Longer WU's but same amount of credits ?

At DPC there are several cows complaining about the fact they get longer Wu's but the amount of credits are still the same.
Any info on when the credits follow the time-increase ?

Example from same host , running stock core i5 2500

Before: runtime: 6,492.14 seconds -> credits 133.98 ( WU info )
After: runtime: 12,890.60 seconds -> Credits 138.59 ( WU info )

Increase of computing time: 100%
Increase of credits: 3%

How wrong is that? Please fix the credits (or the WU's)

PS: Notice that the WU's are actually claiming twice as much credit.. but the only granted roughly the same

1h??1d4h* results seem to be the long running ones, the program version didn't change and stderr doesn't show anything unusual so I guess it is normal for this result series.

Yes, ASAP correction of the credit for these units seem to be fair. Is sombebody of the project reading this stuff?

A list of previous and current tasks for one of my PC's.
Please update the points granted to match CPU time of other tasks, or update all other points to match the difference.

pphc = points per hour claimed
pphg = points per hour granted
factor = (granted/claimed)

New tasks

			seconds		claimed	granted	pphc	pphg	factor	

result	workunit	25818,10	92,53	138,59	12,90	19,32	1,50	

result	workunit	25815,34	92,52	138,59	12,90	19,33	1,50	

result	workunit	25846,98	92,63	138,59	12,90	19,30	1,50	

result	workunit	25869,60	92,71	138,59	12,90	19,29	1,49	

result	workunit	25824,84	92,55	138,59	12,90	19,32	1,50	

result	workunit	25819,99	92,53	138,59	12,90	19,32	1,50	

result	workunit	25887,55	92,78	138,59	12,90	19,27	1,49	

result	workunit	25847,20	92,63	138,59	12,90	19,30	1,50	

 		total	206729,60	740,88	1108,72	12,90	19,31	1,50	average

			 	 			12,90	19,27	1,49	min

	 	 					12,90	19,33	1,50	max

Old tasks	 	 						

result	workunit	13061,85	46,81	133,93	12,90	36,91	2,86	

result	workunit	13008,30	46,62	134,70	12,90	37,28	2,89	

result	workunit	12998,44	46,58	134,70	12,90	37,31	2,89	

result	workunit	13033,52	46,71	133,93	12,90	36,99	2,87	

result	workunit	12934,56	46,35	134,70	12,90	37,49	2,91	

result	workunit	13072,04	46,85	133,93	12,90	36,88	2,86	

result	workunit	13151,29	47,13	145,52	12,90	39,83	3,09	

result	workunit	13104,27	46,96	145,52	12,90	39,98	3,10	

result	workunit	13063,62	46,82	145,52	12,90	40,10	3,11	

result	workunit	13129,67	47,05	146,15	12,90	40,07	3,11	

result	workunit	13054,21	46,78	143,50	12,90	39,57	3,07	

result	workunit	13048,34	46,76	143,50	12,90	39,59	3,07	

result	workunit	13071,79	46,85	143,50	12,90	39,52	3,06	

result	workunit	13064,48	46,82	143,50	12,90	39,54	3,06	

result	workunit	13258,10	47,51	148,67	12,90	40,37	3,13	

result	workunit	13021,78	46,67	133,93	12,90	37,03	2,87	

result	workunit	13033,48	46,71	133,93	12,90	36,99	2,87	

result	workunit	13133,43	47,07	148,13	12,90	40,60	3,15	

result	workunit	13125,52	47,04	148,13	12,90	40,63	3,15	

result	workunit	13178,72	47,23	149,16	12,90	40,75	3,16	

result	workunit	13207,19	47,33	149,16	12,90	40,66	3,15	

result	workunit	13196,59	47,29	149,16	12,90	40,69	3,15	

result	workunit	13190,52	47,27	149,16	12,90	40,71	3,16	

result	workunit	13181,40	47,24	149,16	12,90	40,74	3,16	

result	workunit	13252,05	47,49	149,16	12,90	40,52	3,14	

result	workunit	13211,13	47,35	149,16	12,90	40,65	3,15	

result	workunit	13140,32	47,09	149,16	12,90	40,86	3,17	

result	workunit	13156,27	47,15	149,16	12,90	40,82	3,16	

result	workunit	13148,86	47,12	149,16	12,90	40,84	3,17	

result	workunit	13219,84	49,09	149,16	13,37	40,62	3,04	

result	workunit	12959,91	48,12	148,74	13,37	41,32	3,09	

result	workunit	12977,02	48,19	146,43	13,37	40,62	3,04	

result	workunit	12947,33	48,08	146,43	13,37	40,71	3,05	

result	workunit	13154,21	48,85	136,90	13,37	37,47	2,80	

result	workunit	12978,47	48,19	146,43	13,37	40,62	3,04	

result	workunit	13120,51	48,72	148,38	13,37	40,71	3,05	

result	workunit	13107,80	48,67	148,38	13,37	40,75	3,05	

result	workunit	13158,50	48,86	148,38	13,37	40,59	3,04	

