Advanced search

Message boards : Number crunching : Credits calculations

Author Message
Profile GDF
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 14 Mar 07
Posts: 1862
Credit: 629,356
RAC: 0
Level
Gly
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 6977 - Posted: 25 Feb 2009 | 8:32:43 UTC

For transparency towards other projects, we have published even more in details how credits are computed.

Give a look if you are interested.

GDF

Profile Paul D. Buck
Send message
Joined: 9 Jun 08
Posts: 1050
Credit: 37,321,185
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 6987 - Posted: 25 Feb 2009 | 18:03:36 UTC

Of course we are interested. I need to take some time to read these papers ... but thank you for these papers ...

jrobbio
Send message
Joined: 13 Mar 09
Posts: 59
Credit: 324,366
RAC: 0
Level

Scientific publications
watwatwatwat
Message 7439 - Posted: 14 Mar 2009 | 15:35:14 UTC

Thanks I was looking for an explanation of the calculations.

I was trying to work out the efficiency of GPU computation compared to CPU computations based on power consumption of the device.

My first successful WU http://www.gpugrid.net/result.php?resultid=400387 provided me with 4,214.28.

By my calculations from the equations you provided that means that:

14564551680 = MFLOP per WU + approx MIPS per WU

How can I work out the MFLOP per Wu or the approx MIPS per WU?

Rob

Gipsel
Send message
Joined: 17 Mar 09
Posts: 12
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
Level

Scientific publications
wat
Message 7556 - Posted: 17 Mar 2009 | 17:34:12 UTC - in response to Message 6977.

For transparency towards other projects, we have published even more in details how credits are computed.

Give a look if you are interested.

GDF

Nice. This enables an easy comparison to the other GPU enabled projects.

As described in your link, you use the result of the flops counting to calculate the credits for a WU according to the old formula for benchmark based claimed credit. This leads of course to a severe "underpaying" of the GPU crunchers here when comparing to other projects.

Just take SETI@home as an example. As they changed their credits system to a similar flops counting scheme, they introduced some kind of an additional "efficiency factor" to have a continous transition of the old benchmark based scale to the new one. If one brings it down to the simplest possible representation the credit calculation of SETI looks like this

SETI: credit = 2.72 * TFlop/WU (single precision)

If one brings your calculation to the same form one comes up with

GPUGrid: credit = 1.736 * TFlop/WU (single precision)

Considering GPUGrid claims to use additionaly a great deal of integer instructions (SETI is not afaik), that only increases the difference of the credit calculations.

I suggest you should think about simply adapting the SETI scheme. Generally there should be some discussions between the BOINC projects and also David Anderson about this credit issue. You see what happens if there is not some kind of consensus if you look to Milkyway@home. For a lot of people it looks they are granting really excessive credits and it would be nice if there would be some common position of the projects.

MW is using also flops counting, but double precision calculations. I would think some kind of premium for this is justified, especially as GPUs have between 5x to 12x the single precision perfomance compared to double precision. But looking to the future I would think a weight factor of two or so may be okay for double precision operations (which would be also right for CPUs). Using SETI as base again that would mean MW should grant credits = 5.44 * TFlop/WU (double precision). But in the moment they are granting ~37% more (7.5*TFlop). If you calculate the ratios of the equivalent credit multipliers between GPUGrid : SETI : MW (SETI is base) you get 0.64 : 1 : 1.37. So GPUGrid is actually about the same amount below SETI than MW is above (and GPUGrid is awarding less than half as MW).

I've suggested the same already to the MW administrator (appears to be sick and unavailable for the last days). MW reducing their credits and GPUGrid raising theirs so both match the SETI credit multiplier would set some kind of balance between the three GPU projects as a first measure. This would also reduce the quite extreme difference between GPUGrid and MW one sees in the moment.
But as I said already, as more and more projects develop GPU applications a fundamental solution to this may be desirable. It should only be the first step to reach consensus between the projects or maybe to develop more sophisticated criterias for the granted credit.

What do you think about it?

Profile GDF
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 14 Mar 07
Posts: 1862
Credit: 629,356
RAC: 0
Level
Gly
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 7559 - Posted: 17 Mar 2009 | 19:38:29 UTC - in response to Message 7556.
Last modified: 17 Mar 2009 | 20:03:24 UTC

Sorry, I missed your answer.

I think that it is quite simple. Credits or cobblestones are assigned for the average between integer and floating point operations. This is a good, well chosen quantity I think.

Every application doing floating point is also doing integer operations (accessing an array involves an integer operation). Other applications might just doing integers. How many is the matter?

We multiply the floats by 1.5x to account for the integer operations. It could be decided to multiply by 2x, as this is still consistent with the benchmarks (see credit thread in the FAQ).

Nothing else. Projects could just keep to that.
So, I would suggest:
Seti: C x flops
GPUGRID: C x flops
MW: C x flops

with C = 2, but if they decide something else that's fine also.

All the projects should have the same metrics, but not the same credits/hour, otherwise the incentives to produce efficient applications is null. Double and single float should be valued the same, otherwise there are inconsistencies.

GDF

Profile GDF
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 14 Mar 07
Posts: 1862
Credit: 629,356
RAC: 0
Level
Gly
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 7561 - Posted: 17 Mar 2009 | 19:54:33 UTC - in response to Message 7559.

> What do you think about it?

In practice, I agree. There should be a fixed constant to multiply the flops. This should be uniform across projects, while flops of the application can vary.

gdf

Profile [AF>Libristes] Dudumomo
Send message
Joined: 30 Jan 09
Posts: 45
Credit: 160,540,037
RAC: 0
Level
Ile
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 7573 - Posted: 17 Mar 2009 | 23:24:24 UTC

Severals users like http://www.gpugrid.net/results.php?hostid=22576 have seen an increase of their points attribuated to their WU... Is it normal ? Is it to compensate, if there is, a decrease of users crunching GPUgrid for milkyway ?

Thank you !

Profile GDF
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 14 Mar 07
Posts: 1862
Credit: 629,356
RAC: 0
Level
Gly
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 7580 - Posted: 18 Mar 2009 | 8:07:57 UTC - in response to Message 7573.
Last modified: 18 Mar 2009 | 8:08:50 UTC

No,
credits are the same as before. The amount of credits is due to the size of the WU.

gdf

Profile GDF
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 14 Mar 07
Posts: 1862
Credit: 629,356
RAC: 0
Level
Gly
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 7622 - Posted: 19 Mar 2009 | 9:05:12 UTC - in response to Message 7580.

We have been discussing with people at Seti and David Anderson about the multiplier. It is likely that we will adopt Seti multiplier by next application update. We were too conservative it seems.

gdf

Pwrguru
Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 08
Posts: 5
Credit: 50,514,446
RAC: 0
Level
Thr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 7729 - Posted: 21 Mar 2009 | 21:27:42 UTC

That sounds good.......It would be nice to finally see a standard used in all three projects.....And this will also be a big help in the future when more GPU projects come online.....

Profile GDF
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 14 Mar 07
Posts: 1862
Credit: 629,356
RAC: 0
Level
Gly
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 7832 - Posted: 25 Mar 2009 | 13:44:14 UTC - in response to Message 7729.

