More Stars ???
log in |
Message boards : Number crunching : More Stars ???
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
I am not one of those with 1000's of computers, but I do run about a dozen older systems in my home. The key is to find resources everywhere possible. (With permission or rights to do so of course) Over the years I have had several borged machines come and go that have added probably over double the contribution I would have done on my own. Anyone could do that if they just made the effort. I have even exchanged free labor for the promise to run BOINC when idle. I never install it without permission though. I am even donating computers to friends/family/needy that have it loaded on there. They are usually happy to leave it on there in exchange for the free PC. | |
ID: 1465 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote | |
While I agree that any badge system should appeal to everyone, and I like a challenge, I would't like to only have a RAC based badge system; I concentrate on a few projects and for the rest I'm quite nomadic. One problem with a would be RAC system is that it would favor continuous even contribution over intermittent, but some projects/apps/research is inherently intermittent, so such a system would have the undesired effect of being project-biased. | |
ID: 1466 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote | |
Many of the hard core DC'ers purchase high end equipment with multiple GPU's and multiple processors. I know there are individuals on my team that have multiple quad socket setups. Most of them run FAH instead of BOINC. When each processor has 16 cores, you can get some pretty good production out with a single system. Yep, three users on my team run multi-processor setups (quad Opteron 6272s, and two dual-Opteron 6278s with two spare CPU sockets for upgrades), and a fourth just should have his quad 6178 system arrive today. That being said, systems like that are (as you've addressed), VASTLY better on Folding@Home than BOINC, due to the multi-threaded processing capabilities of F@H, and the quick-return bonus. The quad-6272 system ran MilkyWay@Home for a few days to test it out, but it was decided that it was pretty much just a waste of resources and that BOINC is better to run on low-to-mid range computers, with high-end computers on F@H. Of course, this isn't the case for everyone, but as you've addressed, it is for the majority. So, for the average Joe, the current badge system probably is enough as is. But there are many who need the challenge. I don't care what time measurement they go with as long as it includes everyone. I also would hate to see badges disappear even temporarily because of the complaining that would follow. People don't take that well. Do you believe that my proposed system does not include everyone? Seeing as it reduced the requirements for every current step, as well as adding a particularly easy badge for newbies, I feel like it's significantly more inclusive than the current one. Similarly, for those who need the challenge... Well, get back to me when you have over 5000 years of run time and I'll happily agree to extend the badges again. I for one would prefer to see someone come up with a badge system that you can have degrading badges. That way to maintain it, you have to keep active. Since using points only works when comparing one project, I don't think basing such a badge on RAC would work here. So, the only way that idea would work with run time is by removing apps as they are ended at projects. Again, this kind of badge would only have a small following and would need to have been instituted from the get go. Just a random rambling thought. :) While this is a nice idea in theory, in practice it's just irritating and confusing. I've experimented with custom-made stats based on RAC, and it's just really unwieldy.
I would heavily recommend against splitting up the ring, that would just be way too small and finnicky (and, let's admit it, one-fifth of the ring would be a pretty shitty badge). 9 stars would cover 180 apps, which will keep us covered for quite a long time. As I explained in my first post here, any more than 120 apps for a badge right now is a pretty bad idea. Maybe if/when it's necessary to increase that, we could use a different shape? | |
ID: 1468 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote | |
9 stars will not keep all of us covered for even a very short time! | |
ID: 1472 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote | |
Yes, zombie is probably only 6 months to a year away from having 9 possible stars, but remember, he would then have to get them all up to 5 years of runtime. That would last quite a bit longer. | |
ID: 1473 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote | |
We don't "have to get them all up to 5 years of runtime" - we can run for as long as we choose, if we have the opportunity; lots of apps won't be around long enough. Plenty of Beta apps will run once, and you may only get 1WU, never mind 100 or 5000h worth! Some Beta apps will reach 100h, some 500h but many will fall way short of 100h:
physics@home coherence film sintering nano 0.37 0.00 (and I think this isn't even a Beta app) Constellation Scilab Alpha Test 0.07 0.00 I probably have 10apps under 100h that I will never get another WU for, and probably another 10apps that I have over 100h (and some over 5000h) that I will never get another WU for, simply because the app has been deprecated. | |
ID: 1474 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote | |
Sellyme, I'm not saying your proposal is a bad one. I'm not really targeting your idea specifically at all. I think the badge system needs to incorporate both higher run time limits and accommodate for a larger number of apps. What Skgiven points out about abandoned apps and alpha/beta is certainly a concern. I would like a way to filter out such apps just for convenience if nothing else. At least if they did not make the first badge cut anyways. That way I don't have to read through them every time I'm looking through the active apps. The problem would be for the project to know the apps were finished. I don't know if there would be an easy way to do that. | |
ID: 1475 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote | |
Some Beta apps will reach 100h, some 500h but many will fall way short of 100h: And that's exactly why we shouldn't have too many apps on the badges: because it's just frustrating when they're literally impossible to achieve. When they ARE actually possible to achieve, then we can expand them again. That way I don't have to read through them every time I'm looking through the active apps. The problem would be for the project to know the apps were finished. I don't know if there would be an easy way to do that. Personally I think it would be a great idea to have a list somewhere of apps that have returned data in the last week, and that shouldn't be too difficult. | |
ID: 1480 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote | |
Some Beta apps will reach 100h, some 500h but many will fall way short of 100h: Impossible for who? From the outset it would be impossible to ascertain who can attain which levels for different apps. Z might be able to get 50K, Coleslaw might be able to reach 10K, I might reach 2.5K and others won't make it to 100h. Even during the apps lifetime you would not know how long is left or how many hours each cruncher can contribute. Who's going to decide when an app is deprecated? Then there is the issue of apps being intermittent, or just not being sent to some systems due to WU requirements (some projects need 8GB RAM, others want high bandwidth...). Your system might not get/start work because of what else it's crunching; if you are crunching for one project that uses lots of RAM then another project won't start because the system does not have enough resources. Your system could have a task for days or weeks on but not run it. So is the app active for you, for everyone... It's too much work and far too complex to implement anything like that. Apps not lasting long should be considered a different problem from the number of stars or their level. You don't need to tackle this issue via the badge levels or star count. Doing so is probably the wrong answer. Perhaps apps that don't reach the first badge level could be separated (though they are already at the bottom of the list) and their average used for another star once the total is 2000h. This might still require that they be defined as inactive though. That way I don't have to read through them every time I'm looking through the active apps. The problem would be for the project to know the apps were finished. I don't know if there would be an easy way to do that. I don't think there is an easy way but WUProp@home - Results tell us what's been returned recently and we can also see this by going to http://wuprop.boinc-af.org/hosts_user.php, clicking Activity and then stipulating the time period. Maybe the Results could be used to specify a projects status (active or inactive) and then our apps list could group accordingly, however this might change things in a way some people won't like. I would prefer if we could just have the row highlighted a different way for active or inactive work, and keep the order according to the hours completed. Perhaps if we returned work within 24h the app details could be highlighted by one color, if work was returned by others within 24h it could be a different color, if no work was returned in 24h the row could be highlighted as a third color, and a fourth color if no work was returned by anyone in a week. Alternatively the Pending (hours) could just be highlighted. For example,
World Community Grid The Clean Energy Project - Phase 2 2,634.13 0.00 World Community Grid The Clean Energy Project - Phase 2 2,634.13 0.00 World Community Grid The Clean Energy Project - Phase 2 2,634.13 0.00 Here Green means you crunched WU's in the last 24h, amber means others have but you have not, red means no work was completed by anyone for that app in 24h and black means no work was returned by anyone in a week or more. | |
ID: 1482 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote | |
Hopefully the owners of the project. Having a "deprecated" flag for specific apps or projects as part of BOINC's system is sorely needed. Then there is the issue of apps being intermittent, or just not being sent to some systems due to WU requirements (some projects need 8GB RAM, others want high bandwidth...). Your system might not get/start work because of what else it's crunching; if you are crunching for one project that uses lots of RAM then another project won't start because the system does not have enough resources. Your system could have a task for days or weeks on but not run it. So is the app active for you, for everyone... It's too much work and far too complex to implement anything like that. It's possible to buy more RAM or get a server with high bandwidth. It's not (logistically) possible to magically produce another 20-40 apps to get to a badge that necessitates that. Apps not lasting long should be considered a different problem from the number of stars or their level. You don't need to tackle this issue via the badge levels or star count. Doing so is probably the wrong answer. The system is complicated enough as it is, I feel like making it more convoluted would be a bad idea. Perhaps if we returned work within 24h the app details could be highlighted by one color, if work was returned by others within 24h it could be a different color, if no work was returned in 24h the row could be highlighted as a third color, and a fourth color if no work was returned by anyone in a week. I feel like 24 hours is a bit short of a timeframe, how about a week for the first three colours, and a month for the fourth? Sure, for users with dozens or hundreds of computers, you can reliably see what tasks you're active on from 24 hours, but for users running one or two computers, it's difficult to return work in more than 6-8 apps within a 24 hour period, even if you have 20+ active. | |
ID: 1484 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote | |
Still looks to me as the best proposal. And if few crunchers conquer it, they can get a special badge (a big blue star, perhaps)... :-) I'm searching how I could add new badges. | |
ID: 1511 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote | |
I'm searching how I could add new badges. So, some kind of decision has been made? Or you still thinking about something different? | |
ID: 1516 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote | |
I didn't know I was Bragging, I can't seem to Post anything in any Forum without someone suggesting I'm either Bragging or Complaining ... Bye They're almost certainly British then... As far as I'm concerned you can post every day to every forum singing your own praises. Takes effort to do what you've done. I'm running six pathetic machines and I could sit there all day just tweaking away. No idea how much time you must spend. Top effort, mate!! ps. I'm English so I know of what I speak. | |
ID: 1569 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote | |
As we still dont have a decision, here's my idea based on all the bits of all the ideas that I like. | |
ID: 1570 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote | |
KPX said: Edit: I looked at the stats of the largest teams. People, who now have 5 stars, count in single digits. I just looked at the top 400 by Credits and there were 18 with five stars. I have five stars and i'm not even in the top 1,000. | |
ID: 1571 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote | |
Well that total is going up all the time. | |
ID: 1572 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote | |
Also, there are 33 people in the top 200 who have at least one Blue star. These people could be crunching towards higher levels of star if they existed. Some people already have more than 10,000h for 20apps. I've even accumulated 12,000h for my top app. | |
ID: 1573 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote | |
Do we really know how many people have which stars? Or is it only the subset of folks who have turned on exporting that info? How are these numbers being gathered? | |
ID: 1574 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote | |
The Top participants Statistics show 33 people in the top 200 who have at least one Blue star, so going by that alone skgiven is correct. But there's no way of knowing what somebody has attained beyond that that has exporting turned off ... | |
ID: 1575 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote | |
Yeah, I kind of dislike the concept of exporting not being on by default: there's really no good reason for it, and it makes it difficult to make informed discussion on this kind of thing. | |
ID: 1576 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote | |
Message boards :
Number crunching :
More Stars ???