[SETI@Home] hitparade van 16 maart

[Verwijderd]

Ochtendwijsheid
De stats voor 10:00uur posten, zodat we überhaupt kunnen reageren!

---

Daar gaan we
Sanchezzz springt in het oog. Gelukkig komt hij telkens weer terug . Asfaloth_arwen,
vermaakt zich met name in het weekend en gekgenoeg hebben daar meer mensen 'last' van .
Opvallend is trouwens aan de daily Top 30, dat er zo'n variatie aan flushers te zien is.De eerste overall stijger die we ontmoeten is Zwahillius. We zien hem al aan de horizon van de overall Top 30 staan!

Mijlpaalproficiat:
[DPC] Switch, Freakandel, winwiz, Bas Scholts (MueR), Robin Deurloo, DJ_darklord, DPC-Postman, Ramon, Apollo13, Job, Sanchezzz, Martijn Kleintjens, Billy the K en Fred Verbaan.
Een mooie en lange rij mijlpalen, well done mensen.

DPC-noot
Dutch Powers Cows stijgt drie daily plaatsen, dat kunnen we goed gebruiken. Als we iets meer aanzetten dan komt ook Universe Examiners in de inhaalstats te staan .


DPC SETI@Home hitparade van 16 maart 2008

Daily Top 30
Flushers: 118 / 786 (15,0 %)
pos		daily	member	total
1.	()	18.532	[DPC] Switch	900.598	(15)
2.	(1)	12.163	hansR	9.229.217	(1)
3.	(1)	11.111	Searchy! Internet Services V.O.F.	3.912.091	(5)
4.	()	8.156	[DPC]TeamGrazzie	6.308.190	(3)
5.	()	6.242	Sp@ceNv@der	6.121.032	(4)
6.	(8)	4.907	[DPC]Trancemaus	1.384.610	(8)
7.	(1)	4.302	Ensign Wildfire	866.348	(16)
8.	(3)	4.008	[DPC] Brainy007	95.073	(89)
9.	(1)	3.571	Zwahillius	392.343	(32)
10.	(3)	3.195	o25o & Dharkon	2.205.593	(7)
11.	(4)	2.873	Mr Beamer	422.530	(28)
12.	(2)	2.845	Tijntje	796.664	(18)
13.	(6)	2.587	[DPC]Arie	137.897	(68)
14.	(4)	2.292	seridan	291.196	(46)
15.	(5)	2.207	MAX3400	818.398	(17)
16.	(73)	1.994	asfaloth_arwen	294.642	(45)
17.	()	1.895	sebastiaan	284.298	(47)
18.	(6)	1.601	ray	141.419	(65)
19.	(6)	1.557	Vrank	110.285	(78)
20.	(3)	1.461	MasterM	19.470	(200)
21.	(12)	1.425	holy-shit	179.561	(56)
22.	()	1.162	-BBT-HawkEye	66.245	(105)
23.	(12)	1.160	Edwin van der Geest	116.067	(75)
24.	(2)	1.154	Freakandel	100.707	(84)
25.	(1)	1.111	Kali	85.884	(98)
26.	()	1.105	Sanchezzz	5.628	(340)
27.	(2)	1.075	Rob Thomassen	18.679	(206)
28.	(3)	1.026	Mathijs	113.513	(77)
29.	(1)	979	Berkie	720.947	(19)
30.	(19)	971	ZanZiB@r	62.674	(106)
	More...

Overall Top 30
pos		total	member	daily
1.	()	9.229.217	hansR	12.163	(2)
2.	()	9.115.103	REISinformatiegroep	106	(85)
3.	()	6.308.190	[DPC]TeamGrazzie	8.156	(4)
4.	()	6.121.032	Sp@ceNv@der	6.242	(5)
5.	()	3.912.091	Searchy! Internet Services V.O.F.	11.111	(3)
6.	()	2.331.420	[DPC]Spinpoint	180	(73)
7.	()	2.205.593	o25o & Dharkon	3.195	(10)
8.	()	1.384.610	[DPC]Trancemaus	4.907	(6)
9.	()	1.232.197	Jan Zandvliet & x-RaY99	427	(50)
10.	()	1.140.270	[DPC]Team Zuid-Holland	736	(36)
11.	()	1.049.597	[DPC]SjoQing	0	(-)
12.	()	1.043.115	[DPC] Anticimex & Lock Metaaldetectie	0	(-)
13.	()	1.033.677	Speedy67 & Friends	135	(81)
14.	()	1.029.084	visvogel	807	(33)
15.	()	900.598	[DPC] Switch	18.532	(1)
16.	()	866.348	Ensign Wildfire	4.302	(7)
17.	()	818.398	MAX3400	2.207	(15)
18.	()	796.664	Tijntje	2.845	(12)
19.	()	720.947	Berkie	979	(29)
20.	()	673.682	Psyed	0	(-)
21.	()	641.268	F@stmem	791	(34)
22.	()	626.692	MaNDaRK	0	(-)
23.	()	567.972	Dadoke	203	(71)
24.	()	557.942	Rydo	676	(40)
25.	()	472.183	dpijl10	0	(-)
26.	()	469.541	ADHD NL	0	(-)
27.	()	427.390	audiforum.nl	0	(-)
28.	()	422.530	Mr Beamer	2.873	(11)
29.	()	418.186	Team_Elteor_Borislavj	0	(-)
30.	()	395.966	Lupus	0	(-)
	More...