So,
we have to redistribute quite a bit of credits to the users in order to align to Seti factor as we were undercrediting.

First change is already in place.
People who returns results within 24 hours will receive 50% more credits. We might adjust these values in the future.

gdf

Profile [B^S] Time Bandit
Volunteer moderator
Project tester
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 16 Jul 07
Posts: 464
Credit: 13,414,611
RAC: 0
Level
Pro
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 7834 - Posted: 25 Mar 2009 | 14:26:00 UTC - in response to Message 7832.

Sounds great! :D

Now if the server would send the WUs per GPU and not per CPU, it would make it a lot easier for me to send them back within 24 hours... ;-)
____________

pixelicious.at - my little photoblog

Scott Brown
Send message
Joined: 21 Oct 08
Posts: 144
Credit: 2,973,555
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 7837 - Posted: 25 Mar 2009 | 18:12:13 UTC


Well, I have to admit to being a bit baffled by the choice to award more for 24 hour returns. If you really needed work done within 24 hours, then why not just set the deadline as such? If the idea behind this new credit policy is to drive away persons with slower cards, then I think you will be successful. I think that you should also modify the compatible cards FAQ to note this policy (especially since the minimum recommended cards at 64 shaders will be hard pressed to complete much work in under 24 hours).

Wouldn't a simple adjustment to the flops multiplier be an easier way to come into credit alignment with other projects?




Profile Lazarus-uk
Send message
Joined: 16 Nov 08
Posts: 29
Credit: 51,152,002
RAC: 57,979
Level
Thr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 7838 - Posted: 25 Mar 2009 | 19:25:35 UTC - in response to Message 7837.


So, I have just finished one task. I have another 2 WUs in the queue, that I got this morning and know that I cannot complete in 24hrs (i.e. tomorrow morning). What I should do is abort the waiting task and the one just started and get another fresh WU that I know I can complete in 24hrs and get 50% more credit for.

I mean why should I crunch for less credits than I have to?

I think this may turn out to be counter-productive.

STE\/E [BlackOps]
Send message
Joined: 18 Sep 08
Posts: 356
Credit: 250,952,560
RAC: 0
Level
Asn
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 7839 - Posted: 25 Mar 2009 | 19:39:18 UTC
Last modified: 25 Mar 2009 | 19:58:43 UTC

Yes, I don't fully understand what the new credit scheme is going to be or what the 24 hour deal is about either ...

Profile Bymark
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Feb 09
Posts: 30
Credit: 5,598,221
RAC: 0
Level
Ser
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 7840 - Posted: 25 Mar 2009 | 19:56:54 UTC - in response to Message 7839.
Last modified: 25 Mar 2009 | 20:12:18 UTC

This is the first time in boinc history that I have to by a new slower CPU to math my ATI 260 GPU(My now AMD 8650 Triple-Core), probably a AMD 5600, very nice anyway! Long Life to Gpugrind!

Regards Thomas

JagDoc
Send message
Joined: 7 Sep 08
Posts: 1
Credit: 7,618,000
RAC: 0
Level
Ser
Scientific publications
watwatwatwat
Message 7841 - Posted: 25 Mar 2009 | 20:07:53 UTC - in response to Message 7839.

The best is to limit the Wu per host not per core.
Or is there a other way to limit the Wu on a multicore system?

cu JagDoc

Profile Paul D. Buck
Send message
Joined: 9 Jun 08
Posts: 1050
Credit: 37,321,185
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 7842 - Posted: 25 Mar 2009 | 20:12:58 UTC

One of the problems that this project has, much like Milky Way is that task x+1 relies on task x being returned. What this means is that the tasks are more of a task *STREAM* ...

With that in mind, those that can return tasks faster allows the project to get to the "end" of the stream faster than if they have to wait for the deadline, or longer, to occur.

Just as I, and others, have suggested that projects that are in testing (particularly alpha testing) should award at higher rates, those that enable the project to get to their goals more quickly should also be awarded. I have also noted and supported those projects where you are rewarded even when the tasks crash if the crashes are through no fault of yours (CPDN comes to mind) ...

Yes, if you have a slower card you will not get the higher rate of award. But, should this not encourage you to get and apply a faster card? I know it may move up my schedule to replace the 9800GT I have ...

I suppose that I may be a little on the project side here because I will certainly be earning the higher rate on much of the work I do as the i7 has two GTX 295 cards and the speed at which they do the work means that I will likely see a lot of higher pay... the GTX280 and the 9800 on the other hand will be catch me if you can ...

GDF,

You may need to put in a watchdog to see if participants are killing tasks at a higher than expected rate to clear the queues ... and on the other side, it would be nice if there was a project side way to limit the queue ... for example, maybe it would be in my interest to allow the machine with the 9800 to ONLY queue one task at a time, maybe even none... the same situation with the GTX280 where I know I have had as many as 3 spares waiting ... cutting that back to two would serve BOTH of us better ...

AND, if you do get that coded and working, CPDN is interested in that kind of throttling too (well, at least one project person was) ...

Last note, it might be nice if you posted the payment rates in a sticky in the web and server forum with this new information ...

frankhagen
Send message
Joined: 18 Sep 08
Posts: 65
Credit: 3,037,414
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwat
Message 7851 - Posted: 25 Mar 2009 | 21:24:54 UTC - in response to Message 7842.

I suppose that I may be a little on the project side here because I will certainly be earning the higher rate on much of the work I do as the i7 has two GTX 295 cards and the speed at which they do the work means that I will likely see a lot of higher pay... the GTX280 and the 9800 on the other hand will be catch me if you can ...


hmm - only a matter of local cache size. even my old 9600gt runs them under 24 hours. so if i run @ 0.01 cache...
....and donate a candle to santo improvisario each and every day...

Scott Brown
Send message
Joined: 21 Oct 08
Posts: 144
Credit: 2,973,555
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 7855 - Posted: 25 Mar 2009 | 22:54:55 UTC - in response to Message 7842.

One of the problems that this project has, much like Milky Way is that task x+1 relies on task x being returned. What this means is that the tasks are more of a task *STREAM* ...

With that in mind, those that can return tasks faster allows the project to get to the "end" of the stream faster than if they have to wait for the deadline, or longer, to occur.


Thus my question about simply shortening the deadline...


Yes, if you have a slower card you will not get the higher rate of award. But, should this not encourage you to get and apply a faster card? I know it may move up my schedule to replace the 9800GT I have ...


A 9800GT would return all work within 24 hours on a single core machine...instead of buying a new $500(US) GPU, why not spend much less than that on on older single core machine with PCIe slots? Or too be more direct, one could get more "bang-for-the-buck" with a middle range card on a single core than a relatively fast card (say a GTX 260) in a HT i7--there is no way that the 260 could return all eight downloaded workunits under 24 hours (i.e., such a credit bonus is not so straightforward in motivating one to purchase the latest and fastest equipment).


Scott Brown
Send message
Joined: 21 Oct 08
Posts: 144
Credit: 2,973,555
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 7856 - Posted: 25 Mar 2009 | 23:02:38 UTC - in response to Message 7851.


hmm - only a matter of local cache size. even my old 9600gt runs them under 24 hours. so if i run @ 0.01 cache...
....and donate a candle to santo improvisario each and every day...



