What is the highest # of claimed credit you have seen? I was poking around today and found this one.

http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/results.php?hostid=370326

8082198 1647046 15 Sep 2004 3:56:07 UTC 16 Sep 2004 13:29:41 UTC Over Success Done 66,923.07 266.00 39.93

---

<img src="http://boinc.mundayweb.com/seti2/stats.php?userID=2259&amp;team=off">

> What is the highest # of claimed credit you have seen? I was poking around
> today and found this one.
>
> http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/results.php?hostid=370326
>

How's this one:
21706005 5628729 8 Dec 2004 20:03:52 UTC 11 Dec 2004 3:48:55 UTC Over Success Done 14,977.63 29.77 (50.22)

It's my own!

L8R....

---

My Time: Friday, 31 December 2004 - 11:26 PM --800 (Pacific Standard Time)

EDIT:
Ooops! "Claimed credit", not granted credit. I'll have to re-check my results.
/EDIT:

My Time: Friday, 31 December 2004 - 11:33 PM --800 (Pacific Standard Time)

---

CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr - L L & P _\\//
Winders 11 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath

Mine was 25.08

Ok, here's my highest:

23292489 6117464 16 Dec 2004 6:38:21 UTC 18 Dec 2004 15:19:06 UTC Over Success Done 15,252.36 (30.07) 30.07

Did you happen to see the CPU time for that WU?

8082198 1647046 15 Sep 2004 3:56:07 UTC 16 Sep 2004 13:29:41 UTC Over Success Done (66,923.07) 266.00 39.93

Maybe it pays to crunch with a slower PC. ;-)

L8R....

---

My Time: Friday, 31 December 2004 - 11:40 PM --800 (Pacific Standard Time)
(20min 'till the New Year....)

---

CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr - L L & P _\\//
Winders 11 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath

Well, it took him 67000 seconds to crunch it. My laptop takes about 7 hours/wu and claims around 70 credits. I'd like to reduce the proccesing time (and also claimed credits), but I don't know how..

---

<img src="http://www.boincstats.com/stats/banner.php?cpid=d2319b8f0ad14565556d0ba45b64e779">

> > What is the highest # of claimed credit you have seen? I was poking
> around
> > today and found this one.
> >
> > http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/results.php?hostid=370326
> >

Best I got (recently) was:

21591780 5600486 8 Dec 2004 8:21:06 UTC 9 Dec 2004 23:40:17 UTC Over Success Done 25,332.61 92.23 41.33


This was done on a non-overclocked Pentium 4 3.06GHz (non-HT), w/512Mb (although it is running Win98SE, which might be skewing the timing results - think I read somewhere that there was a Win98 "bug" - but my benchmarks are 1602 Whetstones and 4826 Dhrystones).

I also regularly get claimed credits in the 60,'s, 70's and 80's, such as:

26064360 6959232 29 Dec 2004 9:24:18 UTC 1 Jan 2005 12:01:04 UTC Over Success Done 22,044.88 82.02 pending

EDIT
reduced list length to make msg loading quicker
/EDIT

What really cheeses me off, is that the credit given is so much lower than that claimed.....!


Happy New Year to all crunchers.
Timbo

---

regards,
Tim
Founder, UK BOINC Team
Join us @ UK BOINC Team: http://www.ukboincteam.org.uk/newforum