result	workunit	13125,49	48,74	148,24	13,37	40,66	3,04	

result	workunit	13110,98	48,68	149,08	13,37	40,93	3,06	

result	workunit	13114,16	48,70	149,08	13,37	40,92	3,06	

result	workunit	13118,70	48,71	149,08	13,37	40,91	3,06	

result	workunit	13155,94	48,85	149,08	13,37	40,79	3,05	

result	workunit	13111,17	48,69	149,08	13,37	40,93	3,06	

result	workunit	13122,69	48,73	149,08	13,37	40,90	3,06	

result	workunit	13110,67	48,68	149,08	13,37	40,94	3,06	

result	workunit	13077,05	48,56	145,55	13,37	40,07	3,00	

result	workunit	13078,30	48,56	145,55	13,37	40,06	3,00	

		Total:	628980,48	2286,32	6969,12	13,09	39,89	3,05	average

							13,37	41,32	3,17	max

							12,90	36,88	2,80	min

Hi Guys,

The credits are assigned according to the "flops" value of the workunits, it has an initial estimating of the flops, and then according to the actual flops returned by the workunits, it adjusts the flops value up and the credits increase.

We are updating the flops value more frequently now, so the credits can converge to the actual value faster. And we are working on changing some of the deamons to make a higher initial estimation flops value.

Will update you soon! Thanks for the patient and bearing with us!!

Boyu

At DPC there are several cows complaining about the fact they get longer Wu's but the amount of credits are still the same.
Any info on when the credits follow the time-increase ?

Thanks for the quick answer Boyu! :)

I've got a follow up one. Will the increased flops and therefore credits apply solely to the newly generated wu's or will the old ones also get re-credited?

The ones that already have the credits granted will not be re-credited, but the ones that do not have credits granted will be granted the increased credits.

Thanks!
Boyu

Thanks for the quick answer Boyu! :)

I've got a follow up one. Will the increased flops and therefore credits apply solely to the newly generated wu's or will the old ones also get re-credited?

Does it really matter how much credit is given?

To me the science matters more than the credit.

Does it really matter how much credit is given?

To me the science matters more than the credit.

From 146 credits for 9.516 sec. of work (55.23/hr) to 200 credits for 19.559 sec. of work (36.81/hr) is quite a difference and not really positive.

Not seeing a difference here either. (as in the problem having been solved)
8,476.14 seconds for 149.05 points old task (63.30 pph)
16,805.94 seconds for 138.59 points new task (29.69 pph) (submitted moments ago)
(from the same host of course)

The point of stats is to compare ones effort to that of others. That is no longer possible sadly. A total score does no longer tell of an amount of work.
I don't care about the numbers themselves, but do care about being able to compare my total amount of work done to that of others.

If CPU time is valued at less then 50% of what it used to, then all points granted in the past (for all teams and users) should be valued less at the same amount in order to be able to compare.

...
8,476.14 seconds for 149.05 points old task (63.30 pph)
16,805.94 seconds for 138.59 points new task (29.69 pph) (submitted moments ago)
(from the same host of course)

...

Does it really matter how much credit is given?

To me the science matters more than the credit.

Hi Guys,

The credit problem is fixed now, but the old workunits that generated and distributed before are not going to get increased credits. The newly generated ones should be ok.

You can consider aborting some of the old ones, thanks for bearing with us!!

Boyu

Hi Boyu,

Are you sure this is fixed?
I noticed that projects with a lead time of around:
13.5k seconds = ~147 points
26.5k seconds = hard cap of 200 points

I see this on multiple computers in my network a hard cap of 200 points being given.

With kind regards,
Bob the builder

Does it really matter how much credit is given?

To me the science matters more than the credit.

Don't underestimate the power of credits.

