006 06:04:33 5.76 65 / 65 faah0835_ bdb003_ mx1s6s_ dry_ 04 Valid 10/15/2006 21:37:34 10/16/2006 07:28:33 6.25 66 / 65 faah0835_ bdb003_ mx1s6s_ dry_ 04 Error 10/15/2006 21:30:38 10/16/2006 15:10:45 1.03 4 / 0 faah0834_ bdb653_ mx1s6g_ dry_ 00 Valid 10/15/2006 13:15:30 10/17/2006 17:57:42 6.18 57 / 57 faah0834_ bdb653_ mx1s6g_ dry_ 00 Valid 10/15/2006 13:13:36 10/15/2006 21:18:52 5.49 62 / 57 faah0834_ bdb653_ mx1s6g_ dry_ 00 Valid 10/15/2006 13:06:01 10/16/2006 00:42:39 9.62 50 / 57 AMD AthlonXP-3000+ (light data server duties, headless 24/7) faah0836_ bdb024_ mx1sdt_ dry_ 03 Valid 10/17/2006 04:53:40 10/17/2006 13:05:48 5.85 63 / 57 faah0836_ bdb024_ mx1sdt_ dry_ 03 Valid 10/17/2006 04:52:51 10/17/2006 14:31:34 5.95 46 / 57 faah0836_ bdb024_ mx1sdt_ dry_ 03 Valid 10/17/2006 04:40:41 10/17/2006 16:29:43 9.25 57 / 57 faah0830_ bdb411_ mx1rl8_ dry_ 05 Valid 10/16/2006 22:56:28 10/17/2006 07:13:45 5.69 62 / 65 faah0830_ bdb411_ mx1rl8_ dry_ 05 No Reply 10/09/2006 22:54:45 10/16/2006 22:54:45 0.00 0 / 0 faah0830_ bdb411_ mx1rl8_ dry_ 05 Valid 10/09/2006 22:52:59 10/12/2006 04:23:26 5.41 66 / 65 faah0830_ bdb411_ mx1rl8_ dry_ 05 Valid 10/09/2006 22:43:03 10/10/2006 07:43:42 6.14 65 / 65 faah0835_ bdb526_ mx1sbg_ 01 Valid 10/16/2006 16:48:35 10/17/2006 01:21:08 6.03 65 / 70 faah0835_ bdb526_ mx1sbg_ 01 Valid 10/16/2006 16:47:58 10/17/2006 05:46:19 9.05 83 / 70 faah0835_ bdb526_ mx1sbg_ 01 Valid 10/16/2006 16:37:18 10/17/2006 05:32:30 5.80 70 / 70 Celeron 320D 2.4Ghz O/C @ 3.6Ghz (24/7 Cruncher dedicated headless) (No longer attached to WCG) faah0806_ bdb740_ mx1mes_ 08 Valid 10/04/2006 19:14:41 10/05/2006 05:08:36 8.18 77 / 70 faah0806_ bdb740_ mx1mes_ 08 Valid 10/04/2006 19:14:32 10/10/2006 04:21:41 6.84 70 / 70 faah0806_ bdb740_ mx1mes_ 08 Valid 10/04/2006 18:57:35 10/05/2006 12:54:14 8.49 50 / 70 (only result still showing) Celeron 1.3Ghz (24/7 Dedicated headless) faah0835_ bdb556_ mx1s6s_ dry_ 00 Valid 10/16/2006 17:58:54 10/17/2006 09:30:01 13.17 90 / 71 faah0835_ bdb556_ mx1s6s_ dry_ 00 Valid 10/16/2006 17:58:51 10/17/2006 16:02:03 10.73 71 / 71 faah0835_ bdb556_ mx1s6s_ dry_ 00 Valid 10/16/2006 17:52:31 10/17/2006 13:52:20 7.14 69 / 71 faah0835_ bdb235_ mx1sbg_ 02 Valid 10/16/2006 05:37:08 10/16/2006 18:37:59 8.72 47 / 67 faah0835_ bdb235_ mx1sbg_ 02 Valid 10/16/2006 05:32:17 