The percentage could always be weighted with regard to the number of participants in the project. So a standing at a larger project would have more weight than the standing at a smaller project, and that should take care of most of the issues.
Michael Tughan Michael's Programming On 22-Jul-09, at 8:43 AM, [email protected] wrote: > Rank is rather hopeless as a metric. I dedicate 1% of computing > power to > some projects and I am in the top few. On others I dedicate 33% of > computing power and I am not in the top thousand. > > jm7 > > On Jul 21, 2009, at 1:19 PM, Lynn W. Taylor wrote: >> I don't see a way out, short of doing exactly what Eric Korpela's >> script >> tries to do -- normalize FLOPS credit to that predicted by the >> (imperfect) benchmarks. > > Solution: Give up on cross-project credit parity. It's an impossible > goal. QCN anyone? If cross-project comparison is needed, do it via > rank. As long as the credits within each project are stable, that > works fine. _______________________________________________ boinc_dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and (near bottom of page) enter your email address.
