Two days ago my CP credit was arouund 22K and today is around 15K.

why i have more than 6K in negative credit? Can someone tell me?

Greets...

there were many machines getting improper credit due to database errors. I recalculated all credits yesterday so that some may have lost credits, and some may have gained depending on the past database problems. sorry for the confusion.

Looking at the credits for the results from your two computers, 15,000 would seem about right.

There seems to be a gap from 14 Mar to 6 June. What models did you work on in this period?

It is possible you worked on some results that were unfortunately handed out twice. The credit for these has recently been reassigned to whoever got furthest with the model. This seems the fairest system.

I see that few of your models are completing. It may be worth trying some <a href="http://www.climateprediction.net/board/viewtopic.php?t=2126">stability checks</a>.
_______________________________
Visit <a href="http://boinc-doc.net/boinc-wiki/index.php?title=Climateprediction_FAQ">BOINC WIKI</a> for help

And join <a href="http://www.boincsynergy.com/">BOINC Synergy</a> for all the news in one place.

&gt; It is possible you worked on some results that were unfortunately handed out
&gt; twice. The credit for these has recently been reassigned to whoever got
&gt; furthest with the model. This seems the fairest system.

It doesn't seem to work that way in all cases. Have a look at

http://climateapps2.oucs.ox.ac.uk/cpdnboinc/result.php?resultid=872375

This w/u was allocated to two machines. For the first one and a bit phases my machine (321 (187529 after a merge)) sent in the trickle first, after that the other machine (5336) got in the trickle first.

I realised what was happening soon after my trickles stopped being recognised and aborted the model on my machine, leaving it to 5336 to complete.

However, the above result still shows up in my result list and is missing from 5336's result list, even though that is the machine that completed the model. I haven't noticed a drop in my total credits so can only assume that I'm still being, incorrectly, credited for that model.

Ian

<img src='http://www.boincsynergy.com/images/stats/comb-942.jpg'>

&gt; there were many machines getting improper credit due to database errors. I
&gt; recalculated all credits yesterday so that some may have lost credits, and
&gt; some may have gained depending on the past database problems. sorry for the
&gt; confusion.
&gt;

Thanks to all for your concern... and thanks Carl for the clearence note; does mean that work was made unnecesarily? or is just a mistake in the credits assignation?

Greets..

&gt; there were many machines getting improper credit due to database errors. I
&gt; recalculated all credits yesterday so that some may have lost credits, and
&gt; some may have gained depending on the past database problems. sorry for the
&gt; confusion.
&gt;

Carl,

Something weird occured with your last credit calculation. I lost 35,000 credits yesterday and I don't think 13,000 credits for 1 year of crunching 24/7 with a P4-1.6G are realistic.

Greets..

&gt;
&gt; Thanks to all for your concern... and thanks Carl for the clearence note; does
&gt; mean that work was made unnecesarily? or is just a mistake in the credits
&gt; assignation?
&gt;
&gt; Greets..
&gt;

Database problem ment things were running slow and some database actions timed out. There were bugs in BOINC that meant such problems weren't caught. Both of these were fixed pretty quickly for the amount of work needed. The second part isn't CP's fault.

A fair number of WU were sent out twice. Fortunately about 14 out of 15 do not get completed and most fail very quickly. It doesn't matter which computer completes the WU. So the vast majority of these did not result in much unnecessary duplicated work. Unfortunately there was some.
_______________________________
Visit <a href="http://boinc-doc.net/boinc-wiki/index.php?title=Climateprediction_FAQ">BOINC WIKI</a> for help

And join <a href="http://www.boincsynergy.com/">BOINC Synergy</a> for all the news in one place.

Carl, could you explain a little more what has happened here as I have moved from 138,000 credits down to 54,000. Others in my team have not been touched at all.
I have moved from 3rd to 8th. I cannot help thinking that I am wasting processing time.
If it means that as we go on you will be readjusting the credits in an ad hoc manner whenever you wish, the whole point of credits seems to be losing its purpose. Yes! some of us have a competitive reason for doing this as well as a desire to support research into climate change and what it means for the mankind.
It is true I have not complained when, like on the 28th of July, I suddenly received an extra 6,000 credits for no apparent reason, however I would like to think that you are moving towards a more stable situation with credits.
It would seem to me that if there is a problem with how credits are calculated could you not just fix it for future calculations and leave the all ready credited ones alone to avoid this confusion and frustration. In my case you have cut me down to almost a third of what they were.
Under you current set of rules it seems that arbitrarily you will adjust peoples credits up and down on a whim, and so I intend to move back to seti-at-home and einstein-at-home while you come to sort of resolution of this situation.