Teams Daily Top 15
pos		daily	team	total
1.	()	1.447.602	SETI.USA	547.489.719	(1)
20.	(1)	183.690	Canada	70.954.059	(23)
21.	(1)	182.935	UK BOINC Team	64.411.303	(26)
22.	(4)	171.261	U.S.Air Force	57.746.061	(34)
23.	()	167.287	OcUK - Overclockers UK	123.988.646	(11)
24.	()	145.734	AUSTRIA - NATIONAL - TEAM	63.804.694	(27)
25.	(1)	138.134	Amateur Radio Operators	65.991.272	(25)
26.	(1)	136.458	BOINC@AUSTRALIA	59.120.674	(31)
27.	(3)	131.135	Dutch Power Cows	68.391.564	(24)
28.	(1)	130.315	Universe Examiners	81.672.690	(22)
29.	(4)	125.389	Team NIPPON	58.773.006	(32)
30.	(4)	125.105	Ars Technica	95.563.718	(16)
31.	(1)	122.197	BOINC SETI@home RUSSIA	58.649.592	(33)
32.	(3)	121.593	Boone Community School District - Iowa	36.636.164	(49)
33.	(5)	118.593	BOINC@Poland	41.814.317	(43)
34.	(3)	109.326	Elite Games	36.423.974	(51)
	More...

Teams Overall Top 15
pos		total	team	daily
1.	()	547.489.719	SETI.USA	1.447.602	(1)
17.	()	91.047.727	Team China	254.874	(11)
18.	()	88.367.413	SETI@Taiwan �x�W�ζ�	190.897	(17)
19.	()	86.970.767	Team Starfire World BOINC	260.645	(10)
20.	()	85.058.479	TeAm AnandTech	194.596	(15)
21.	()	82.765.832	Phoenix Rising	186.203	(19)
22.	()	81.672.690	Universe Examiners	130.315	(28)
23.	()	70.954.059	Canada	183.690	(20)
24.	()	68.391.564	Dutch Power Cows	131.135	(27)
25.	()	65.991.272	Amateur Radio Operators	138.134	(25)
26.	()	64.411.303	UK BOINC Team	182.935	(21)
27.	()	63.804.694	AUSTRIA - NATIONAL - TEAM	145.734	(24)
28.	()	63.744.511	US NAVY	187.926	(18)
29.	()	63.221.618	PC Perspective Killer Frogs	101.684	(37)
30.	()	61.802.660	Hewlett-Packard	96.887	(39)
31.	()	59.120.674	BOINC@AUSTRALIA	136.458	(26)
	More...

Megaflush Top 5
pos	Team	Flush	Date
1.	[DPC]TeamGrazzie	553.056	04-01-2008
2.	chelloo.com	261.227	09-01-2008
3.	[DPC]Spinpoint	174.423	14-06-2007
4.	REISinformatiegroep	165.307	18-04-2007
5.	hansR	124.717	18-04-2007
More...

Mijlpalen

[DPC] Switch	900.000
Freakandel	100.000
winwiz	60.000
Bas Scholts (MueR)	20.000
Robin Deurloo	10.000
DJ_darklord	9.000
DPC-Postman	6.000
Ramon	6.000
Apollo13	5.000
Job	5.000
Sanchezzz	5.000
Martijn Kleintjens	4.000
Billy the K	2.000
Fred Verbaan	750

When do you get them

Team	Average	Days
BOINC.Italy	69.115	629

SETI@Home Links
SETI@Home webpage
SETI@Home forum
DPCH Suggestiepagina
Bron

[ Voor 255% gewijzigd door Verwijderd op 17-03-2008 10:10 ]

[Black Piet]

Liz, dank voor de stats.

Was enige dagen weg naar het land van de koekoeks klokken om te gaan sneeuwhappen. Beetje fout gegaan, maar kan gelukkig wel doorgaan met crunchen.

Wie gaan er hier (van Team Grazzie) eigenlijk meedoen met de stampede? Zag alleen dat APCIII gaat meedoen.... Nog andere teams?

