Good point. I know you raised that earlier when you talked about the proposed benchmark taking a lot of time on very slow machines.
I tend to have a lot of those: computers that are on constantly draw power (and eat money) continuously. I've got a server I'm testing that is under 20 watts. Unless I've missed something, the benchmarks have two purposes: 1) to estimate performance so work requests are reasonably accurate (so work can be assigned and not miss deadlines). 2) for the calculation of credit, based on the Cobblestone standard. On 1) it's fairly clear that the benchmarks work good enough to get started, and the duration correction factor dials it in from there. On 2) things are a lot more difficult because the standard specifies two benchmarks, and artificial benchmarks will always be a source of error. So, we devote a lot of time running "reference work" and we still have to compare that by some means to the hypothetical 100-cobblestone computer. ... or we have to redefine the cobblestone. [email protected] wrote: > I was trying to state something similar. There are computers doing useful > work for projects and increasing the burden of time spent on benchmarks > will reduce the availability of those resources to the project. > > jm7 > > > > "Lynn W. Taylor" > <[email protected]> > Sent by: To > <boinc_dev-bounce "Paul D. Buck" > [email protected] <[email protected]> > u> cc > [email protected], BOINC > Developers Mailing List > 09/28/2009 03:58 <[email protected]> > PM Subject > Re: [boinc_dev] [boinc_alpha] Card > Gflops in BOINC 6.10 > > > > > > > > > > > > > Paul D. Buck wrote: >> On Sep 28, 2009, at 11:13 AM, Lynn W. Taylor wrote: >> >>> The benchmark affects the estimated run time, and the amount of work >>> downloaded. It affects credit, and credit is "fun" but it's not >>> science. >> Then you are also guilty of not reading the proposal. I have always >> said that while running calibration tasks that the same compensation >> would be paid for a calibration task as for any other task. In fact, >> I said that it could qualify for a bonus to encourage participation in >> the system. In that we have resistance as you and John express >> because you don't seem interested in any attempt to improve the >> operation of the system as a whole. > > I'm not talking about awarding credit, bonus credits, better assignment > of work, or anything else along those lines. > > When you come back with "I've always said that while running calibration > tasks the same compensation...." it shows that you missed my question. > I wasn't asking about credit. You did the same thing in the other > thread when I raised a separate issue about continuous downloads and you > told me that I had your issue wrong. > > BOINC is a black box. A project dumps work units and a science > application into the box, and results pour out. > > I'm asking only about the results. Unless I'm badly mistaken, that was > John's question as well. > > We can all get excited about how BOINC does (or doesn't) work well, but > all the projects care about are results. > _______________________________________________ > 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. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > _______________________________________________ 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.