>
> Best I got (recently) was:
>
> 21591780 5600486 8 Dec 2004 8:21:06 UTC 9 Dec 2004 23:40:17 UTC Over Success
> Done 25,332.61 92.23 41.33
>
>
> This was done on a non-overclocked Pentium 4 3.06GHz (non-HT), w/512Mb
> (although it is running Win98SE, which might be skewing the timing results -
> think I read somewhere that there was a Win98 "bug" - but my benchmarks are
> 1602 Whetstones and 4826 Dhrystones).
>
> I also regularly get claimed credits in the 60,'s, 70's and 80's, such as:
>
> 26064360 6959232 29 Dec 2004 9:24:18 UTC 1 Jan 2005 12:01:04 UTC Over Success
> Done 22,044.88 82.02 pending
>
> 25657769 6837498 27 Dec 2004 12:56:34 UTC 30 Dec 2004 2:02:42 UTC Over Success
> Done 21,664.09 76.52 pending
>
> 25657766 6837497 27 Dec 2004 12:56:34 UTC 29 Dec 2004 19:36:32 UTC Over
> Success Done 21,603.05 76.30 pending
>
> 25657765 6837496 27 Dec 2004 12:56:34 UTC 29 Dec 2004 13:36:57 UTC Over
> Success Done 21,005.82 74.19 pending
>
> 24678622 6538877 22 Dec 2004 20:01:44 UTC 28 Dec 2004 11:50:49 UTC Over
> Success Done 21,603.04 76.30 pending
>
> 24678620 6538883 22 Dec 2004 20:01:44 UTC 28 Dec 2004 9:44:46 UTC Over Success
> Done 21,596.45 76.28 40.44
>
> 24678570 6538866 22 Dec 2004 20:01:44 UTC 27 Dec 2004 23:08:01 UTC Over
> Success Done 22,581.63 79.76 40.43
>
> 24678511 6538847 22 Dec 2004 20:01:44 UTC 28 Dec 2004 20:36:51 UTC Over
> Success Done 21,977.96 77.63 31.68
>
> 23863955 6290051 19 Dec 2004 0:08:52 UTC 20 Dec 2004 11:24:32 UTC Over Success
> Done 21,603.05 72.77 50.90
>
> 23863953 6290053 19 Dec 2004 0:08:52 UTC 19 Dec 2004 22:18:28 UTC Over Success
> Done 21,603.02 72.77 44.27
>
> 23863950 6290046 19 Dec 2004 0:08:52 UTC 20 Dec 2004 9:02:14 UTC Over Success
> Done 21,604.00 72.78 58.26
>
> What really cheeses me off, is that the credit given is so much lower than
> that claimed.....!
>
>
> Happy New Year to all crunchers.
> Timbo
>
>

the problem is not that you are getting less than you claim,

the actual problem is that you are claiming more than twice what you should for the work performed.

a normal workunit should get in the 25-35 range

you are driving a P4 3.06 machine and taking more than 6 hrs per work unit.

you should be near 3 hrs probably slightly less.

Do you really believe that you should recieve double the score because you are doing something to make the processing of a workunit less efficient and taking more than twice the amount of time you should?

Z

---

<img src="http://www.boincstats.com/stats/banner.php?cpid=e16795c0df46cd9701574ad087f14cf9">

> >
> >
>
> the problem is not that you are getting less than you claim,
>
> the actual problem is that you are claiming more than twice what you should
> for the work performed.
>
> a normal workunit should get in the 25-35 range
>
> you are driving a P4 3.06 machine and taking more than 6 hrs per work unit.
>
> you should be near 3 hrs probably slightly less.
>
> Do you really believe that you should recieve double the score because you are
> doing something to make the processing of a workunit less efficient and taking
> more than twice the amount of time you should?
>


What arrogance and so very helpful....NOT!

You are of course making the assumption that I am running SETI/BOINC 100% (eg as a sole project).

In my case, on this PC, I am ALSO running CPDN (and until recently) LHC.

Hence my WU's DO take longer as they are being "switched" from one project to another every 60 minutes (which is the default).

As it happens, each SETI WU completes in under 3 hours of actual crunching time, but due to a 50/50 split with CPDN, so it takes nearer to 6 hours to complete.

I can't help it if BOINC cannot work out the calculations properly with regards to the timings on my (or other crunchers) Win98SE boxes....(eg when SETI is 'paused' (while working on CPDN), my SETI project CPU time continues to increase - vice versa with CPDN paused as well!)


