| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Community
Forum: Chat Room
Thread: How would YOU like the points system to work? |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 30
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Ingleside
Veteran Cruncher Norway Joined: Nov 19, 2005 Post Count: 974 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Does it really matter? You can't do anything with the points. I find the badges much more entertaining: they're like milestones or objectives. I really don't pay that much attention to the points. I've heard of people running one project vs another project (both inside and out of WCG) because it "gives" more points, which really doesn't make any sense since the points are useless. Just my way of thinking...  While you can't buy anything with the points, they do have some useful features you won't get by looking on run-time, cpu-time or number of results. (*) A few reasons to keep an ocassional eye on points: 1: If a computer suddenly has a significant drop in points/day this can indicate a problem with the computer, especially if you're running multiple computers and the others does not have a drop. 2: If you've got two computers and let's say computer A gets x points/hour running project1 and y points/hour running project2 while computer B gets 0.5x points/hour running project1 and 5y points/hour running project2, it's much better for both projects to run project1 only on computer A and project2 only on computer B instead of sharing both projects on both computers. 3: Would guess it can also have it's uses if tries overclocking (or underclocking), since (using some probably insane numbers) let's say you've got a choise between cpu at 5 GHz with 25x memory-multiplier or cpu at 4.4 GHz and 11x memory-multiplier, for some projects the higher cpu-speed is better while some projects is memory-bandwidth-limited and the slower cpu-speed is better and looking on points/hour would show which is best for a particular project. 4: If you're example swapping-out the old dual-core computer to a shiny new 8-way system but the new system only gets 1.1x more points/day than the old computer got, you know where's a problem somewhere... For most users #1 and #2 is most relevant. #3 has less usefulness, especially if runs a cocktail of projects at the same time or frequently swaps projects. #4 hopefully only indicates a configuration-problem, like forgetting to disable "Cool and crappy performance" and similar features. (*): Well, where's no rules without any exceptions, if you're running a project where all wu's has the same cpu-time on the same computer tracking #results and cpu-time will be useful, but AFAIK this has never been the case with WCG. (I'm not counting the cut-off cpu-times of Rice and similar).  "I make so many mistakes. But then just think of all the mistakes I don't make, although I might." [Edit 1 times, last edit by Ingleside at Aug 29, 2013 8:23:45 AM] |
||
|
|
alged
Master Cruncher FRANCE Joined: Jun 12, 2009 Post Count: 2291 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Pts and badges just give some attractiveness to the need of crunching for science.
----------------------------------------I think that run time must be taken in account-for we spend energy and capacity even for no valid work units. Even if i contribute to help by money sometimes, i think crunching is a way to do it all year long.  |
||
|
|
cjslman
Master Cruncher Mexico Joined: Nov 23, 2004 Post Count: 2082 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Maybe they think they are doing 'more'? BladeD... to be sincere, I really don't think that is the case (although it is wishful thinking). The cases that I have observed specifically have stated that such-and-such project "give" more points for crunching (nothing to do with doing more work). @Ingleside... you list valid points (for the few who are on top of what their systems are doing), if the points are used to compare the performance of their crunching machines. Even from that point of view, how the points are calculated doesn't seem to have any importance: you get the points that the project calculated. I'm not on a holy war against the points (or how they're calculated)... points can be used for comparison reasons and is totally valid. But I do have a short fuse when I see posts from people indicating that they're going over to xyz project because it "gives" more points or "why doesn't WCG gave as many points as project ABC". How many points you have is not important compared to purpose of crunching: help scientists to find cures for terrible diseases that affect our world. CJSL Crunching for a better future... |
||
|
|
OldChap
Veteran Cruncher UK Joined: Jun 5, 2009 Post Count: 978 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
I shall clarify my position.