Many workunits can run on a 9600GT under 24 hours, but the latest larger units (the 42xx credit ones) really push the limit. I have seen one OC 9600GT (1800 shader) which took about 25 hours to finish one of these. Your OC of 1850 might get you under 24 hours, but it will be very close. So, for most who are not willing to push their 9600 to the edge in OC, the larger units will edge just over the 24 hour mark. Indeed, even a 96 shader card needs to be pushed up to the 1650-1700 shader clock range to break the 24 hour deadline.


Profile GDF
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 14 Mar 07
Posts: 1862
Credit: 629,356
RAC: 0
Level
Gly
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 7857 - Posted: 25 Mar 2009 | 23:09:48 UTC - in response to Message 7856.


We use reliable hosts (return < 2 days) to speed up the slower batch of WUs. Still, we need all the cards even the one returning after 3 days to do all the work.

We will probably extend the 1 day limit to 1.5 days to give at least the possibility to finish to more people, not just the top cards.

gdf

frankhagen
Send message
Joined: 18 Sep 08
Posts: 65
Credit: 3,037,414
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwat
Message 7858 - Posted: 26 Mar 2009 | 0:06:22 UTC - in response to Message 7856.

Many workunits can run on a 9600GT under 24 hours, but the latest larger units (the 42xx credit ones) really push the limit. I have seen one OC 9600GT (1800 shader) which took about 25 hours to finish one of these. Your OC of 1850 might get you under 24 hours, but it will be very close. So, for most who are not willing to push their 9600 to the edge in OC, the larger units will edge just over the 24 hour mark. Indeed, even a 96 shader card needs to be pushed up to the 1650-1700 shader clock range to break the 24 hour deadline.


of course - then it will be up to the project to keep them in the run and distribute the shorter WUs to the slower hosts. information is available, and the scheduler can make use of it.

Profile Paul D. Buck
Send message
Joined: 9 Jun 08
Posts: 1050
Credit: 37,321,185
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 7860 - Posted: 26 Mar 2009 | 7:36:19 UTC - in response to Message 7856.
Last modified: 26 Mar 2009 | 7:37:26 UTC

[Thus my question about simply shortening the deadline...

The screams of anguish if the total deadline was shortened ... :)

Even with the 4 day deadline there are folks complaining that they would like it extended ... to my mind this is better in that it is gentle suasion to have people move to faster GPUs ...

The other good news on the horizon is that we are seeing more activity on the GPU front with The Lattice Project trying their application on an unsuspecting world and Milky Way looks to be making additional moves too ... heck, MW may be the first project that has a GPU application for the Mac ... of course, with my luck I won't be able to use it ...

{edit} fixed teh quote to the correct one ... {/edit}

Michael Goetz
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 2 Mar 09
Posts: 124
Credit: 2,974,144
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwat
Message 7862 - Posted: 26 Mar 2009 | 11:17:27 UTC - in response to Message 7855.

...instead of buying a new $500(US) GPU, why not spend much less than that on on older single core machine with PCIe slots?


If all you want to do is get GPUGRID to not download so large a WU queue so that it can return WUs in <24 hours, there's several zero cost options available that don't require you to swap out hardware. Especially if you use the computer for 'normal' purposes, you certainly don't want to swap out your quad-core for a single core cpu.

Note that I've never tried any of these options, so it's possible they might not work as expected.

Some options are:

1) Change your BOINC configuration to only use 1 CPU core. There's two ways of doing this:
1a) Use the BOINC Manager option to limit # of CPU cores to 25%, (quad-core), 33% (triple core), or 50% (dual core).
1b) Use the config file option to instruct BOINC to pretend it's a single core system. (I think this is the NCPUS flag, but I could be mistaken.)

2) Lower the work queue size to 0.1 days or similar so that BOINC never requests more than one WU.

3) Wait until a release of BOINC and/or Lattice comes out that assigns WUs based on the number of GPUs instead of CPUs.

Note that option 1 (a or b) will reduce (or possibly elliminate) any other CPU BOINC work being done on the computer. This also applies to actually reducing the number of CPU cores with new hardware.

Mike

Michael Goetz
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 2 Mar 09
Posts: 124
Credit: 2,974,144
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwat
Message 7864 - Posted: 26 Mar 2009 | 11:30:19 UTC - in response to Message 7832.

So,
we have to redistribute quite a bit of credits to the users in order to align to Seti factor as we were undercrediting.

First change is already in place.
People who returns results within 24 hours will receive 50% more credits. We might adjust these values in the future.

gdf


Unless I misunderstand what you're saying, this seems to me like an ill-advised policy. It penalizes people using multi-core CPUs and encourages users to abort WUs.

Mike

Profile Paul D. Buck
Send message
Joined: 9 Jun 08
Posts: 1050
Credit: 37,321,185
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 7873 - Posted: 26 Mar 2009 | 18:54:54 UTC - in response to Message 7864.

Unless I misunderstand what you're saying, this seems to me like an ill-advised policy. It penalizes people using multi-core CPUs and encourages users to abort WUs.

Depends on how many GPU cores you have to match ... :)

And aborting tasks may not be all that bad of a deal if they can get issued and returned faster that way. We just THINK it is waste to do so ...

The only other thing I would say is that I have not noticed a change in the awards yet ... unless I am missing something ...

Profile GDF
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 14 Mar 07
Posts: 1862
Credit: 629,356
RAC: 0
Level
Gly
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 7875 - Posted: 26 Mar 2009 | 19:06:22 UTC - in response to Message 7873.

Remember that reliable hosts are the one which returns results in two days and 95% success rate. These get priority.

We will try to extend the 1 day deadline as already said and to reduce the queue by matching the number of gpus.

gdf

Profile Paul D. Buck
Send message
Joined: 9 Jun 08
Posts: 1050
Credit: 37,321,185
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 7895 - Posted: 27 Mar 2009 | 5:57:29 UTC - in response to Message 7875.

Remember that reliable hosts are the one which returns results in two days and 95% success rate. These get priority.

We will try to extend the 1 day deadline as already said and to reduce the queue by matching the number of gpus.

gdf

Have you considered exposing that indicator in the computer information page? It would sure be nice to know for sure if a system qualifies or not ...

STE\/E [BlackOps]
Send message
Joined: 18 Sep 08
Posts: 356
Credit: 250,952,560
RAC: 0
Level
Asn
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 7905 - Posted: 27 Mar 2009 | 12:13:58 UTC - in response to Message 7875.

Remember that reliable hosts are the one which returns results in two days and 95% success rate. These get priority.

We will try to extend the 1 day deadline as already said and to reduce the queue by matching the number of gpus.

gdf


I've already lost the extra 50% Credit on a couple WU's, the WU was done in Time (The 24 hr Period) but didn't report back in Time because the Manager didn't send it back promptly after it was finished. Could we please have the Deadline extended to 36 hours at least.

All my Cards are Capable of running & returning the WU's within the 24 hr period but if the Manager won't send them back in time it doesn't do any good then ...