[Verwijderd]

Black Piet schreef op maandag 17 maart 2008 @ 11:13:
Liz, dank voor de stats.

Was enige dagen weg naar het land van de koekoeks klokken om te gaan sneeuwhappen. Beetje fout gegaan, maar kan gelukkig wel doorgaan met crunchen.

Wie gaan er hier (van Team Grazzie) eigenlijk meedoen met de stampede? Zag alleen dat APCIII gaat meedoen.... Nog andere teams?

Ik niet, heb maar 1 koe draaien op dit moment vanwege migratie naar Vista toe.
Dus zal niet genoeg kracht kunnen bijzetten.

naar iedereeen offcourse

[Red Lion]

Verwijderd schreef op maandag 17 maart 2008 @ 09:40:
Ochtendwijsheid
De stats voor 10:00uur posten, zodat we überhaupt kunnen reageren!

Amen to that!

En uiteraard felicitaties voor de volledige lijst aan paalhalers! Switch zit bijna op de Meloen. Gaat daarna TG weer een keer op 1 staan?

[APClll]

Dat vroeg posten helpt wel! Ik tel nu al meer reacties dan gisteren de hele dag!

Maar natuurlijk zijn de stats niet compleet zonder quote. Gisteren had ik er een gevonden van een jaar oud. Daar kan ik natuurlijk niet nog een keer mee aan komen. Daarom, nu een quote van 2008!

Voor de mensen met weinig tijd, lees alleen de onderste alinea. Daar kun je lezen of je boven- of ondergemiddeld scoort

quote: http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=45024

Posted 29 Jan 2008 0:22:47 UTC
It's been a while again. One of my new year's resolutions is to post more frequently. A lot has happened since the last time I posted. The winter funding drive, working on the version 6.0 SETI@home application (which is in beta with few problems), continued work on adding the database structures to support the NTPCKR, etc. I went to a depressing American Astronomical Society conference in Austin (depressing because of the NASA and NSF funding situations) where I picked up a nasty flu which had me laid out for a week, and from which my lungs are still recovering. And the information cascade failure we call the U.S. presidential primary system has begun. To top it all off, last weekend one of our cats died. But, by request, I'm going to talk about something else entirely. This is also going to be long-winded. There's a lot of back-story and more issues than can really be fully explored, but I want to get it all down somewhere accessible.

There was a bit of a uproar in the last couple weeks about BOINC credit system and possible changes to it. It's not the first time, and it won't be the last time it comes up. And every time it comes up, there will be people who get angry because they feel the change will be bad for them.

The BOINC credit system is a sort of artificial economic system. I'm not an economist, and I've never taken a class on economics, so I know very little about economic systems. So I may get some details of this wrong.

In the BOINC credit system, credits take the place of money. Projects pay you for your CPU time in credits, and with your credits, you buy bragging rights or ranking in a list. It seems somewhat odd to me, but there are people who run BOINC only for the purpose of earning credits and who will change projects to maximize their earnings.

In an ideal world, a BOINC credit would be equal to a fixed amount of work actually done. This would be the equivalent of the Gold standard, where the supply of money is fixed by the amount of gold. In this case the amount of BOINC credit is set by the amount of work that the machines running BOINC do. But of course the world isn't ideal. It's actually very difficult to measure the actual amount of work done by an application program. It's also difficult to define exactly what work is. On the other hand it's fairly easy for the BOINC application to approximate the maximum amount of work that a processor is capable of doing.

So when BOINC started, the general means of granting credit was to multiply the measurement of maximum work capability time the CPU time used. This has several problems... Different versions of BOINC give different estimates of maximum work capability and processors have different efficiencies. That means that different machines would claim different amounts of credit for the same amount of work. That's the equivalent of using gold coins with an unknown percentage of gold in them. The other problem is that some people use applications optimized for their specific processor, which can be much faster than a generalized application. These machines would ask for less credit than they were owed. It led to a lot of complaints about people being granted too much or too little credit.

There was also a problem when we released updated, more highly optimized applications. Run times decreased and therefore granted credits decreased for the same amount of work. For people running the stock application, this was hardly noticed, since they got roughly the same amount of credit per day. People running optimized applications which had been 8X as fast as the generic stock application were now only running applications that were 2X or 3X as fast as the stock application. Their rate of credit accumulation went down because of it and some of them got angry and left the project. Let that sink in... Some people left the project because the project had become more efficient. In economic terms, optimizing the stock application when granting credit based upon CPU time is deflationary. Less credit is granted for the same amount of work. Deflation is considered a "bad thing" for multiple reasons.