I'm not "readjusting credits in an ad-hoc manner" -- the database had some serious problems while I was away and I'm trying to do disaster recovery. The main problem was in people who used the "merge computers" function during the time the database was FUBAR -- their host record was deleted permanently but the update on the result table (to the new, merged id) was never made. I have just added a separate insert into an "audit trail/merged host" table to help prevent this in the future.

I don't see any missing machines for your account, so unless you can point out something specific you probably were just gaining "false" credits due to the database errors from before. Unfortunately it is something that people don't mind when they gain, but if it's then corrected down it seems "bad!"

Carl, many thanks for your efforts to carry out a readjustment of the credits, however:

When am I supposed to have gotten 3591 credits too much??? These are the credits which I miss since yesterday :-(

Are you sure that your adjustment is faultless to yourself? It is after the "adjustment" between November 2004 and January 2005 the second time, that I lost approx. 3500 credits. At that time I still had sense, but this time ...

If this goes on so, I will presumably have to say goodbye. There are many nice other BOINC projects.

Thanks
<img src="http://boinc.mundayweb.com/one/stats.php?userID=317">

Hello Carl:

Something fishy is certainly going on. I just lost about 120,000 credits (from 308316.09 to 189413.07 credits) - not fictitious credits which I have gained improperly, but credits I've actually worked to get. And I don't like that one bit...

Firstly (about 2 days ago) the credits were removed from the machines they were assigned to and reassigned to another machine that never did this work - I could live with that. Then - I only spotted this today - the credits had disappeared completely!

It seems - in my case anyway - that the problem has to do with merged machines. The two machines which lost the 120 grand, have been merged from 2x4 similar machines (I got tired of looking at the long list of machines) and now - all of a sudden - I'm stuck with the original work of the 2 newest machines, loosing the work of the other 2x3 machines that were merged into these two...

The machines were merged about 4 months ago and this has caused no trouble so far - until today that is!

Please correct this matter at your earliest convenience (surely you must have a valid backup from some point within the last 4 months)...

&gt; I'm not "readjusting credits in an ad-hoc manner" -- the database had some
&gt; serious problems while I was away and I'm trying to do disaster recovery. The
&gt; main problem was in people who used the "merge computers" function during the
&gt; time the database was FUBAR -- their host record was deleted permanently but
&gt; the update on the result table (to the new, merged id) was never made. I have
&gt; just added a separate insert into an "audit trail/merged host" table to help
&gt; prevent this in the future.
&gt;
&gt; I don't see any missing machines for your account, so unless you can point out
&gt; something specific you probably were just gaining "false" credits due to the
&gt; database errors from before. Unfortunately it is something that people don't
&gt; mind when they gain, but if it's then corrected down it seems "bad!"
&gt;
&gt;
As I pointed out in my original message, it is important to get the database right but why not just work on getting FUTURE credits right, instead of see-sawing up and down to gain 6,000 one day and lose 84,000 the next.

I see you mention merging machines could be causeing a major problem and certainly I have used that facilty many many times. I of course what not aware it would impose a penalty in the future.
I note you also say that you have fixed that for the future. Are you going to be able to ressurrect credits lost this way?
I find it extrodinary that I could have been the benficiary of 84,000 false credits out of a total of 138,000. I have dedicated six machines to CPDN for close to 12 months and the idea that that only produces 54,000 credits seems hard to beleive. ther minimum spec is an AMD 1800+ with the top machine AMD3000+ 64bit.
I urge you to look again at this issue with a regard to a FAIRER resolution to database issues. Why not roll back to yesterdays situation and ensure the database works correctly from here on????

Hello Carl,

It's me, I'm back, the central scrutinizer ;-)

I just went over the inventory of my machines, and it seems I have lost ALL points from ALL older machines being merged into newer identities. Yes, I said ALL points from ALL older machines!