STE\/E [BlackOps]
Send message
Joined: 18 Sep 08
Posts: 356
Credit: 250,952,560
RAC: 0
Level
Asn
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 7907 - Posted: 27 Mar 2009 | 14:20:55 UTC

LOL ... Just got this WU in by 3 Minutes or the 50% Extra Credit would have been lost. It had been finished 2 hours ealier but sat there until I manually sent it in.

I've set the Project to NNW & will have to Babysit the WU's and only get new ones as needed ...

Profile Edboard
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 24 Sep 08
Posts: 72
Credit: 12,410,275
RAC: 0
Level
Pro
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 7908 - Posted: 27 Mar 2009 | 14:57:15 UTC - in response to Message 7905.

···All my Cards are Capable of running & returning the WU's within the 24 hr period but if the Manager won't send them back in time it doesn't do any good then ...


You can activate the <report_results_immediately> option in your cc_config.xml file. If you do so, then the WUs are sent as soon as they are done.

Profile GDF
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 14 Mar 07
Posts: 1862
Credit: 629,356
RAC: 0
Level
Gly
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 7910 - Posted: 27 Mar 2009 | 15:31:02 UTC - in response to Message 7908.
Last modified: 27 Mar 2009 | 15:31:30 UTC

To easy the effort, we are giving now:
60%+ for WUs returned within 1.5 days
20%+ for Wus returned within 2.0 days

We will probably also extend the deadline to 5 days for all the others.

gdf

Profile Paul D. Buck
Send message
Joined: 9 Jun 08
Posts: 1050
Credit: 37,321,185
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 7912 - Posted: 27 Mar 2009 | 15:36:30 UTC - in response to Message 7910.

To easy the effort, we are giving now:
60%+ for WUs returned within 1.5 days
20%+ for Wus returned within 2.0 days

We will probably also extend the deadline to 5 days for all the others.

Thank you ...

Can you give us a chart of what we should expect? Looking at my daily totals it seems that I am getting higher returns, but, when I look at the tasks the individual tasks seem to have the same numbers as in the past.

Thanks ...

And for those asking for longer deadlines ... see ... sometimes you get your wish ... :)

STE\/E [BlackOps]
Send message
Joined: 18 Sep 08
Posts: 356
Credit: 250,952,560
RAC: 0
Level
Asn
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 7913 - Posted: 27 Mar 2009 | 16:05:29 UTC - in response to Message 7910.

To easy the effort, we are giving now:
60%+ for WUs returned within 1.5 days
20%+ for Wus returned within 2.0 days

We will probably also extend the deadline to 5 days for all the others.

gdf


Thanks a bunch GDF, my Cards only take 5-6 hours to run the WU's but with a Cache of 4 WU's I'm always on the Edge because 4 take 20-23 hr's to do so if they don't report right away then they go over a 24 hour deadline. But with 1 1.5 Day Deadline I'll have no problems now getting them reported ... :)

STE\/E [BlackOps]
Send message
Joined: 18 Sep 08
Posts: 356
Credit: 250,952,560
RAC: 0
Level
Asn
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 7914 - Posted: 27 Mar 2009 | 16:07:59 UTC - in response to Message 7908.

···All my Cards are Capable of running & returning the WU's within the 24 hr period but if the Manager won't send them back in time it doesn't do any good then ...


You can activate the <report_results_immediately> option in your cc_config.xml file. If you do so, then the WUs are sent as soon as they are done.


That work for some of the Clients & some it doesn't work, I had thought of that but hadn't got around to it yet with so many other things going on.

Profile K1atOdessa
Send message
Joined: 25 Feb 08
Posts: 249
Credit: 299,211,152
RAC: 238,740
Level
Asn
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 7917 - Posted: 27 Mar 2009 | 19:55:31 UTC - in response to Message 7914.

···All my Cards are Capable of running & returning the WU's within the 24 hr period but if the Manager won't send them back in time it doesn't do any good then ...


You can activate the <report_results_immediately> option in your cc_config.xml file. If you do so, then the WUs are sent as soon as they are done.


That work for some of the Clients & some it doesn't work, I had thought of that but hadn't got around to it yet with so many other things going on.


If for some reason there is a back-off from contacting the server, the report_results_immediately does not override this. However, with a manual update or the countdown to contact goes to 0, it will report immediately then. I've had this set for a while because I have 3 GPU's and *only* a Quad, often leaving one not running (if 2 WU's are finished and pending sending to server, 1 of the 3 GPU's will not be running until another WU downloaded).

ExtraTerrestrial Apes
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 08
Posts: 2478
Credit: 187,833,866
RAC: 403,660
Level
Ile
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 7942 - Posted: 28 Mar 2009 | 20:15:59 UTC

An intersting change. It's actually in the folding@home spirit, where their points don't neccessarily represent FLOPS, but rather the value of the calculations. E.g. a CPU-FLOP is worth more than a GPU-FLOP, as it's more flexible. And in the case of GPU-Grid a "fast-FLOP" is worth more, as it allows the project to progress faster.

MrS
____________
Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Profile KWSN imcrazynow
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 27 Jan 09
Posts: 26
Credit: 3,572,637
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 7943 - Posted: 28 Mar 2009 | 20:52:06 UTC
Last modified: 28 Mar 2009 | 20:52:56 UTC

I don't seem to be able to locate the cc_config.xml file in my BOINC folder. Is it someplace else or can one be created and put in the folder? If so how do I do it.
____________

ExtraTerrestrial Apes
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 08
Posts: 2478
Credit: 187,833,866
RAC: 403,660
Level
Ile
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 7944 - Posted: 28 Mar 2009 | 21:02:32 UTC - in response to Message 7943.

In your "BOINC/user data" folder create a text file and name it cc_config.xml. The contents can be:


<cc_config>
<options>
<report_results_immediately>1</report_results_immediately>
</options>
</cc_config>


MrS
____________
Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

fractal
Send message
Joined: 16 Aug 08
Posts: 60
Credit: 129,501,213
RAC: 205,934
Level
Cys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 8075 - Posted: 2 Apr 2009 | 18:06:04 UTC - in response to Message 7862.
Last modified: 2 Apr 2009 | 18:33:51 UTC


1) Change your BOINC configuration to only use 1 CPU core. There's two ways of doing this:
1a) Use the BOINC Manager option to limit # of CPU cores to 25%, (quad-core), 33% (triple core), or 50% (dual core).
1b) Use the config file option to instruct BOINC to pretend it's a single core system. (I think this is the NCPUS flag, but I could be mistaken.)

2) Lower the work queue size to 0.1 days or similar so that BOINC never requests more than one WU.


Neither of these helped.

I have a q6600 and a single 9600gso. I have it set to use at most 75% of the cpu and the message windows says "4/2/2009 10:59:40 AM||Preferences limit # CPUs to 3" when it comes up. This lets BOINC use 3 cores to run CPU applications and leaves one to feed the GPU and for whatever I am doing on the box.

My max work queue size is 0.1 days.

I aborted all the work in the "ready to run" state and it downloaded three more units leaving me with one running and three "ready to run".