Timbo

---

regards,
Tim
Founder, UK BOINC Team
Join us @ UK BOINC Team: http://www.ukboincteam.org.uk/newforum

> > >
> > >
> >
> > the problem is not that you are getting less than you claim,
> >
> > the actual problem is that you are claiming more than twice what you
> should
> > for the work performed.
> >
> > a normal workunit should get in the 25-35 range
> >
> > you are driving a P4 3.06 machine and taking more than 6 hrs per work
> unit.
> >
> > you should be near 3 hrs probably slightly less.
> >
> > Do you really believe that you should recieve double the score because
> you are
> > doing something to make the processing of a workunit less efficient and
> taking
> > more than twice the amount of time you should?
> >
>
>
> What arrogance and so very helpful....NOT!
>
> You are of course making the assumption that I am running SETI/BOINC 100% (eg
> as a sole project).
>
> In my case, on this PC, I am ALSO running CPDN (and until recently) LHC.
>
> Hence my WU's DO take longer as they are being "switched" from one
> project to another every 60 minutes (which is the default).
>
> As it happens, each SETI WU completes in under 3 hours of actual crunching
> time, but due to a 50/50 split with CPDN, so it takes nearer to 6 hours to
> complete.
>
> I can't help it if BOINC cannot work out the calculations properly with
> regards to the timings on my (or other crunchers) Win98SE boxes....(eg when
> SETI is 'paused' (while working on CPDN), my SETI project CPU time continues
> to increase - vice versa with CPDN paused as well!)
>
>
> Timbo
>

the numbers you posted indicate approx 21,000 seconds PROCESSING (not elapsed) time which is around SIX hours

z

---

<img src="http://www.boincstats.com/stats/banner.php?cpid=e16795c0df46cd9701574ad087f14cf9">

> I can't help it if BOINC cannot work out the calculations properly with
> regards to the timings on my (or other crunchers) Win98SE boxes....(eg when
> SETI is 'paused' (while working on CPDN), my SETI project CPU time continues
> to increase - vice versa with CPDN paused as well!)
>
>
> Timbo
>

OT:

So you yourself say it actually only takes 3 hours per seti WU but you think you should get the extra credit because the time continues counting when in another project? Hmmm interesting... Next week I'm going to start taking 4 hour lunch breaks and continue claiming a full 8 hour work day! I mean I am still "at work" and the clock is still running.

Now back on topic:

Did you notice the title of this thread?

"Highest # of claimed credit"

And my opening question was...

"What is the highest # of claimed credit you have seen?"

Not show me/us a LIST of your claimed credits then piss and moan about granted credit!

---

<img src="http://boinc.mundayweb.com/seti2/stats.php?userID=2259&amp;team=off">

wrzwaldo - not sure if i'm looking in the right place, but i'm showing 16,622 and change. but my sig doesn't match. slow to catch up maybe?

Perfessor

---

<img src="http://boinc.mundayweb.com/seti2/stats.php?userID=2166&amp;trans=off"> <img src="http://www.boincstats.com/stats/teambanner.php?teamname=Sail%20Away">

> What is the highest # of claimed credit you have seen? I was poking around
> today and found this one.
>
> http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/results.php?hostid=370326
>
> 8082198 1647046 15 Sep 2004 3:56:07 UTC 16 Sep 2004 13:29:41 UTC Over
> Success Done 66,923.07 266.00 39.93
==========

Yes, I remember seeing that one myself in the guys account, if I remember correctly the guy was in the forum complaining about not getting the credit he claimed too ...

> >
>
> the numbers you posted indicate approx 21,000 seconds PROCESSING (not elapsed)
> time which is around SIX hours
>


Win98SE boxes do NOT show processing time - they show ELAPSED time - this is a known bug in the OS when using BOINC.

(Try it yourself on a Win98SE box - even though a WU is "paused" the time continues...!)

T.

