On Jul 22, 2009, at 10:35 AM, David Anderson wrote: > Nicolás Alvarez wrote: > ... >> So it would distribute computing power across projects, which is >> what we want, >> isn't it? > > Not exactly. We want projects that are doing better or more > important science > (as judged by volunteers) to get more computing power. > The main criterion for choosing a project should be its scientific > merit, > not how much credit it grants.
For the people who care most about the scientific merit of projects, credits are meaningless. The cross-project parity problem doesn't apply to them. They will be attracted to a project, and won't move regardless of the credit situation. This discussion is about the *rest* of the crunchers, and how credits effect their behavior. For this group of crunchers, they will concentrate in the top-paying projects, so long as we operate in the dreamland of cross-project parity. Comparing only rank encourages equal distribution across all projects for this group of crunchers. > This goal is called "credit neutrality". > > A second goal is that machines with special capabilities > (e.g., large RAM, or ability to turn around jobs quickly) > should have an incentive to participate in projects that > need those capabilities. If we didn't have to worry about cross-project parity, this could be done within a projects credit scheme. Pay more credits for those resources you value. > A proposal for achieving both of these goals is here: > http://boinc.berkeley.edu/trac/wiki/CreditProposal > (not likely to be implemented any time soon) _______________________________________________ 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.
