More interestingly the RS numbers on the systems are pretty meaningless because there is no distinction made between resource classes (something I have mentioned before) so that my system W4 shows that MW gets 4.14% and Collatz the same instead of reporting the correct 50/50 share of the GPU that these two projects get.
The numbers become even more skewed when outages are added in (like Virtual Prairie which has long outages) because BOINC has limiters built in and does not really track historical trends other than with the averages. There are the job log files, though the data within those logs is not used to my knowledge to do anything interesting (though Collatz maybe looking into that for their own purposes). On Feb 22, 2010, at 1:06 PM, Mark Pottorff wrote: > David Anderson wrote a paper and says you need 2.8 BOINC CPUs to get the > equivalant of 1 dedicated CPU (such as comparing with a cloud or in-house > cluster). But this is only true if you assume your project has the same > average resource share, and the same crunching hours per day as the projects > that were sited in the paper. If either of these > varies, then the 2.8 estimation is of no value. But noone can really tell you > if there is variation across BOINC projects because noone has the data. Do > users tend to devote 70% share to SETI, but only 40% to Rosetta? You could > try and infer data from the stats, but you have to assume things like the > user has not changed their configuration over a period of time, and their > machine was active for it's typical duration during the period studied, and > all their debts were under control and all the client was able to get work > from all of their configured projects. _______________________________________________ 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.