I agree that the science is more important. However, giving credits to participants is, more or less, the only way a project directly can give it's gratitude to all the people who are willing to ramp up their personal electricity bills. If crediting this effort has major flaws, this can really demotivate people to still participate and spend a lot of money on a project. Giving fair credit for work done is reasonable to expect.

We have a saying: "Voor niets gaat de zon op", roughly translating to "The sun rises for free". Meaning that for all other efforts, something should be compensated.

edit:
Moreover, if it were just a small user, the impact is not so big. However, at this moment Dutch Power Cows are doing about 55-60% of the total work done each day, more than all other teams combined. Some of our users were doing way over 200.000 points each day; more than the #2 team daily. With such numbers (and thus effort and hard-earned bucks), fair crediting becomes way more important.

If you care to look at my total credit you will see how much I have given to this project. A total that has accumulated over a 3 year period. I am a member of a small team that has devoted a lot of effort to this project.

If credit is so important then why not concentrate on projects that give unreasonably high credit for the amount of work done instead of complaining about how much credit you're getting on here.

Does it really matter how much credit is given?

To me the science matters more than the credit.

Don't underestimate the power of credits.

I agree that the science is more important. However, giving credits to participants is, more or less, the only way a project directly can give it's gratitude to all the people who are willing to ramp up their personal electricity bills. If crediting this effort has major flaws, this can really demotivate people to still participate and spend a lot of money on a project. Giving fair credit for work done is reasonable to expect.

We have a saying: "Voor niets gaat de zon op", roughly translating to "The sun rises for free". Meaning that for all other efforts, something should be compensated.

edit:
Moreover, if it were just a small user, the impact is not so big. However, at this moment Dutch Power Cows are doing about 55-60% of the total work done each day, more than all other teams combined. Some of our users were doing way over 200.000 points each day; more than the #2 team daily. With such numbers (and thus effort and hard-earned bucks), fair crediting becomes way more important.

If you care to look at my total credit you will see how much I have given to this project. A total that has accumulated over a 3 year period. I am a member of a small team that has devoted a lot of effort to this project.

If credit is so important then why not concentrate on projects that give unreasonably high credit for the amount of work done instead of complaining about how much credit you're getting on here.

"If credit is so important then why not concentrate on projects that give unreasonably high credit for the amount of work done instead of complaining about how much credit you're getting on here"

It's not about unreasonably high credit but about a certain amount of credit for a certain amount of time which decreases the moment we join the project to get us a better place on the stats.
Furthermore I don't see a problem letting the credits follow the time-increase of the WU's : twice the amount of WU-running time means twice the amount of granted credits !
As stated before : Our DPC Stampede-project is created to get us placed as high as possible on the stats of a chosen project.

If credit is so important then why not concentrate on projects that give unreasonably high credit for the amount of work done instead of complaining about how much credit you're getting on here.

If credit is so important then why not concentrate on projects that give unreasonably high credit for the amount of work done instead of complaining about how much credit you're getting on here.

It's not the amount of credits that is important. There are projects that give 10 times the amount of credit that Docking does. But WITHIN a project, I think the credit should be steady compared to work done.

I couldn't care less if we got 1 credit per hour here. But I would not be very happy if, after we put in a lot of effort to climb in the rankings here, that amount of credit would be raised to 100 per hour, allowing other teams to regain lost ground in a day or so :)

So, the key word here is "steady"

Docking doesn't award the same credit all the time, the amount of credit per unit varies. If you were a long term Docker you would notice this.

If credit is so important then why not concentrate on projects that give unreasonably high credit for the amount of work done instead of complaining about how much credit you're getting on here.

It's not the amount of credits that is important. There are projects that give 10 times the amount of credit that Docking does. But WITHIN a project, I think the credit should be steady compared to work done.

I couldn't care less if we got 1 credit per hour here. But I would not be very happy if, after we put in a lot of effort to climb in the rankings here, that amount of credit would be raised to 100 per hour, allowing other teams to regain lost ground in a day or so :)

So, the key word here is "steady"

Docking doesn't award the same credit all the time, the amount of credit per unit varies. If you were a long term Docker you would notice this.

Docking doesn't award the same credit all the time, the amount of credit per unit varies. If you were a long term Docker you would notice this.

Will you lot ever stop complaining??? First it was the lack of WU's, now it is the amount of credit you're getting!!!

You're not the only ones getting these lower credit WU's....

And it isn't the first time the credit awarded has been as low as this.

