Work unit taking 3hr 7min awarded 23.52 points
Work unit taking 2hr 25 min awarded 151.94 points

Usual behavior?

Hello! Would you run BOINC benchmark on your computers? Now there are no benchmark indicators for this computers. Thank you!

I also observed some very strange issues.
The items below vary by factor 10 although having very similar runtimes (same machine type).

This behaviour started with v2.02 as older results from v2.00 were consistent.

It was great if someone could check or comment.

THX
Chris



77677199 49699806 44629 26 Jan 2023, 21:40:17 UTC 27 Jan 2023, 14:31:55 UTC Completed and validated 60,661.61 60,658.53 109.03 CurieMarieDock 0.2.0 long tasks v2.02
x86_64-pc-linux-gnu

77677176 49699757 42812 26 Jan 2023, 21:36:46 UTC 27 Jan 2023, 14:38:49 UTC Completed and validated 61,289.64 61,259.86 1,084.29 CurieMarieDock 0.2.0 long tasks v2.02
x86_64-pc-linux-gnu

I also observed some very strange issues.

Task 77677176. Attribute "Device peak FLOPS": 4.20 GFLOPS. Credit: 1084.29.
Task 77677199. Attribute "Device peak FLOPS": 1.00 GFLOPS. Credit: 109.03.
Benchmark 1.00 GFLOPS usually is a consequence of absence of benchmark. Now as I see benchmark is present and credit for tasks completed more recently is appropriate relatively time and machine power. Good "machines"!

On one of my hosts Credit dropped from 955.43Cr to 390.61Cr , same runtime :
https://www.sidock.si/sidock/result.php?resultid=77686084
https://www.sidock.si/sidock/result.php?resultid=77686084

Is there a reason for that.

On one of my hosts Credit dropped from 955.43Cr to 390.61Cr , same runtime :
https://www.sidock.si/sidock/result.php?resultid=77686084
https://www.sidock.si/sidock/result.php?resultid=77686084

Is there a reason for that.

Hi!
Very unusual results! How many cores of this CPU used for computing? Could you run benchmark over used cores and post the result? And what frequency of CPU cores during computing?
Thank you!

Adding some more examples of inconsistencies:

77689125 vs. 77689111 on one pair of identical machines.

77691276 vs. 77691076 on another pair. This machine seems consistently to get significantly more credit than this identical one.

These are all dedicated heaters running nothing but SiDock@home.

On one of my hosts Credit dropped from 955.43Cr to 390.61Cr , same runtime :
https://www.sidock.si/sidock/result.php?resultid=77686084
https://www.sidock.si/sidock/result.php?resultid=77686084

Is there a reason for that.

Hi!
Very unusual results! How many cores of this CPU used for computing? Could you run benchmark over used cores and post the result? And what frequency of CPU cores during computing?
Thank you!

The host is running headless only Boinc controlled with BoincTasks. I have run the benchmark after installation.
All 8C/8T running Boinc. 2 x Sidock, 4 x NFS, 1 x iThenaComp and 1 x Climate , frequency 2,44GHz at full load.

On one of my hosts Credit dropped from 955.43Cr to 390.61Cr , same runtime :
https://www.sidock.si/sidock/result.php?resultid=77686084
https://www.sidock.si/sidock/result.php?resultid=77686084

Is there a reason for that.

Hi!
Very unusual results! How many cores of this CPU used for computing? Could you run benchmark over used cores and post the result? And what frequency of CPU cores during computing?
Thank you!

The host is running headless only Boinc controlled with BoincTasks. I have run the benchmark after installation.
All 8C/8T running Boinc. 2 x Sidock, 4 x NFS, 1 x iThenaComp and 1 x Climate , frequency 2,44GHz at full load.

You linked the same work unit. How is one to compare?

Adding some more examples of inconsistencies:

77689125 vs. 77689111 on one pair of identical machines.

77691276 vs. 77691076 on another pair. This machine seems consistently to get significantly more credit than this identical one.

These are all dedicated heaters running nothing but SiDock@home.

This happened to me also when I first started running the latest revised work but normalized quickly. Give it a few days and see if the same happens.

Here the wright links for the results:
https://www.sidock.si/sidock/result.php?resultid=77673401
https://www.sidock.si/sidock/result.php?resultid=77686084

For granting a fair credit to a computer, BOINC server must have a fair benchmark and have gathered appropriate statistics based on the set of tasks completed on this computer.
You can look, for instance, at my computer (# 4). Credits awarded per hour do not vary much because it has relatively large statistics of computing with cmdock-l 2.02 application version. This illustrates what value of granted credit is fair, too.