10/17/2006 05:04:54 10.82 67 / 67 faah0835_ bdb235_ mx1sbg_ 02 Valid 10/16/2006 05:31:28 10/16/2006 20:14:40 12.20 83 / 67 faah0834_ bdb741_ mx1s6s_ 02 Valid 10/15/2006 16:14:45 10/16/2006 05:06:24 10.47 59 / 59 faah0834_ bdb741_ mx1s6s_ 02 Valid 10/15/2006 16:13:57 10/16/2006 07:43:15 13.18 90 / 59 faah0834_ bdb741_ mx1s6s_ 02 Valid 10/15/2006 16:05:30 10/16/2006 10:33:23 12.44 59 / 59 PIII - 1Ghz (24/7, dedicated, headless) faah0834_ bdb546_ mx1s6g_ dry_ 09 Valid 10/15/2006 10:23:42 10/15/2006 23:14:07 6.77 58 / 58 faah0834_ bdb546_ mx1s6g_ dry_ 09 Valid 10/15/2006 10:22:29 10/16/2006 09:40:07 19.23 98 / 58 faah0834_ bdb546_ mx1s6g_ dry_ 09 Valid 10/15/2006 10:17:53 10/16/2006 16:50:46 9.23 52 / 58 faah0834_ bdb113_ mx1s6s_ 03 Valid 10/14/2006 17:40:14 10/15/2006 12:42:09 16.53 84 / 84 faah0834_ bdb113_ mx1s6s_ 03 Valid 10/14/2006 17:39:07 10/16/2006 21:17:33 4.75 135 / 84 faah0834_ bdb113_ mx1s6s_ 03 Valid 10/14/2006 17:36:38 10/15/2006 06:26:49 6.47 57 / 84 faah0832_ bdb791_ mx1rq9_ 03 Valid 10/13/2006 03:45:55 10/13/2006 11:25:39 4.06 64 / 65 faah0832_ bdb791_ mx1rq9_ 03 Valid 10/13/2006 03:44:36 10/13/2006 23:27:25 17.03 86 / 65 faah0832_ bdb791_ mx1rq9_ 03 Valid 10/13/2006 03:42:31 10/13/2006 19:52:08 5.69 65 / 65 PIII - 600Mhz (24/7, dedicated, headless) faah0835_ bdb395_ mx1sbg_ 0A Valid 10/16/2006 12:54:19 10/17/2006 10:04:06 5.93 46 / 46 faah0835_ bdb395_ mx1sbg_ 0A Valid 10/16/2006 12:50:56 10/18/2006 02:52:15 35.36 107 / 46 faah0835_ bdb395_ mx1sbg_ 0A Valid 10/16/2006 12:45:00 10/16/2006 23:49:00 5.83 44 / 46 faah0833_ bdb236_ mx1s65_ 01 Valid 10/13/2006 14:33:04 10/13/2006 23:57:43 5.92 41 / 105 faah0833_ bdb236_ mx1s65_ 01 Valid 10/13/2006 14:27:06 10/13/2006 20:58:08 6.20 187 / 105 faah0833_ bdb236_ mx1s65_ 01 Valid 10/13/2006 14:22:47 10/15/2006 03:08:19 34.52 105 / 105 faah0832_ bdb169_ mx1rq9_ 06 Valid 10/12/2006 05:20:27 10/13/2006 16:16:39 32.74 99 / 58 faah0832_ bdb169_ mx1rq9_ 06 Valid 10/12/2006 05:16:08 10/12/2006 15:02:16 6.23 47 / 58 faah0832_ bdb169_ mx1rq9_ 06 Valid 10/12/2006 05:12:12 10/16/2006 05:18:02 9.02 58 / 58 These results have been selected as the most recent for each machine. It should be obvious that there are many unanswered questions rising from this small sample. Please help unravel the mystery by providing your data. Cheers. ozylynx |
||
|
|
|