I am finishing work in "Approximate elapsed time for entire WU: 79329.953 s" which is about 20 hrs. I have set boinc to return results immediately. But none of this will help if BOINC is going to keep three days work on my machine.

I suggest you reconsider your decision to penalize those of us who have more CPU cores than GPU's.

Scott Brown
Send message
Joined: 21 Oct 08
Posts: 144
Credit: 2,973,555
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 8093 - Posted: 2 Apr 2009 | 23:02:15 UTC - in response to Message 8075.


I have a q6600 and a single 9600gso...
I am finishing work in "Approximate elapsed time for entire WU: 79329.953 s" which is about 20 hrs.


You should really consider an OC of the shader and core clocks. The 96 shader 9600GSO (and 8800GS, which is the same card rebranded) is very tolerant of OC if you have good heat management in your system. I have a factory OC 9600GSO and have OC'ed my 8800GS as well to around 1700 shader clock. Modest heat increase, no errors, and increased speed in crunching. This should get you close to having better luck in the quad.

As for fixes to this overall issue, a very easy solution would be to define workunit types by there preset credit totals (which are based on flops counting and equate quite nicely to run times) so that users with slower cards could opt out of the longer work. In other words, create generalized classes of work so that there might be four types: 1) less than 2400 base credit, 2) 2400 - 3000 base credit, 3) 3,000 - 3,600 base credit, and 4) more than 3,600 base credit (the number and values of these thresholds are of course just examples). Add the workunit type checkboxes to the user account GPUGRID preferences section (similar to what is done at PrimeGrid) and let users select as needed.

Profile Paul D. Buck
Send message
Joined: 9 Jun 08
Posts: 1050
Credit: 37,321,185
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 8104 - Posted: 3 Apr 2009 | 5:41:25 UTC - in response to Message 8081.

IMO this is a terrible idea. The only way a lot of us can meet this standard is to keep aborting queued WUs constantly since you insist on sending us 1 WU for every CPU instead of GPU. You're giving the fastest users a big bonus and penalizing the rest of us by burying us even further down the stats. It's already starting to cause hard feelings and negative PR is hard to overcome. You've created a very nice project, but this is a bad move (at least until you can actually provide us with a way to make it work).

The problem is not really the project's fault. Until we have proper GPU support in BOINC these issues are going to be there. 6.6.20 or what ever number they give to the release version will be the first that will start to address these kinds of problems. Note I say START to address these problems. there is a lot more dificulty in Disneyland that this ...

Still, when you think of it, CUDA in BOINC is less than a year old and we have come a long way ... but there is still a long way to go ...

Profile Beyond
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Nov 08
Posts: 771
Credit: 1,061,020,542
RAC: 3,302,050
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 8128 - Posted: 3 Apr 2009 | 16:13:42 UTC - in response to Message 8104.

The only way a lot of us can meet this standard is to keep aborting queued WUs constantly since you insist on sending us 1 WU for every CPU instead of GPU.

The problem is not really the project's fault. Until we have proper GPU support in BOINC these issues are going to be there. 6.6.20 or what ever number they give to the release version will be the first that will start to address these kinds of problems. Note I say START to address these problems. there is a lot more dificulty in Disneyland that this ...

Still, when you think of it, CUDA in BOINC is less than a year old and we have come a long way ... but there is still a long way to go ...

I agree. When I wrote the above message I was pretty irritated after spending quite a while trying to figure out why some were getting those 4900 point WUs and some weren't. Looked in the wrong forum. If I could delete the above, I would. There are ways to avoid the problem with a bit of effort.


fractal
Send message
Joined: 16 Aug 08
Posts: 60
Credit: 129,501,213
RAC: 205,934
Level
Cys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 8130 - Posted: 3 Apr 2009 | 18:15:45 UTC - in response to Message 8128.

I'll try the method you posted on the ars forum once I clear the backlog on this machine. Until then, I just abort any "Ready to Start" GPUGRID wu's I see on the machine. It's a pain, but it works.

Profile Paul D. Buck
Send message
Joined: 9 Jun 08
Posts: 1050
Credit: 37,321,185
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 8133 - Posted: 3 Apr 2009 | 18:28:45 UTC - in response to Message 8128.

I agree. When I wrote the above message I was pretty irritated after spending quite a while trying to figure out why some were getting those 4900 point WUs and some weren't. Looked in the wrong forum. If I could delete the above, I would. There are ways to avoid the problem with a bit of effort.

Well, the good news is that I did not notice that you were irritated ... :)

Most of us that tender advice here are pretty laid back and tend to not get excited easily so it kinda rolls off and no need to sweat it ... heck all of us at one time or another have said (typed?) things that we wish we could unsay ...

As to the "sizing" issue, well, we have not seen the end to the problems there yet. And sadly the Developers, seemingly by design are ignoring the issues that GPUs raise rather than starting to be proactive about them. I mean they are not thinking about how to solve the issue of the fact that the pool of GPU resources is not guaranteed to be symmetric in capabilities (orthogonal is another way to look at it).

And sadly model numbers may not be the best way to detect this either ... At one point I had a GTX295, GTX 280 and 9800GT in one system ... which should the long running tasks be scheduled on?

Anyway, I am going to try to address this subject again, because it is not going to go away if ignored...

Profile GDF
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 14 Mar 07
Posts: 1862
Credit: 629,356
RAC: 0
Level
Gly
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 8140 - Posted: 3 Apr 2009 | 20:26:58 UTC - in response to Message 8133.
Last modified: 3 Apr 2009 | 20:27:10 UTC

Next week,
we will do an application update, bringing the credits multiplier from 1.5 to 2.0 (closer to seti 2.4xflops). Still adding 20-30% more for who returns them within two days. This should simplify your life, but keep a positive incentive for quick returns.

gdf

ExtraTerrestrial Apes
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 08
Posts: 2478
Credit: 187,833,866
RAC: 403,660
Level
Ile
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 8149 - Posted: 3 Apr 2009 | 22:00:05 UTC
Last modified: 3 Apr 2009 | 22:00:55 UTC

That sounds nice.

I'd like to know, though: can any of you actually manage to reduce the queue size for GPU-Grid? What I got so far:

- BOINC 6.4.5, cache size 0.3 days -> 4 WUs (~12h each)
- BOINC 6.6.20: wanted to fetch cpu-work from GPU-Grid
- BOINC 6.5.0: cache size 0.1 day -> between 2 and 3 WUs

Ressource share for GPU-Grid is about 25% on a quad core, 1 GPU. That doesn't exactly make it easy to return results quickly..

MrS
____________
Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Profile Paul D. Buck
Send message
Joined: 9 Jun 08
Posts: 1050
Credit: 37,321,185
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 8157 - Posted: 4 Apr 2009 | 9:30:23 UTC - in response to Message 8149.

That sounds nice.

I'd like to know, though: can any of you actually manage to reduce the queue size for GPU-Grid? What I got so far:

- BOINC 6.4.5, cache size 0.3 days -> 4 WUs (~12h each)
- BOINC 6.6.20: wanted to fetch cpu-work from GPU-Grid
- BOINC 6.5.0: cache size 0.1 day -> between 2 and 3 WUs

Ressource share for GPU-Grid is about 25% on a quad core, 1 GPU. That doesn't exactly make it easy to return results quickly..