If this is your best shot at "correcting" the scores and you actually don't have a valid backup from some point in time, I really think you should follow the advice of John Price and "undo" the changes made within the last 24 hours...

Otherwise I trust that you'll get the attention of a lot of unhappy "customers" within the next day or two!

Sweet dreams...

&gt; Hello Carl,
&gt;
&gt; It's me, I'm back, the central scrutinizer ;-)
&gt;
&gt; I just went over the inventory of my machines, and it seems I have lost ALL
&gt; points from ALL older machines being merged into newer identities. Yes, I said
&gt; ALL points from ALL older machines!
&gt;
&gt; If this is your best shot at "correcting" the scores and you actually don't
&gt; have a valid backup from some point in time, I really think you should follow
&gt; the advice of John Price and "undo" the changes made within the last 24
&gt; hours...
&gt;
&gt; Otherwise I trust that you'll get the attention of a lot of unhappy
&gt; "customers" within the next day or two!
&gt;
&gt; Sweet dreams...
&gt;

Could let me know how you go about looking at the inventory of machines as I would like to do the same as you have to see how much I have lost from the merging process?

&gt; As I pointed out in my original message, it is important to get the database
&gt; right but why not just work on getting FUTURE credits right, instead of
&gt; see-sawing up and down to gain 6,000 one day and lose 84,000 the next.

Presumably because they would like all credits right instead of just future ones. Also, in your zeal to hold on to credits you, yourself, acknowledge not to have been fairly earned, you are completely forgetting all the people who were not beneficiaries of such mistakes. They're just ensuring a fair playing field, and I see no reason why they shouldn't fix obvious problems merely because they happened before today. As Carl said, if you have actual results for which you are not receiving credit, mention it to him. Absent that, it's hard to get too worked up over your plight.

&gt; I find it extrodinary that I could have been the benficiary of 84,000 false
&gt; credits out of a total of 138,000. I have dedicated six machines to CPDN for
&gt; close to 12 months and the idea that that only produces 54,000 credits seems
&gt; hard to beleive. ther minimum spec is an AMD 1800+ with the top machine
&gt; AMD3000+ 64bit.

I glanced at your machines, and you've done very little work with them per machine. (I have almost as many credits as your total with *one* computer. and it was off for months when I moved.) When you say you "dedicated six machines for 12 months", including an AMD 3000+ 64 bit, that leaves a different impression in most people's minds than what is listed. That AMD 64 bit hasn't returned a single work unit (although it's progressing on one) even though it's been signed up for over 7 months. It has only produced 53 trickles. The others seem similar. Again, if you're missing results, tell Carl.

&gt; I urge you to look again at this issue with a regard to a FAIRER resolution to
&gt; database issues. Why not roll back to yesterdays situation and ensure the
&gt; database works correctly from here on????

Because people who *did* do the work for all their credits would like to compete on an even playing field. Enjoy your 54,000 credits. That's a lot!
<img border="0" src="http://www.boincstats.com/stats/banner.php?id=2922" />

&gt; &gt; As I pointed out in my original message, it is important to get the
&gt; database
&gt; &gt; right but why not just work on getting FUTURE credits right, instead of
&gt; &gt; see-sawing up and down to gain 6,000 one day and lose 84,000 the next.
&gt;
&gt; Presumably because they would like all credits right instead of just future
&gt; ones. Also, in your zeal to hold on to credits you, yourself, acknowledge not
&gt; to have been fairly earned, you are completely forgetting all the people who
&gt; were not beneficiaries of such mistakes. They're just ensuring a fair playing
&gt; field, and I see no reason why they shouldn't fix obvious problems merely
&gt; because they happened before today. As Carl said, if you have actual results
&gt; for which you are not receiving credit, mention it to him. Absent that, it's
&gt; hard to get too worked up over your plight.
&gt;
&gt; &gt; I find it extrodinary that I could have been the benficiary of 84,000
&gt; false
&gt; &gt; credits out of a total of 138,000. I have dedicated six machines to CPDN
&gt; for
&gt; &gt; close to 12 months and the idea that that only produces 54,000 credits
&gt; seems
&gt; &gt; hard to beleive. ther minimum spec is an AMD 1800+ with the top machine
&gt; &gt; AMD3000+ 64bit.
&gt;
&gt; I glanced at your machines, and you've done very little work with them per
&gt; machine. (I have almost as many credits as your total with *one* computer.
&gt; and it was off for months when I moved.) When you say you "dedicated six
&gt; machines for 12 months", including an AMD 3000+ 64 bit, that leaves a
&gt; different impression in most people's minds than what is listed. That AMD 64
&gt; bit hasn't returned a single work unit (although it's progressing on one) even
&gt; though it's been signed up for over 7 months. It has only produced 53
&gt; trickles. The others seem similar. Again, if you're missing results, tell
&gt; Carl.
&gt;
&gt; &gt; I urge you to look again at this issue with a regard to a FAIRER
&gt; resolution to
&gt; &gt; database issues. Why not roll back to yesterdays situation and ensure
&gt; the
&gt; &gt; database works correctly from here on????
&gt;
&gt; Because people who *did* do the work for all their credits would like to
&gt; compete on an even playing field. Enjoy your 54,000 credits. That's a lot!
&gt; <img border="0" src="http://www.boincstats.com/stats/banner.php?id=2922" />
&gt;

