As far as I can tell... the update I have just run at BOINC Synergy calculates that the total work done across ALL projects (including Alpha Beta stage projects) just passed

20,000,000,000 Total credits!

A good day for BOINC.



---
Zain Upton
BOINC Synergy
www.boincsynergy.com

---

Teamless? Drop by BOINC Synergy and look around
Also checkout our famous BOINC World Stats

Who cares

---

Thanks again to all our crunchers and to the people who keep the stats up to date!

---

Cpdn news

So my earlier post was moderated out, what was wrong in that post?
You need to know that the Boinc credit system have been highly inflated by optimised clients depending on the benchmarking system.
Climate never had this problem thanks to Carl.

---

Cwhyl, as you insist on discussing your previous post, I shall undelete it in order to be able to discuss it and explain why I deleted it.

Your response to Zain Upton\'s post was \'Who cares\'.

Zain Upton cares sufficiently to have put in a lot of work for his team and for Boinc as a whole. The purpose of his post was to encourage us all. Your post detracted from his positive purpose without offering any reason why. Disagreements between members are perfectly in order, but it is courteous to explain why one disagrees rather than dismissing a post out of hand.


You are at liberty to discuss any disagreements you may have with the benchmarking and credit system across the projects. But the post I deleted contained no mention of this.

---

Cpdn news

Well, I\'m certainly glad that all crunchers together have reached this milestone and I think it can be a motivation for people.
On the other hand, you do see some ridiculous benchmarks out there (e.g. I once came across a 3200+ which claimed to be 4 times as fast as my 3500+) so it\'s hard to overlook that some people probably get more credit than they deserve, strictly speaking. But cwhyl, to use your very own words- who cares? It doesn\'t make the time people spend on those projects any less valuable for science, and besides, you should keep in mind that it is probably a minority showing this kind of behavior.
Last but not least you should see these numbers as a symbol- and let people enjoy the positive message.

You need to get a new moderator
Guess this will be deleted too

---

well I\'ve been accused of CPDN being \"inflated\" credits, so maybe it all balances out! ;-)
having credits that compare reliably across projects is still a very big concern of BOINC developers & users all the way to the top (David Anderson). The \"benchmarking credits\" can give odd scores sometimes; a guy in our department has the top MacBook Pro (Intel) and it\'s getting less than a second per timestep! But his benchmarks are lower than my home PC which gets 2.15 secs/ts. So I think the CPDN method of \"credit per trickle\" probably gives a fairer share of credit. Although there is probably something like a +/- 10% variation possible between workunit (i.e. parameters used in different experiments may \"turn on\" a routine that will take more CPU time).

But anyway, thanks to Zain for posting about the credits benchmark. To me it\'s like celebrating the millenium, i.e. even though people from different background may not agree that it was \"year 2000\" it was still fun to get together around the world and watch the fireworks! :-)

Inflated creds in CPDN? Can\'t confirm that. Actually, I tend to get a little less than over at Einstein. I don\'t care, because my first priority is the science and also because CPDN credit is always very reliable as you don\'t usually run out of work. And it\'s only a little less. But it certainly doesn\'t seem \"inflated\" to me. Okay, I have an AMD, which tends to do traditionally well at Einstein, but I\'ve heard exactly the same thing about CPDN (as opposed to, say, SETI, where my box sucks and no wonder), so that probably isn\'t the reason.

Thanks Zain for your dedication to what you are doing, good job.

Being interested in statistic methods, would it be possible to make a graph of total credits together with total benchmarks of all machines? I\'m interested in correlation or course but can see it from graph as well...

(can make it myself but do not posses raw data)

---

<i>phpBB forum for CPDN, all are </i><a href="http://www.climateprediction.net/board">invited</a>

First, congratulations to all of us for this milestone!

One question: what caused the RAC and number of users to suddenly rise about the end of 2005 (according to the graph)? Was it the BBC project that got a lot of new users that hadn\'t been crunching Boinc before?

---

Proud owner of the CPDN Wow-Mug!

As the graph is for all boinc projects, you\'d expect a fairly constant rise. I don\'t know what the rise in Nov last year was. The BBC project was thrown open to the public in mid-Feb 2006, which probably helps to explain the smaller rise there. There were also a lot of new BBC users in March.

---

Cpdn news

When did the Classic SETI users start BOINC SETI ?

One question: what caused the RAC and number of users to suddenly rise about the end of 2005 (according to the graph)? Was it the BBC project that got a lot of new users that hadn\'t been crunching Boinc before?

About the middle of 2005, a group of cpdn users with fast PCs were asked to run 200 year \"spinups\" of the oceans that are being used in the present coupled model runs (hadcm3spinup). I think Carl was able to merge the credits from these runs back into cpdn. That may explain the RAC increase somewhat, but it wouldn\'t explain the new users. Wasn\'t the end of 2005 also when Seti classic turned off and a large group of those users joined? Of course that would have affected more than just cpdn.

It is possible that SETI optimized clients take the role of inflating credit in large scale...CPDN Spinup was a small project comparing to that. Or was it optimized Einstein during the mentioned period?
Anyway, I would point to optimized clients...

---

<i>phpBB forum for CPDN, all are </i><a href="http://www.climateprediction.net/board">invited</a>

When did the Classic SETI users start BOINC SETI ?

It depends...some of the classic members were beta testing the first BOINC client at the same time. You can find pople that joined BOINC Seti as early as 2001 (but there may be some earlier than that).

I beta tested BOINC in 2002 then joined in late 2003, the mandatory switch from classic to BOINC came late last year and took quite a while to get sorted out.

Now that the switch from Classic SETI is completed I think that we will see the next 20Bil go a lot faster. Not to mention the fact that there are some crazy machines out there now (i.e. dual cores, quad cores, farms, etc.)

-citroja

---

Wasn\'t the end of 2005 also when Seti classic turned off and a large group of those users joined? Of course that would have affected more than just cpdn.

I think the more likely effect from SETI@Home was the fallout of users leaving over the Crunch3r optimized client episode...several projects experienced unusual increases in users then (Nov. - Dec. of 2005).