Sorry I posted so quick based on an *assumption* that I understood the credits calculation :-(

There is definately something odd going on. It looks like the bouns is calculated for the first WU return on a Task and not what each individual WU did for a turnaround time. I found one (373949) where the original person pulled a WU on 4/7 but got bonus points based on me returning it before they did!

Yet because I forced my WUs that were waiting to be uploaded as soon as I found out the site was back up all of those made it back before they we re-issued so I get no bonus. What looks really weird is that one of these (379106) was sent to me and another individual on 4/11 (before the power outage)?
I thought all WUs were zero redundancy?

Yup, here's another example -- the original recipient's WU spanned the outage, so he didn't get bonus credit. It was subsequently sent to me -- after the first guy returned the WU -- and I got the same (non-bonus) credit as the first guy, despite my returning it in 22 hours.

Here's the WU link: 370127

Mike

---

Want to find one of the largest known primes? Try PrimeGrid. Or help cure disease at WCG.

We are looking into it. Thanks for reporting.

gdf

For this WU http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=539356 I got less granted credit (3,460.12) than claimed credit (3,844.58). This WU was reportet in a half day and I got no bonus. Why??? Perhaps another machine (http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=540426) reported quicker???

Kind regards

Joe

So, we have updated the new applications 6.63.
These will now claim 2x flops (seti 2.4x), but we are giving 25% bonus if you return it within 2 days. Deadline stays 5 days.

Now, if two users return the same wu, the credit with bonus is awarded to both, in case one of the two has crunched it within two days.

gdf

Now, if two users return the same wu, the credit with bonus is awarded to both, in case one of the two has crunched it within two days.

Shouldn't the bonus be independent for both users? If both return within 2 days both get the bonus, if only one succeeds then only this user should get the bonus. But I can imagine that BOINC is not (yet) made to award different credits for different users who crunched the same WU. So better to be safe than sorry (i.e. both get the bonus instead of none).

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

So, we have updated the new applications 6.63.
These will now claim 2x flops (seti 2.4x), but we are giving 25% bonus if you return it within 2 days. Deadline stays 5 days.

Now, if two users return the same wu, the credit with bonus is awarded to both, in case one of the two has crunched it within two days.

gdf

Maybe I misunderstand what you mean...But this wu does not seem to follow your logic...my gpu is the "5914"

http://www.gpugrid.net/workunit.php?wuid=382081

I finished in 1 day, the other box finished in 4 days (before me). And I seem to be going backwards in the score department.

---

Consciousness: That annoying time between naps......

Experience is a wonderful thing: it enables you to recognize a mistake every time you repeat it.

This is across the changes. The first result returned with the old app.
Let's see if it happens again now on.

gdf

Speculation: I think it is a combination of many things. First, your claimed credits are higher because the change over to the base credit calculation (flops x2) happened after the first person was send their WU. Another differnce is that the app version they got was 6.62 and you got 6.63 which, besides a science update, I think also changed the bonus credit calculation from 1.5* if < 24 hours to 1.2* if < 48 hrs. Put this together with the *assumption* made by ETA above (BOINC can only handle 1 credit amount per WU) and the fact that the project needs to stream results as quick as possible makes this a tricky situation.

It looks like they are treating the WUs as Zero Redundancy (meaning they send out 1 copy of a WU and then validate and award credits as soon as it is returned). Due to the streaming nature of this project I think they they also have some optimization logic in their scheduler that determines a second copy should go out not just when ther is an error or time out, but also if the WU is the one in it's set that is holding up the assimilation to build the next batch of WUs.

In combination with the scheduling configurations, this optimzer (if it really exists) is a smart way to try and balance the deadline of 5 days with the need to stream WU sets one into another. Normally in BOINC projects when you send a second copy the first returned result gets held in PV until the wingman returns their result and consensus can be achieved. Holding WUs in PV simply does not work for this project so they process each return as if it is the only one in the WU. And once that is done, if you go back and change the awarded credits people will get upset.

So I have to ask myself, what good was this particular post? What is the project to do if the assumptions made by ETA and myself are correct? I think a deep dive into the BOINC processing / configuration is necessary and I'm not sure how much effort that would require. I don't know if the project would let me help take a look at this or if they already know all about this and for now it may simply just be the way things are but they are too polite to say so.

Gentlemen, although I have no specific BOINC experience I am a dev by trade so please let me know if I can help.
--Steve

I don't understand why i only got 2883 credits for a unit which run for 1,579.13 while another big unit gave 4804 credits for 1,497.56.
Can someone explain me why a unit running longer gets much less points

522551 25028 16 Apr 2009 1:49:24 UTC 18 Apr 2009 4:52:09 UTC Over Success Done 1,579.13 2,883.44 2,883.44

541041 388834 18 Apr 2009 4:53:29 UTC 19 Apr 2009 3:02:36 UTC Over Success Done 1,497.56 3,843.30 4,804.12

You're probably looking at the CPU time and not the GPU time.

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

The credit calculations changed in between the two tasks. Please read above in this thread.

Steve

These are two 6.63 tasks that have given two different bonuses despite both being within 24 hours. The main difference is that one was completed on the same UTC day and the other wasn't. 537864 provided a 1.6x and 544287 was 1.25x.

537864 389455 17 Apr 2009 12:09:57 UTC 17 Apr 2009 23:21:32 UTC Over Success Done 1,131.22 3,843.30 6,149.28

544287 392874 18 Apr 2009 20:38:31 UTC 19 Apr 2009 13:55:42 UTC Over Success Done 1,218.72 3,946.78 4,933.48

I cannot see any other discernible differences. Any thoughts?

EDIT: This post by ETA answers my question.

ps. I'm getting woeful t/s scores at the moment.

Rob

I have a question!

AQUA@Home gives much more credit per hour than GPUGRID, sometimes even twice as much GPUGRID....

So Question too admins:

Are you planing to increase credit granted per WU?

It is strange that person with 9800GT can have much more credit per day in AQUA@HOME than person with GTX260 in GPUGRID....

---

POLISH NATIONAL TEAM - Join! Crunch! Win!

Are you planing to increase credit granted per WU?

I'm not an admin, but I'm sure the answer is: no.

The credits have recently been increased to bring them in line with the standard set by seti. If Aqua grants many more credits per time than they either:

- don't stick to the standard set by seti / UCB
- overestimate their flops
- extract more flops from the hardware than other projects

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

AQUA@Home gives much more credit per hour than GPUGRID, sometimes even twice as much GPUGRID....

AQUA yet has started the CUDA app and is still in the process to make credit grantings appropriate. You can read here how this was made some days ago.
BOINC Admin now released a new version 3.26 with which the credit calculation should change.

---

Member of BOINC@Heidelberg and ATA!

Hi!

Are points granted for this WU corret?

Sent 13 Jun 2009 17:24:29 UTC Received 14 Jun 2009 12:45:57 UTC and only Granted credit 4602.43634259259

---

POLISH NATIONAL TEAM - Join! Crunch! Win!

Your GPU worked on it for 6.5h, which looks pretty normal to me.

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

I mean it should not be 5600 credits granted?

---

POLISH NATIONAL TEAM - Join! Crunch! Win!

Claimed 3681, granted 4600 - so you got the quick-return bonus correctly. Apart from that they're a little below your normal credit/time, but 5600 would be excessive.. such WUs usually take you ~27k seconds.

MrS

---

Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002