Edit
Just found the link to a previous thread on this subject - there's bound to be others !:

click here

---

regards,
Tim
Founder, UK BOINC Team
Join us @ UK BOINC Team: http://www.ukboincteam.org.uk/newforum

>
> OT:
>
> So you yourself say it actually only takes 3 hours per seti WU but you think
> you should get the extra credit because the time continues counting when in
> another project? Hmmm interesting... Next week I'm going to start taking 4
> hour lunch breaks and continue claiming a full 8 hour work day! I mean I am
> still "at work" and the clock is still running.


Nope - not once have I actually said "I want more credit coz I'm getting less than claimed."

I can live with the fact that some WU's I crunch end up with less than what is claimed.


But it would be nice for the project (as a whole) if the credits stacked up better and similar units on similar OS and similar CPU's produced similar credits.

Now that would be fairer.

Tim

---

regards,
Tim
Founder, UK BOINC Team
Join us @ UK BOINC Team: http://www.ukboincteam.org.uk/newforum

> Now back on topic:
>
> Did you notice the title of this thread?
>
> "Highest # of claimed credit"
>
> And my opening question was...
>
> "What is the highest # of claimed credit you have seen?"
>
> Not show me/us a LIST of your claimed credits then piss and moan about granted
> credit!
>

All I listed was a few WU's showing High # of credit, which is what the original question asked (and that was substantiated by a short list of other WU's).

So, I sort of did answer (but in a "fuller" way).

What else did you expect? Someone to say "I claimed a credit of 5004.67 on a WU" and to then not back it up.


Jeez, you can't please some people....


Have a Happy New Year anyways.

Tim

---

regards,
Tim
Founder, UK BOINC Team
Join us @ UK BOINC Team: http://www.ukboincteam.org.uk/newforum

> > >
> >
> > the numbers you posted indicate approx 21,000 seconds PROCESSING (not
> elapsed)
> > time which is around SIX hours
> >
>
>
> Win98SE boxes do NOT show processing time - they show ELAPSED time - this is a
> known bug in the OS when using BOINC.
>
> (Try it yourself on a Win98SE box - even though a WU is "paused" the time
> continues...!)
>
> T.
>
> Edit
> Just found the link to a previous thread on this subject - there's bound to be
> others !:
>
click
here
>

Upgrade to WinXP Home/Pro and take advantage of the Hyper-Threading technology built into you fast CPU. I'm sure you CPU time per WU will drop significantly. Plus, you can do a SETI WU and CPDN WU at the same time with the HT enabled, no switching between the 2.

L8R....

---

My Time: Sunday, 02 January 2005 - 11:04 AM --800 (Pacific Standard Time)

---

CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr - L L & P _\\//
Winders 11 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath

> >
>
> the numbers you posted indicate approx 21,000 seconds PROCESSING (not elapsed)
> time which is around SIX hours
>

Hey "Z".


Try this for size - the following is a result I sent in today:


Result ID Host Sent Time Server state Outcome Client CPU time (sec) claimed credit granted credit
26064365 80362 29 Dec 2004 9:24:18 UTC 2 Jan 2005 11:30:27 UTC Over Success Done 19,203.03 71.45 pending


And this is the processing report via BOINC:

SETI@home - 2005-01-02 05:47:49 - Starting result 23ap04ab.24858.25185.504824.243_0 using setiathome version 4.08
SETI@home - 2005-01-02 06:47:49 - Pausing result 23ap04ab.24858.25185.504824.243_0 (left in memory)
SETI@home - 2005-01-02 10:47:50 - Resuming result 23ap04ab.24858.25185.504824.243_0 using setiathome version 4.08
SETI@home - 2005-01-02 11:25:15 - Computation for result 23ap04ab.24858.25185.504824.243 finished


As you can see:
Total "actual" processing time: 60 mins plus 37 mins 25 seconds = 97m 25s = 5,845 seconds

Total "claimed" processing time: 11:25:15 less 05:47:49 = 5h 37m 26s = 20,246 seconds


Did you notice the disparity?

So, not only can't BOINC calculate my actual processing time right, even Win98SE can't pause a process properly either....!

And I can't help it if the BOINC credit system is based upon the "claimed" processing time.


