The new version 10 tasks may be optimised but are not giving the credit that the optimized apps gave. I assume that the new tasks are running longer because they are doing more complex calculations but they are only giving 10% of the credit the optimized apps gave.

Below are two tasks on the same machine one old and one new. There are more but this is an example.

Old Tasks on Optimized App
Task # run time Credit Machine credits per hour
46658427 1748.62 218.16 Bundy -3 == 449.1404650524414

New app V10

Task # run time Credit Machine credits per hour
46680995 4973.89 57.15 Bundy-3 == 41.36400282274035

Oops. That's not good. I know it doesn't matter much to some people who just want to contribute to the science.

Just my opinion, it is desirable to award the same credit rate for the same amount of work done for both ranks, whether based on GFLOPs, kWhr or any other reasonable measurable units.

Otherwise, with barely less than 2.6% of work left on rank 9, might as well run full blast on rank 9 and get lots of credit now while you can now and skip rank 10 as it only gets you 1/10 of the original credits. It makes it 10x harder to reach your next target/goal based on the point ranking system. I suspect you may lose some contributors who just go after points which may impact your overall project completion rate. My one cent.

---

I have two of the new v10 units still running after 90 minutes - and they're less than 60% complete !!!

Unless someone develops an optimized version of this application I may have to consider 'resting' this project for a while....

I don't mind the longer run time. But longer run time should award more points, not less.
Is there any reason why rank 10 awarded way less points than rank 9?

Hi all! For rank 9, we have a default application which is being awarded with run_time*benchmark credits using averaged statistics. But with app_info.xml, BOINC does not consider actual runtime but uses an average estimate obtained on default application. So, if an optimized application works 7 times faster, then the computer receives 7x credit for the same runtime. For rank 10, we have only default application and we are only testing if the search will make sense at all.

Hi all! For rank 9, we have a default application which is being awarded with run_time*benchmark credits using averaged statistics. But with app_info.xml, BOINC does not consider actual runtime but uses an average estimate obtained on default application. So, if an optimized application works 7 times faster, then the computer receives 7x credit for the same runtime. For rank 10, we have only default application and we are only testing if the search will make sense at all.

Well, it's been a while so testing phase should/better be done. Also, [B@P] Daniel said most of the optimization is now included in the new R10 app. So was anything done about the credit on these longer running tasks?

The credits on this project suck now compared to what is used to be on R9. What incentive is there for us now that it takes so much longer per WU but yet we get paid less credit.

Oh, and Natalia you need not answer/reply as you are completely out of touch with reality on any project your involved with. Plus you're rude as hell to your volunteers by being so dismissive of them. You should be ashamed.

I wanted to hit a personal goal for myself of at least 20 Million. But since the project admins don't care about their volunteers, then I'm not going to care about their project. I'm done with it and any other project Natalia is involved with.

I hope others will follow and dump this project based on simple principals. Have fun doing your work without the volunteer crunchers.

(mic drop!)

Hello bluestang! They are different people. Are very much different. :) Of course higher credits make project more preferable for many participants, but only one scheme is legal for credits in BOINC computing. And "cobblestone devaluation" is a very bad thing.