Michael;
1.how many credits did you lose or gain?
2.Have you ever used the merge computers facilty?
3.As far as I am concerned, ALL my credits were correctly gained!!! I DID do the work for the 138,000 credits and it has now been taken off me.
4.As this thread id developing it appears to be a problem with merged Computers. I have had to reinstall Windows on all my machines over the last 6 months, that my friend is why all the machine numbers are 6 figures because they were merged with the older ones. You may note that "Bolton" is the only one left with the original numbers of 952 as this is the only one that I have not renewed Windows. All the others had numbers around this or less as I was one of th first to convert to BOINC platform. All the credits from merged machines appear to be lost. I have also been experimenting with various Linux Distributions and this has been followed by much merging of computers as Linux is not as trouble free as it is made out to be.

I would ask that you supply an answer to 1. and 2. which may add to the information on this issue.

&gt; Michael;
&gt; 1.how many credits did you lose or gain?

None, as far as I can tell.

&gt; 2.Have you ever used the merge computers facilty?

Yes.

&gt; 3.As far as I am concerned, ALL my credits were correctly gained!!! I DID do
&gt; the work for the 138,000 credits and it has now been taken off me.

Then tell them about the results that are missing. I have archived every result I've done, including back to pre-BOINC days.

Michael
<img border="0" src="http://www.boincstats.com/stats/banner.php?id=2922" />

&gt; I'm not "readjusting credits in an ad-hoc manner" -- the database had some
&gt; serious problems while I was away and I'm trying to do disaster recovery. The
&gt; main problem was in people who used the "merge computers" function during the
&gt; time the database was FUBAR -- their host record was deleted permanently but
&gt; the update on the result table (to the new, merged id) was never made. I have
&gt; just added a separate insert into an "audit trail/merged host" table to help
&gt; prevent this in the future.
&gt;
&gt; I don't see any missing machines for your account, so unless you can point out
&gt; something specific you probably were just gaining "false" credits due to the
&gt; database errors from before. Unfortunately it is something that people don't
&gt; mind when they gain, but if it's then corrected down it seems "bad!"
&gt;
&gt;

It is beginning to look as if my problem is largely around the use of the "Merge Computers" facilty. Have you any way of reinstating that information, or is it lost for ever? I have used the facilty extensively not knowing that it would result in lost credits, and I certainly have not kept a separate database of my own. What information would you want from me to make a case for reinstatment of credits lost by this recent database recalculation?

&gt; &gt; Michael;
&gt; &gt; 1.how many credits did you lose or gain?
&gt;
&gt; None, as far as I can tell.
&gt;
&gt; &gt; 2.Have you ever used the merge computers facilty?
&gt;
&gt; Yes.
&gt;
&gt; &gt; 3.As far as I am concerned, ALL my credits were correctly gained!!! I DID
&gt; do
&gt; &gt; the work for the 138,000 credits and it has now been taken off me.
&gt;
&gt; Then tell them about the results that are missing. I have archived every
&gt; result I've done, including back to pre-BOINC days.
&gt;
&gt; Michael
&gt; <img border="0" src="http://www.boincstats.com/stats/banner.php?id=2922" />
&gt;

When you say you are archiving your results is this an add-on program or some facility in BOINC?