Tim

PS Of course, as BOINC uses some sort of "toss the high and low and average the middle scores" scheme, so if other Win98SE (and other 9x family OS) are crunching the same WU as me, I WIN, because all of our claimed credits (for this WU) would be higher and I'll get MORE than you!!!

---

regards,
Tim
Founder, UK BOINC Team
Join us @ UK BOINC Team: http://www.ukboincteam.org.uk/newforum

>
> Upgrade to WinXP Home/Pro and take advantage of the Hyper-Threading technology
> built into you fast CPU. I'm sure you CPU time per WU will drop
> significantly. Plus, you can do a SETI WU and CPDN WU at the same time with
> the HT enabled, no switching between the 2.
>
> L8R....
>
> ---
>
> My Time: Sunday, 02 January 2005 - 11:04 AM --800 (Pacific Standard Time)
>
>

Hi Siran,

Thanks for your kind suggestion.

Sadly we live in a world where the US thinks it can rule the world.

Software in US might be damn cheap, but in UK, Win XP Pro costs about GBP150 to GBP180 (or about $250 to $300). Hell, some UK dealers are selling it for GBP270 ($500 !!)

see here.

I know I could get an upgrade version cheaper, but it's still GBP100 to GBP150.


Likewise, I'll need to change the mobo for a type that'll support HT and I'll probably need some dual channel RAM and a new HD and........


So, while it's kinda nice of you to put forward your views, I'll pass for now, especially as I'm kinda holding out for a half decent Linux software package that enable me to drop MS totally.


Tim

---

regards,
Tim
Founder, UK BOINC Team
Join us @ UK BOINC Team: http://www.ukboincteam.org.uk/newforum

> > ....
>
> Hi Siran,
>
> Thanks for yor kind suggestion.
>
> Sadly we live in a world where the US thinks it can rule the world.
>
> Software in US might be damn cheap, but in UK, Win XP Pro costs about GBP150
> to GBP180 (or about $250 to $300). Hell, some UK dealers are selling it for
> GBP270 ($500 !!)
>
see
here.
>
> I know I could get an upgrade version cheaper, but it's still GBP100 to
> GBP150.
>
> So, while it's kinda nice of you to put forward your views, I'll pass for now,
> especially as I'm kinda holding out for a half decent Linux software package
> that enable me to drop MS totally.
>
>
> Tim
>

WinXP Home works just fine with the HT and is less expensive even by UK standards. I got mine (full version) for about $100 U$. And, I believe it's Micro$oft that is trying to rule the world. ;-)

L8R....

---

My Time: Sunday, 02 January 2005 - 11:32 AM --800 (Pacific Standard Time)

---

CAPT Siran d'Vel'nahr - L L & P _\\//
Winders 11 OS? "What a piece of junk!" - L. Skywalker
"Logic is the cement of our civilization with which we ascend from chaos using reason as our guide." - T'Plana-hath

> > >
> >
> > the numbers you posted indicate approx 21,000 seconds PROCESSING (not
> elapsed)
> > time which is around SIX hours
> >


Subtitled: Making a mockery of claimed credits:


OK, just to prove how silly the current credit scheme is for SETI/BOINC, as a short term experiment, I've now changed my SETI/CPDN resource settings to 20%/80%

As a result, my lovely 3Ghz P4 now produces claimed credits such as:


Result ID: 26064368
Work Unit ID: 80362
Sent: 29 Dec 2004 9:24:18 UTC
Time reported: 3 Jan 2005 8:59:53 UTC
Server state: Over
Outcome: Success
Client state: Done
CPU time (sec): 55,201.00
claimed credit: 205.38
granted credit: 43.26


Next task - change the resource split to 10%/90% and see if I can claim even higher credits......!


And all because BOINC doesn't fully support Win98SE (or is it the other way around ???)

Tim

---

regards,
Tim
Founder, UK BOINC Team
Join us @ UK BOINC Team: http://www.ukboincteam.org.uk/newforum