MrS

My quad core (GTX280) and 9800 system only seem to stock 1 or 2 spares with 0.5 cache. BOth running 6.5.0 at the moment.

Profile Venturini Dario[VENETO]
Send message
Joined: 26 Jul 08
Posts: 44
Credit: 4,832,360
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 8171 - Posted: 4 Apr 2009 | 14:05:13 UTC

I'm not really into this "let's award more to those that compute sooner"...

The idea behind BOINC is completely different. If you want fast computation, go get a supercomputer. If you want to use WASTED cycles, well man, you're going the wrong way.

Dario

ExtraTerrestrial Apes
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 08
Posts: 2478
Credit: 187,833,866
RAC: 403,660
Level
Ile
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 8184 - Posted: 4 Apr 2009 | 20:45:47 UTC - in response to Message 8171.

The idea if BOINC is to help groups who can't afford a supercomputer. So saying "go get a supercomputer" just doesn't cut it.

And the point of reason for these recent adjustments is that, unlike at seti or einstein or many others, for GPU-Grid it is important to get results back quickly. Otherwise the calculations can't continue.

And adding a relatively modest bonus of 20-30% for returns within 2 days sounds very reasonable to me. Even a 9600GT can easily do this, if BOINC can be convinced not to cache the maximum amount of work. Oh, and an update on my situation: it seems like my 6.5.0 slowly starts to obey the smaller cache setting.

MrS
____________
Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Profile mike047
Send message
Joined: 21 Dec 08
Posts: 47
Credit: 7,330,049
RAC: 0
Level
Ser
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwat
Message 8187 - Posted: 4 Apr 2009 | 22:20:37 UTC - in response to Message 8184.

The idea if BOINC is to help groups who can't afford a supercomputer. So saying "go get a supercomputer" just doesn't cut it.

And the point of reason for these recent adjustments is that, unlike at seti or einstein or many others, for GPU-Grid it is important to get results back quickly. Otherwise the calculations can't continue.

And adding a relatively modest bonus of 20-30% for returns within 2 days sounds very reasonable to me. Even a 9600GT can easily do this, if BOINC can be convinced not to cache the maximum amount of work. Oh, and an update on my situation: it seems like my 6.5.0 slowly starts to obey the smaller cache setting.

MrS


That is the way I have seen it from my start of boinc participation.

First time that I have seen it voiced, though.
____________
mike

Profile Paul D. Buck
Send message
Joined: 9 Jun 08
Posts: 1050
Credit: 37,321,185
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 8198 - Posted: 5 Apr 2009 | 6:58:07 UTC - in response to Message 8184.

The idea if BOINC is to help groups who can't afford a supercomputer. So saying "go get a supercomputer" just doesn't cut it.

*IF* BOINC? :)

I know, "of BOINC" ... :)

Actually, the point of BOINC is to allow groups to use their funds more effectively than to spend it on super-computer time or in the purchase of a supercomputer ...

This allows leveraging of the science funding, which is always parsimoniously granted by governments and corporations to look into the most important questions of our time.

In effect, for the cost of a couple low-end to mid-range servers, a group can investigate questions for which, in the past, could not be looked at because there simply was not the funding to do this research, or that could not do if for long enough to establish a solid answer.

Profile GDF
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 14 Mar 07
Posts: 1862
Credit: 629,356
RAC: 0
Level
Gly
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 8203 - Posted: 5 Apr 2009 | 9:33:24 UTC - in response to Message 8198.

This is exactly the point. We are the first project which uses BOINC like if it was a supercomputer in a low-latency mode, rather that just high-throughput.
We have currently queued jobs for something like 40,000 cpus. It's impossible to get access to a supercomputer for such an amount of time.

We submit jobs, analyze the result, improve the computational protocol and re-submit again. Like if it was an experiment in a wet lab. So, we need the results fast. A paper on this usage will be out soon, where you guys can read more about our protocols.

Best, gdf.

Profile Beyond
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Nov 08
Posts: 771
Credit: 1,061,020,542
RAC: 3,302,050
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 8236 - Posted: 6 Apr 2009 | 2:10:16 UTC - in response to Message 8203.

This is exactly the point. We are the first project which uses BOINC like if it was a supercomputer in a low-latency mode, rather that just high-throughput.
We have currently queued jobs for something like 40,000 cpus. It's impossible to get access to a supercomputer for such an amount of time.

We submit jobs, analyze the result, improve the computational protocol and re-submit again. Like if it was an experiment in a wet lab. So, we need the results fast. A paper on this usage will be out soon, where you guys can read more about our protocols.

Best, gdf.

Now this explanation makes sense of it all. If getting the results back quickly substantially helps the science, go for it. I think there'd be a lot less uproar if these kind of changes were posted along with the rational. While we like stats we're really here to help advance human knowledge. Thanks for the info.

Profile Venturini Dario[VENETO]
Send message
Joined: 26 Jul 08
Posts: 44
Credit: 4,832,360
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 8278 - Posted: 7 Apr 2009 | 16:49:35 UTC - in response to Message 8236.


Now this explanation makes sense of it all. If getting the results back quickly substantially helps the science, go for it. I think there'd be a lot less uproar if these kind of changes were posted along with the rational. While we like stats we're really here to help advance human knowledge. Thanks for the info.


I totally agree.

Daniel Neely
Send message
Joined: 21 Feb 09
Posts: 5
Credit: 3,986,961
RAC: 133
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 8292 - Posted: 8 Apr 2009 | 0:26:18 UTC

Would reducing my resource share for GPU grid help with keeping its queue short while maintaining a longer one for my CPU, or would I just end up with an idle GPU at times because I only had CPU WUs?

Profile rebirther
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 7 Jul 07
Posts: 53
Credit: 3,048,781
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwat
Message 8428 - Posted: 14 Apr 2009 | 18:59:52 UTC

Credits back to earned = granted?

Snow Crash
Send message
Joined: 4 Apr 09
Posts: 434
Credit: 434,553,599
RAC: 761,588
Level
Gln
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 8440 - Posted: 14 Apr 2009 | 22:04:05 UTC - in response to Message 8428.
Last modified: 14 Apr 2009 | 22:04:34 UTC

No, that was just a side effect of the server being down ... no WUs were returned within the 24 hr. bonus period. I have completed and returned 4 new WUs today and have recieved the bonus :-)

Steve

dyeman
Send message
Joined: 21 Mar 09
Posts: 34
Credit: 394,368,801
RAC: 20,612
Level
Asp
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 8448 - Posted: 15 Apr 2009 | 3:25:44 UTC - in response to Message 8440.

The first task 522250 I received after the crash was returned well within 24 hours but received no bonus. Maybe the time is calculated from the time the task was created rather than the time it was sent??

Snow Crash
Send message
Joined: 4 Apr 09
Posts: 434
Credit: 434,553,599
RAC: 761,588
Level
Gln
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 8450 - Posted: 15 Apr 2009 | 6:05:49 UTC - in response to Message 8448.
Last modified: 15 Apr 2009 | 6:06:51 UTC

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?

