| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
| World Community Grid Forums
|
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Locked Total posts in this thread: 277
|
|
| Author |
|
|
keithhenry
Ace Cruncher Senile old farts of the world ....uh.....uh..... nevermind Joined: Nov 18, 2004 Post Count: 18667 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
There have been many discussions in the forums about the way that points are awarded in BOINC. We have been reviewing them and in order to validate what the members have been observing and to collect better data, we sent out the same workunit 800 times. The purpose of points is to award an equal number of points to different members for accomplishing the same amount of scientific work. By sending out 800 copies of the same workkunit we are able compare the points claimed by different computers for the same work. We have been evaluating this data. There are two key observations that match what the members have found. 1) Linux earns fewer points per workunit then the other platforms. 2) About 5% of results claim points significantly in excess of the average for their platform. In order to address issue #1 we have sent our findings to Dr David Anderson at BOINC. He said that they will be compiling the Linux agent in the 5.8 release with optimizations that are comparable to the optimizations used on the other platforms. This should allow the credit claimed by Linux to match the other platforms. This new version should be available with 6 weeks or so. In order to address issue #2 we are going to implementing a new algorithim for awarding credit granted. In the new algorithim we will no longer automatically discard the high and low values during validation in order to compute the credit granted. Instead we will exclude any claimed credits that are statistical outliers and then average the remaining values. Additionally, in cases where the claimed credit is significantly higher then the granted credit, the member will only be awarded half of the granted credit. Finally, invalid results will only be granted half credit as well. We are about to launch beta tests of new graphics for FightAIDS@Home and Help Defeat Cancer. During these beta tests we will be running the new algorithim for points awarded to ensure that they work correctly Relative to the BOINC Points post in Member News (quoted above), excellent move I think. Questions: How do you define a statistical outlier? Regarding "claimed credit is significantly higher then the granted credit", how do you define significantly higher? Thanks! |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Relative to the BOINC Points post in Member News (quoted above), excellent move I think. Questions: How do you define a statistical outlier? Regarding "claimed credit is significantly higher then the granted credit", how do you define significantly higher? Thanks! I concur wholeheartedly. At last some news Having posted the differences is points between my own systems it is no secret that my highest claiming machine,,, a bog standard Dell GX100 @ 598Mhz is 175% of the claim by my Athlon XP 3000+. Both using no tricks tweaks or other goodies on the standard client. Will this be an outlier? BTW tha AXP is often the highest claiming machine in a quorum so the Dell could go to 200% or more very easily. Cheers. ozylynx ![]() |
||
|
|
knreed
Former World Community Grid Tech Joined: Nov 8, 2004 Post Count: 4504 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
I just looked at your results for that machine and you do claim high on average but not high enough that you would be penalized.
|
||
|
|
keithhenry
Ace Cruncher Senile old farts of the world ....uh.....uh..... nevermind Joined: Nov 18, 2004 Post Count: 18667 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Okay, so 200% is not likely to be a statistical outlier or considered significantly higher and we have to go beyond that. Is this a perfectly acceptable case of "let's not get too specific in order to not make it easier for those that would exploit that"?
---------------------------------------- |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Okay, so 200% is not likely to be a statistical outlier or considered significantly higher and we have to go beyond that. Is this a perfectly acceptable case of "let's not get too specific in order to not make it easier for those that would exploit that"? I'm waiting to see what comes of this, have faith. Fact is the AXP cliams roughly 63 points on average, I've come to believe this to be very close to the overall average for the project, perhaps a little more lately as I think the average unit is running longer to complete. I have often seen the AXP in a quorum with two other computers claiming low to mid 20's which puts the AXP at near 300% of the two machines at the bottom of the quorum. If the Dell, which claims 100 to 110 points on average, gets with the 23 to 24 pointers well..... you do the math. I'm sure they've got it covered though. Just an aside. I have always quoted FAAH point scores because I can not relate to HDC points and my personal equipment. The 3 computers that I have capable of running HDC almost always, until recently topped the quorum in FAAH points and are average, middle of quorum for HDC. I've never come to terms with this. Cheers. ozylynx ![]() |
||
|
|
depriens
Senior Cruncher The Netherlands Joined: Jul 29, 2005 Post Count: 350 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Great news! So if I understand it correctly, claiming too much credit only gives you less points and it does not affect the science itself??
----------------------------------------The reason I ask is because I installed optimized clients at my office a long time ago (I deployed 5.2.13 via Active Directory). Back then I thought optimized clients were actually improving the science. But now I understand obviously they don't. Too bad that I have no access to all my machines all the time, so it could take a while before all clients return to stock clients. I like to make a new installation package when the new BOINC version arrives. I couldn't care less if I would score less points, but it would be very disappointing if the science suffers because of this. ![]() |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
So if I understand it correctly, claiming too much credit only gives you less points and it does not affect the science itself?? Correct! |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Are you sure you're not trying to fix something that's not broken? I look a lot at quorum results and it seems that, for the most part the quorem is doing its job fairly well and that in some cases what is proposed would be worse.
Here's an example. I have two identical dual-woodcrest machines running boinc 5.4.11. The only difference is that one runs winXP and the other runs win server 2k3. The 2k3 benches considerably less but crunches about the same speed. So it is common for me to see it be the low in a quorum such as 44,43,32. For now, it's usually ok as we all get 43, but if it were averaged... Also, I see very few quorums with an exceedingly high claim; sure there are some, but not many. Currently it is simply thrown out in favor of the middle almost every time. It is very rare, at least for any quorums I'm part of, that I see two very high claims in the same quorum, so I'm not sure anything really needs fixing. The suggested "fix" would be less troublesome if the benchmarking system was more accurate. But I would hate to see someone who has done nothing wrong but run stock clients have their claim labled an outlier and have their score halved. Being wrongly labled a cheat tends to really bother people, and I just wonder if it is worth it. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Hi rob725,
A lot of people take a relaxed view of this matter. You aren't alone. However, the recent flame wars on this subject have convinced us that there are enough people exercised over this matter to make it worthwhile to take some action to restore peace. Lawrence |
||
|
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
Have a look at the HPF2 re-introduction announcement and why the system from that perspective is surely considered broken.....that captures the Linux low-claim issue too!
----------------------------------------Resuming Human Proteome Folding 2 this weekend And no rush, the BOINC re-introduction is a few weeks away. UD starts this weekend! ciao PS Lawrence 'exercised' whilst others get very 'excited' ;>)
WCG
Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! |
||
|
|
|