For granting a fair credit to a computer, BOINC server must have a fair benchmark and have gathered appropriate statistics based on the set of tasks completed on this computer.
You can look, for instance, at my computer (# 4). Credits awarded per hour do not vary much because it has relatively large statistics of computing with cmdock-l 2.02 application version. This illustrates what value of granted credit is fair, too.

The Boinc benchmark is not fair/correct.
With Linux 20.x and higher you get the best benchmark value.
With Linux 18.x it is lower.
With Windows it is much lower.

I unfortunately have to share this observations/concerns.
There is no systematic behind the credits granted - at least it is not visible for me.

Some examples below (identical Hardware):

99,486.52 - 99,478.48 - 1,332.88 - CurieMarieDock 0.2.0 long tasks v2.02 - windows_x86_64
84,178.01 - 84,168.72 - 1,074.65 - CurieMarieDock 0.2.0 long tasks v2.02 - windows_x86_64

54,468.31 - 54,464.46 - 1,259.42 - CurieMarieDock 0.2.0 long tasks v2.02 - x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
51,716.79 - 51,689.46 - 660.01 - CurieMarieDock 0.2.0 long tasks v2.02 - x86_64-pc-linux-gnu

Any serious ideas?

Chris

I unfortunately have to share this observations/concerns.
There is no systematic behind the credits granted - at least it is not visible for me.

Some examples below (identical Hardware):

99,486.52 - 99,478.48 - 1,332.88 - CurieMarieDock 0.2.0 long tasks v2.02 - windows_x86_64
84,178.01 - 84,168.72 - 1,074.65 - CurieMarieDock 0.2.0 long tasks v2.02 - windows_x86_64

54,468.31 - 54,464.46 - 1,259.42 - CurieMarieDock 0.2.0 long tasks v2.02 - x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
51,716.79 - 51,689.46 - 660.01 - CurieMarieDock 0.2.0 long tasks v2.02 - x86_64-pc-linux-gnu

Any serious ideas?

Chris

You haven't allowed enough time. Message 1973.

In general, the algorithm has been described in article Anderson, D.P. BOINC: A Platform for Volunteer Computing. J Grid Computing 18, 99–122 (2020) (pdf version is available).

Some examples below (identical Hardware):

99,486.52 - 99,478.48 - 1,332.88 - CurieMarieDock 0.2.0 long tasks v2.02 - windows_x86_64
84,178.01 - 84,168.72 - 1,074.65 - CurieMarieDock 0.2.0 long tasks v2.02 - windows_x86_64

54,468.31 - 54,464.46 - 1,259.42 - CurieMarieDock 0.2.0 long tasks v2.02 - x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
51,716.79 - 51,689.46 - 660.01 - CurieMarieDock 0.2.0 long tasks v2.02 - x86_64-pc-linux-gnu

1st task (1332.88 CS): 77700534, computer # 41727, 48.24 CS/hour, host registered at 24 Oct 2022, host total credit = 1100243, Windows;
2nd task (1074.65 CS): 77697586, computer # 41587, 45.96 CS/hour, host registered at 19 Oct 2022, host total credit = 1168437, Windows;
3rd task (1259.42 CS): 77699183, computer # 44629, 83.24 CS/hour, host registered at 4 Jan 2023, host total credit = 247415, Linux;
4th task (660.01 CS): 77697810, computer # 42812, 45.96 CS/hour, host registered at 16 Nov 2022, host total credit = 1032098, Linux.

A good set for future observations, also!

For granting a fair credit to a computer, BOINC server must have a fair benchmark and have gathered appropriate statistics based on the set of tasks completed on this computer.
You can look, for instance, at my computer (# 4). Credits awarded per hour do not vary much because it has relatively large statistics of computing with cmdock-l 2.02 application version. This illustrates what value of granted credit is fair, too.

The Boinc benchmark is not fair/correct.
With Linux 20.x and higher you get the best benchmark value.
With Linux 18.x it is lower.
With Windows it is much lower.

This is common for all projects. Some are optimized for Linux, some aren't.

...
3rd task (1259.42 CS): 77699183, computer # 44629, 83.24 CS/hour, host registered at 4 Jan 2023, host total credit = 247415, Linux;
...
A good set for future observations, also!

5 days later. Computer 44629.
Task 77739116, CPU time = 110042.80, credit = 1489.44 or 48.72 CS/hour.
Task 77738339, CPU time 110473.30, credit = 1500.22 or 48.90 CS/hour.

Yes, the absence of any concerns or complaints lately speaks volumes. People just need to exercise a bit of patience.