Michael Goetz
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 2 Mar 09
Posts: 124
Credit: 2,974,144
RAC: 0
Level
Ala
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwat
Message 8455 - Posted: 15 Apr 2009 | 11:34:58 UTC - in response to Message 8450.

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
____________
My lucky number is 75898^524288+1

Profile GDF
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 14 Mar 07
Posts: 1862
Credit: 629,356
RAC: 0
Level
Gly
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 8466 - Posted: 15 Apr 2009 | 19:11:11 UTC - in response to Message 8455.
Last modified: 15 Apr 2009 | 19:11:31 UTC

We are looking into it. Thanks for reporting.

gdf

Joe
Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 08
Posts: 37
Credit: 5,864,088
RAC: 0
Level
Ser
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 8542 - Posted: 18 Apr 2009 | 8:01:12 UTC - in response to Message 8466.

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

Profile GDF
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 14 Mar 07
Posts: 1862
Credit: 629,356
RAC: 0
Level
Gly
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 8547 - Posted: 18 Apr 2009 | 8:36:42 UTC - in response to Message 8542.

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

ExtraTerrestrial Apes
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 08
Posts: 2478
Credit: 187,833,866
RAC: 403,660
Level
Ile
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 8557 - Posted: 18 Apr 2009 | 10:24:00 UTC - in response to Message 8547.

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

Profile Bender10
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 3 Dec 07
Posts: 167
Credit: 8,368,897
RAC: 0
Level
Ser
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 8578 - Posted: 19 Apr 2009 | 0:34:44 UTC - in response to Message 8547.

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.

Profile GDF
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 14 Mar 07
Posts: 1862
Credit: 629,356
RAC: 0
Level
Gly
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 8582 - Posted: 19 Apr 2009 | 8:30:23 UTC - in response to Message 8578.

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

gdf

Snow Crash
Send message
Joined: 4 Apr 09
Posts: 434
Credit: 434,553,599
RAC: 761,588
Level
Gln
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 8584 - Posted: 19 Apr 2009 | 8:42:07 UTC - in response to Message 8578.

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

uBronan
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 1 Feb 09
Posts: 139
Credit: 575,023
RAC: 0
Level
Gly
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 8595 - Posted: 19 Apr 2009 | 10:49:07 UTC

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

ExtraTerrestrial Apes
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 08
Posts: 2478
Credit: 187,833,866
RAC: 403,660
Level
Ile
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 8599 - Posted: 19 Apr 2009 | 11:46:51 UTC - in response to Message 8595.

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

MrS
____________
Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Snow Crash
Send message
Joined: 4 Apr 09
Posts: 434
Credit: 434,553,599
RAC: 761,588
Level
Gln
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 8600 - Posted: 19 Apr 2009 | 11:48:19 UTC - in response to Message 8595.
Last modified: 19 Apr 2009 | 11:50:03 UTC

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

Steve

jrobbio
Send message
Joined: 13 Mar 09
Posts: 59
Credit: 324,366
RAC: 0
Level

Scientific publications
watwatwatwat
Message 8614 - Posted: 19 Apr 2009 | 14:07:11 UTC - in response to Message 8600.
Last modified: 19 Apr 2009 | 14:12:18 UTC

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

TomaszPawel
Send message
Joined: 18 Aug 08
Posts: 119
Credit: 37,456,011
RAC: 143,592
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 10485 - Posted: 12 Jun 2009 | 5:57:23 UTC - in response to Message 8614.

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!

ExtraTerrestrial Apes
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 08
Posts: 2478
Credit: 187,833,866
RAC: 403,660
Level
Ile
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 10498 - Posted: 12 Jun 2009 | 19:35:31 UTC - in response to Message 10485.

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

Profile DoctorNow
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 Aug 07
Posts: 73
Credit: 40,643,571
RAC: 0
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 10533 - Posted: 13 Jun 2009 | 14:48:44 UTC - in response to Message 10485.

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!

TomaszPawel
Send message
Joined: 18 Aug 08
Posts: 119
Credit: 37,456,011
RAC: 143,592
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 10563 - Posted: 14 Jun 2009 | 13:12:50 UTC - in response to Message 10533.

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!

ExtraTerrestrial Apes
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 08
Posts: 2478
Credit: 187,833,866
RAC: 403,660
Level
Ile
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 10565 - Posted: 14 Jun 2009 | 13:23:35 UTC - in response to Message 10563.

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

MrS
____________
Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

TomaszPawel
Send message
Joined: 18 Aug 08
Posts: 119
Credit: 37,456,011
RAC: 143,592
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 10568 - Posted: 14 Jun 2009 | 14:51:20 UTC - in response to Message 10565.
Last modified: 14 Jun 2009 | 14:52:23 UTC

I mean it should not be 5600 credits granted?
____________
POLISH NATIONAL TEAM - Join! Crunch! Win!

ExtraTerrestrial Apes
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 08
Posts: 2478
Credit: 187,833,866
RAC: 403,660
Level
Ile
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 10572 - Posted: 14 Jun 2009 | 15:17:36 UTC - in response to Message 10568.

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

TomaszPawel
Send message
Joined: 18 Aug 08
Posts: 119
Credit: 37,456,011
RAC: 143,592
Level
Val
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 10576 - Posted: 15 Jun 2009 | 6:40:45 UTC - in response to Message 10572.

What the amount of demanded credit depends on?
____________
POLISH NATIONAL TEAM - Join! Crunch! Win!

ExtraTerrestrial Apes
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 08
Posts: 2478
Credit: 187,833,866
RAC: 403,660
Level
Ile
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 10592 - Posted: 15 Jun 2009 | 20:32:18 UTC - in response to Message 10576.

Take a look at the 1st post in this thread.

MrS
____________
Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Profile nenym
Send message
Joined: 31 Mar 09
Posts: 125
Credit: 214,607,617
RAC: 481,860
Level
Leu
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 10644 - Posted: 18 Jun 2009 | 18:57:48 UTC

I have got very long task http://www.gpugrid.net/workunit.php?wuid=547633 as second cruncher (GTX260 Top, host ID: 31329). Estimated time calculated after 4h15' (6.722%) is ~63 hours. The first cruncher's claimed credit is 45,669. I have no chance to finish it within 2 days to get bonus. On the other side claimed credit looks like bonus credit included. Now is task suspended and I’m crunching next standard 8h task to get bonus.
Question: Am I true in my calculation that bonus credit is included in that long task? If not, I will follow the first cruncher and abort that task as bonus’s looses would be about 8,700 credits during 63h run of that task.

ExtraTerrestrial Apes
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 Aug 08
Posts: 2478
Credit: 187,833,866
RAC: 403,660
Level
Ile
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 10647 - Posted: 18 Jun 2009 | 19:50:58 UTC - in response to Message 10644.

What ever happened to that task is probably not intended.

MrS
____________
Scanning for our furry friends since Jan 2002

Profile nenym
Send message
Joined: 31 Mar 09
Posts: 125
Credit: 214,607,617
RAC: 481,860
Level
Leu
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 10650 - Posted: 18 Jun 2009 | 20:18:34 UTC - in response to Message 10647.