----------------------------------------When I started out, points was the fun side of crunching. Seeing what the other members of the team could achieve with all the differing hardware was interesting. Along the way I am sure we had a project where all the wu's were equal so it was a great method of optimising the performance of a rig. A while back things seemed to change, whether it was points or the projects I don't know but now they seem to be less useful than before... to me at least. I think the issue is a lack of consistency that maybe I did not notice before. I have more recently taken to concentrating on runtime for my "sport" within WCG and that together with looking for the most time from the least amount of spend on electricity has become my focus. I hope that doing this will produce more results and thus perhaps in this way I will be doing my bit for finding those elusive answers..... ....Which has made me wonder more about points. Some time back I was all about points but now I wonder what it is they can do for me...How I would like them to work and be useful to me..... I like to buy, build, optimise then set and forget, taking only a daily glance at completed wu's performance to ensure all is well. As nobody seems to have any real opinion on the original question, it would be nice to hear how points work for you, if you like things how they are and maybe suggest improvements or uses. ...and hey, If you think I am doing it all wrong, I am old enough and ugly enough to hear someone say so without issue. EDIT: the constructive comments above are noted by the way.  [Edit 2 times, last edit by OldChap at Aug 29, 2013 5:05:40 PM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
My opinion, for what it is worth, is that WCG gives a little of what anyone has asked for. You can measure your effort by, time, points or results. To me BOINC is very restrictive, only giving you Credits, give me the WCG method.
(My own favourite is TIME, as reflected in the badges  ) |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
A while back things seemed to change, whether it was points or the projects I don't know but now they seem to be less useful than before... to me at least. I think the issue is a lack of consistency that maybe I did not notice before. I'm still on my first year with WCG so my history is kind of short:) I'd say that the points are the most consistent means to measure. The work itself seemed to be more consistent in the past which made runtime and result numbers, how do I say this, 'valid' data points. However, with recent SN2S and FAAH work (lots of targets, scripts to "size" the number of compounds per WU) the variance between individual runtimes appears to have grown to a point where individual WU runtime and daily results mean less and less as a measure of "work done". The points, however, seem to be consistent over time. Badges and total runtime measure one's dedication. I use the points to measure my own contribution, though I do find the badges to be kind of fun. From the "friendly competition" viewpoint, I'd defintely use points as the yardstick:) My two cents.. |
||
|
|
cjslman
Master Cruncher Mexico Joined: Nov 23, 2004 Post Count: 2082 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Hey OldChap... crunching is still a lot of fun for me (scheming, dealing and plotting on how to make it to the next badge with the projects that come and go
----------------------------------------). Anything (points included) can be used to have fun and to compare progress against others....and hey, If you think I am doing it all wrong, I am old enough and ugly enough to hear someone say so without issue. ... and no, you don't seem to be doing anything wrong.. you have a valid question. I still haven't made it (although I'm trying) to where I'm old and stupid (I'm just plain stupid right now  ).CJSL Gotta keep crunching... there's a world to save !!! |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Hi OldChap - first of all, congratulations and thanks for your contribution to the grid - 90 years runtime and 390 million points demonstrates quite a commitment.
I quite like the points system, and I think it is the best measure of the work done. We have three measures of our contribution, and between them they work really well. I started with WCG (or United Devices) back in '04 with a 450MHz Pentium 3. A day of run time on the Pentium 3 is the same as the run time on the 3770k I'm using at the moment, but I'm convinced that the 3770k is doing a lot more work (even factoring in the 8 threads). Similarly, during the GPU days, I was completing an HCC work unit every few seconds, whereas it takes up to 10hrs now to do a CEP2 WU. The points system might not be perfect, but at least it gives you a measure of the contribution you're making, rather than how long it takes to make it, or how long (or short) the work units are. You say that you're trying to get as much runtime from as little electricity as possible, but you could end up taking a huge amount of time doing a whole lot of nothing. My goal is to do as much work as possible using as little time, resource and energy as I can. The bigger the difference in my ranking between points and run time, the better. Whatever your motivation OldChap, keep on doing what you're doing - your stats (all three of them) speak for themselves. |
||
|
|
BladeD
Ace Cruncher USA Joined: Nov 17, 2004 Post Count: 28976 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Hit the nail on the head...
----------------------------------------My goal is to do as much work as possible using as little time, resource and energy as I can. The bigger the difference in my ranking between points and run time, the better. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Very interesting thread, I saw few days ago that I am better in run time then in a points. This is increasing and my rank is better in run time. This is weird because I was always better in points. My question is are stronger machines get more points for each task/project or points are the same for all systems?
|
||
|
|
|