Will you lot ever stop complaining??? First it was the lack of WU's, now it is the amount of credit you're getting!!!

You're not the only ones getting these lower credit WU's....

And it isn't the first time the credit awarded has been as low as this.

Will you lot ever stop complaining???

The problem with "stampedes" like yours is that it creates extra demand for Wu's causing a shortage of available Wu's to regular crunchers, many of whom don't run other projects.

as the power cows stampede is exactly what this very worthy and under utilised project needs.

Will you lot ever stop complaining???

Why do you read this thread if you don't like what's written here?

And to remind you, it's you that was complaining (also) about the available WU's were you made pritty clear that you'd rather see us getting out of here:

The problem with "stampedes" like yours is that it creates extra demand for Wu's causing a shortage of available Wu's to regular crunchers, many of whom don't run other projects.

A rather different opinion was presented from your fellow regular chrunsher Butuz:

as the power cows stampede is exactly what this very worthy and under utilised project needs.

Please try and look at things from the bright side of life. We like fair points, what would you have against that? Is it such a crime to ask for that?

@TheFiend, The comment u stated is exactly why we democracticly chose 2 donate the power os a stampede 2 Docking. It's a small program wich can certainly use the boost from the power, or discomfort ;), it gives 2 a project. Lastyear the stampede was on Malariacontrol and quite a few members sticked 2 the project afterwards.

I personally am thankfull that in a smart move by doubling the size of the wu's there are wu's 2 chrunch however, i, as so many teammembers think it only fair 2 be compensated for the work. That for me is part of the fun. My personal goal 2 get my 980 and 2600k as highest chunching versions of that specific processor won't be reached this way. No matter because i will keep on chrunching for Docking for this month.

if you would care 2 check the stats site from Digik-oz.nl you will see we are not a team that works primarely for the points. Lots of us seek project wich are close to our harts.

Sincerely,

Maarten

Never mind, not worth it.

Hi Bob,

Thanks for the feedback, I increased the maximum credits granted, it should be ok now.

Thanks,
Boyu

Hi Boyu,

Are you sure this is fixed?
I noticed that projects with a lead time of around:
13.5k seconds = ~147 points
26.5k seconds = hard cap of 200 points

I see this on multiple computers in my network a hard cap of 200 points being given.

With kind regards,
Bob the builder

Hi Bob,

Thanks for the feedback, I increased the maximum credits granted, it should be ok now.

Thanks,
Boyu

Thanks for the quick action :)

Thanks for the quick action :)

Docking doesn't award the same credit all the time, the amount of credit per unit varies. If you were a long term Docker you would notice this.

If credit is so important then why not concentrate on projects that give unreasonably high credit for the amount of work done instead of complaining about how much credit you're getting on here.

Hi Boyu,

Thnx for the quick responses and fixes!!
Much appreciated :)

Cheers!

Projects like Docking/GPUGRID/Rostta/Malaria are for the benefit of the whole of mankind...

Hey let's all just get along!!! I hope some of you stick around on docking.

I can see where you are coming from, but just because some companies make money and profits out of selling drugs does not mean that we should abandon the whole of medical science / research.

Crunch what you want to crunch at the end of the day!!! And be happy!

Crunch what you want to crunch at the end of the day!!! And be happy!

Projects like Docking/GPUGRID/Rostta/Malaria are for the benefit of the whole of mankind...

Will they?
What will be the result of these projects, (new) cure/drugs for some diseases?
Will those drugs be for free, because "we" already put in alot of money (hardware and high electricity bills) aka research costs? Or will we still be charged with high prices by those big pharmaceutical companies?

Yes, i participate because of the fun, i don't care about this kind of "science".

I think this discussion is going the wrong way.
Let me ask you this, can you give us one good reason why we should get less points than given before on this project?

I am in for the fun AND to give this project a boost AND to give DPC a boost.
And I think all the cows feel te same, some of them perhaps one of these reasons more than the other.

Who cares what everyone's reason is for crunching,
lets crunch!!!

Swings and roundabouts time....... there's now some higher than normal credit Wu's in the mix....

Projects like Docking/GPUGRID/Rostta/Malaria are for the benefit of the whole of mankind...

Will they?
What will be the result of these projects, (new) cure/drugs for some diseases?
Will those drugs be for free, because "we" already put in alot of money (hardware and high electricity bills) aka research costs? Or will we still be charged with high prices by those big pharmaceutical companies?