So what to do with it, abort or try to run and finish it? I like long tasks, but if it crashes after 60h, I would not be happy.

Profile Beyond
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Nov 08
Posts: 771
Credit: 1,061,020,542
RAC: 3,302,050
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 10651 - Posted: 18 Jun 2009 | 21:30:23 UTC

I've got one of these monsters running too:

http://www.gpugrid.net/workunit.php?wuid=547641

3 hours, 4.5 percent done. Most normal WUs take 6-7 hours on this card.

Profile nenym
Send message
Joined: 31 Mar 09
Posts: 125
Credit: 214,607,617
RAC: 481,860
Level
Leu
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 10654 - Posted: 18 Jun 2009 | 22:21:34 UTC - in response to Message 10647.
Last modified: 18 Jun 2009 | 22:29:47 UTC

What ever happened to that task is probably not intended.

MrS


Is intended maybe, names of that strange tasks includes "twomons". We have received not only monsters, even doublemonsters :-).

WhiteFire
Send message
Joined: 15 Oct 08
Posts: 6
Credit: 177,200,765
RAC: 174,976
Level
Ile
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 10658 - Posted: 19 Jun 2009 | 6:35:37 UTC - in response to Message 10654.

Now I've got one of that monster Wus, too.
http://www.gpugrid.net/workunit.php?wuid=547733
26 % in 15 h. The deadline is on June 29th. Maybe imposible to finish it in time.

WhiteFire

Localizer
Send message
Joined: 17 Apr 08
Posts: 104
Credit: 698,307,883
RAC: 580,313
Level
Lys
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 10659 - Posted: 19 Jun 2009 | 6:50:55 UTC - in response to Message 10654.

..... I've got a pair of 'monsters' running on my 295. 24 hours elapsed and only showing 25-30% complete.

Abort or run out?

P.

Profile Beyond
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Nov 08
Posts: 771
Credit: 1,061,020,542
RAC: 3,302,050
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 10678 - Posted: 19 Jun 2009 | 14:28:55 UTC - in response to Message 10651.
Last modified: 19 Jun 2009 | 14:29:34 UTC

I've got one of these monsters running too:

http://www.gpugrid.net/workunit.php?wuid=547641

3 hours, 4.5 percent done. Most normal WUs take 6-7 hours on this card.

Hmm, aborted by project, redundant result after 18:40 run time on a GTX 260 and no credit.
That's 3 normal WUs worth of time. Doesn't seem too fair does it?

Profile nenym
Send message
Joined: 31 Mar 09
Posts: 125
Credit: 214,607,617
RAC: 481,860
Level
Leu
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 10682 - Posted: 19 Jun 2009 | 15:02:07 UTC
Last modified: 19 Jun 2009 | 15:03:11 UTC

Monster aborted by server, no credit granted. Moving to AQUA, it is not fair.

Profile GDF
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 14 Mar 07
Posts: 1862
Credit: 629,356
RAC: 0
Level
Gly
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwat
Message 10687 - Posted: 19 Jun 2009 | 16:47:54 UTC - in response to Message 10682.
Last modified: 19 Jun 2009 | 16:48:19 UTC

You guys might like this:
http://www.gpugrid.net/forum_thread.php?id=1155&nowrap=true#10686

GDF

Profile nenym
Send message
Joined: 31 Mar 09
Posts: 125
Credit: 214,607,617
RAC: 481,860
Level
Leu
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 10694 - Posted: 19 Jun 2009 | 18:51:56 UTC - in response to Message 10687.

OK, nice

Profile Beyond
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Nov 08
Posts: 771
Credit: 1,061,020,542
RAC: 3,302,050
Level
Met
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 10702 - Posted: 19 Jun 2009 | 19:58:54 UTC

Thanks!

Mikek69
Send message
Joined: 8 Oct 09
Posts: 1
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
Level

Scientific publications
wat
Message 13083 - Posted: 8 Oct 2009 | 21:10:49 UTC - in response to Message 8171.

I agree. The whole idea of this setup is to use spare capacity NOT force people out to buy faster equipment for the sole use of these projects. My computer suits my needs not my needs be adapted to suit others.

Profile nenym
Send message
Joined: 31 Mar 09
Posts: 125
Credit: 214,607,617
RAC: 481,860
Level
Leu
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 25494 - Posted: 4 Jun 2012 | 16:51:56 UTC
Last modified: 4 Jun 2012 | 16:55:15 UTC

Wiyosaya wrote:
I agree that the credit scheme should be revamped to be more fair to the volunteers.
What do you mean by that?
1. Increasing of the basic credit for short queue. That means enter to the credit war, as that credit is the same as Seti granted credit for CC 1.0/1.3 GPUs.
2. Erasing time bonus. Developers needs results ASAP, that would be not with accordance to their requirements.
3. Decreasing the basic credit of long queue to the basic credit of short queue. As I cas remember, credit bonus for long queue is for two reasons: more errors and more important results. There would be no reason to crunch the long queue if credit was the same.

I see the credit scheme by the other way: Granted credit include 24 hours bonus is the basic one and lower granted credit is penalty for slower crunching then the projets needs.

Any other idea?

Wiyosaya
Send message
Joined: 22 Nov 09
Posts: 82
Credit: 69,768,953
RAC: 78,809
Level
Thr
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 25498 - Posted: 4 Jun 2012 | 20:55:21 UTC - in response to Message 25494.

Wiyosaya wrote:
I agree that the credit scheme should be revamped to be more fair to the volunteers.
What do you mean by that?
1. Increasing of the basic credit for short queue. That means enter to the credit war, as that credit is the same as Seti granted credit for CC 1.0/1.3 GPUs.
2. Erasing time bonus. Developers needs results ASAP, that would be not with accordance to their requirements.
3. Decreasing the basic credit of long queue to the basic credit of short queue. As I cas remember, credit bonus for long queue is for two reasons: more errors and more important results. There would be no reason to crunch the long queue if credit was the same.

I see the credit scheme by the other way: Granted credit include 24 hours bonus is the basic one and lower granted credit is penalty for slower crunching then the projets needs.

Any other idea?

So you call your response fair? People have no idea what I posted nor why I advocate changing the scheme. In fact, you've simply posted a reply to what I said in another thread completely when site moderators were participating in that thread AND also suggesting that perhaps the credit scheme should be revamped.

I'm not repeating what I said there. For those truly interested in discourse - see the original post.
Seems like you want to perpetuate the "credit war," I want to end it.
____________

Profile nenym
Send message
Joined: 31 Mar 09
Posts: 125
Credit: 214,607,617
RAC: 481,860
Level
Leu
Scientific publications
watwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwatwat
Message 25499 - Posted: 4 Jun 2012 | 21:24:26 UTC

I have read not only your post - I read whole thread. As you can see I have put NO response, I am asking you for response, not only for comment. I have commented possibilities that came on my mind and I am waiting for other possibilities.
It is easy to comment, it is difficult to think up. I would be happy if the credit scheme was more friendly too, but I can't see the way, what about you?

By the way - do you remember credit scheme of United Devices? If you do not: 25% of credit was according to transfer speed of a modem.

Post to thread

Message boards : Number crunching : Credits calculations