So we modified the application to grant a specific amount of credit for each floating point operation in the application, essentially moving back toward the gold standard. To keep the rate of granted credit roughly constant for the same machine, we instituted a multiplier that would set the number of credits each floating point operation generated. That was released without much problem, aside from some complaints from people whose rates went down by 10 to 20%. There were as many people whose rates went up by 10 to 20%, but they didn't complain.

But more optimizations were incorporated into the application. At first, in the beta project, we didn't change the credit multiplier. That made the rate at which credits were being granted go up. I started to see complaints from other projects, and users that ran multiple projects that the SETI beta was granting more credit per day than other projects on the same machine. When granting constant credit per unit work, optimizing the application is inflationary. If something wasn't done, other projects would start increasing the amount of credit they granted to match.

An even worse possibility is that projects would start increasing the amount of credit they grant as a means of attracting crunchers. In this case the "money supply" is not fixed by any mechanism. There is nothing that physically prevents a project from granting 10X, 100X, or a million times as much credit per CPU second as SETI@home does. To combat this potential for hyper-inflation, there is an unwritten agreement among BOINC projects that we will strive to achieve credit parity. That is to say, a specific machine should generate the same number of credits per day whether it runs SETI@home, Einstein@home, or Rosetta@home. That allows volunteers to base their decisions of which projects to support based upon the goals of the project, rather than the amount of credit they grant.

Of course this isn't perfect either. Every time we release a new version of SETI@home, we need to adjust the credit multiplier. That takes quite a bit of work, and even then it isn't perfect. Right now SETI@home is granting 10 to 15% more credit than it should. The credit granted per CPU time also varies depending upon the details of the work unit. Neither of these problems will be solved before SETI@home version 6 is released. Maybe not even then. It would be nice if there were some sort of automation for determining the credit multiplier on the fly.

A couple weeks ago, David posted a message to the boinc_projects mailing list requesting that projects normalize the amount of credit they grant to SETI@home. Some of the projects were granting 75% of the credit SETI@home does. Others were granting up to 3 times as much credit as SETI@home does. Since new BOINC projects come along all of the time, the managers of these projects may not have been aware of the informal agreement to maintain credit parity. It appears that most, if not all projects, will do so. I think all of the project managers understand the potential for credit inflation, and understand that it would be damaging to the projects and to BOINC overall. Some people, especially those that had migrated to high credit projects in order to maximize the number of credits they earn, felt that David's request was an unwarranted ultimatum intended to coerce projects into compliance. While I understand that David could have used more diplomatic language, I don't think that the message was an ultimatum, because David really doesn't hold enough power to drive compliance.

I ask those that have complained that previously high credit projects will reduce their credit multipliers to understand that BOINC credits have value because they represent an amount of work that can be compared. Credit inflation destroys that value. If I were to raise the SETI@home credit multiplier by a factor of 10, the credits you have earned so far will lose 90% of their value. Someone could earn the same number of credits in a tenth of the time. Other BOINC projects would probably be forced to raise their credit multipliers, in order to retain the "I crunch for credit" crowd. Of course some projects will attempt to retaliate against SETI@home by increasing theirs by a factor of 20. Very soon after that, BOINC credits would lose all value and meaning. Cross project comparisons become impossible.

Shortly after his first message, David released a credit proposal that would address some of these issues. Like all proposals, it has good features and it has bad features. I doubt that it will be implemented in anything close to its present form. The essence of the proposal is "In any project, the average machine should receive 100 credits per day if it participates full time."

There are some benefits to this proposal. First, a project can determine its credit multiplier without referencing other projects. All that needs to be done is to figure out how many credits per day the average machine gets and adjust the multiplier higher or lower to achieve 100. This could even be automated in the BOINC server software. That's less work for me to do manually, so I'm all for that.

The proposed scheme contains incentive to work on non-competing projects as they become available. For example an average machine could earn 100 credits per day running a CPU intensive project like SETI@home, while simultaneously earning 100 credits per day running a storage project, and 100 credits per day running a network intensive project.

There are also some fairly major drawbacks, and that is why I think it won't be implemented as is. First, it's immediately deflationary. The average host that connected to SETI@home today earns 292 credits per day, which is significantly more than 100. There would be strong (perhaps irresistible) demand for projects to keep their current credit scheme for as long as possible.

Second, it's deflationary over time. If Moore's law holds, the average host a year from now will earn 470 credits per day. So under the proposed credit scheme a host that earns 100 credits per day today would earn about 62 credits per day a year from now. It violates the idea that was implicit in earlier credit schemes, equal credit for equal work.

But in order to have an better scheme implemented, its incumbent upon the projects, and therefore me, to propose something that has the same benefits without the drawbacks. I'm thinking about it now. Ideas are welcomed.

EDIT: I forgot to include number of processors in my average credit per day calculation. The average host currently earns 535 credits per day not 292. The average host has 1.65 processors.