I concur with these statements after having studied the mechanism from an engineering perspective over the last couple of years. Steady state and new host/app were observed, on seti/seti-beta, along with fresh app launch on single appversion regimen with the kind help of Albert@home staff (before me running out of resources to take the study further).
The fundamental design concepts weren't found to be problematic, though some of the implementation assumptions and choices were. Outcomes were that the dominant instabilities were (engineering) control systems related, and that characterisation of the existing system (via matching such a simulation to real-world) would aid communication of the problems and potential solutions. What is a relatively simple engineering task of estimate localisation, is quickly conflated with passions when Credit is mentioned. That quickly mires the genuinely solvable issues in Inertia. So In my view, progress could be made by: - simulate the existing mechanism, under original CPU-FPUonly state, CPU-SIMD enabled state, GPU only state, and para-metrically mixed state - Use that (refined) simulation as reference comparison to real-world, and to formalise potential practical solutions. - Change the name from CreditNew to 'estimator'; or somesuch ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jason Richard Groothuis ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ________________________________ From: boinc_dev <[email protected]> on behalf of David Anderson <[email protected]> Sent: 15 August 2016 08:14 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [boinc_dev] 4th Gen BOINC credit system My thoughts: 1) The basic ideas behind the current credit system are sound, but there seem to be some problems with the details, in particular what happens when new app versions are added. 2) We need a simulator that models credit calculations for various scenarios (synthetic, or based on trace data from a project). Such a simulator would help identify the problems with the current system, or would demonstrate that a new scheme works better. I don't think we should consider a new system without simulator-based validation of it. -- David On 8/14/2016 9:06 AM, CM wrote: > Hey, > > A '4th gen BOINC credit system' thread was created over at the official BOINC > forums: https://boinc.berkeley.edu/dev/forum_thread.php?id=10953 [Discussion] 4th Generation BOINC credit system<https://boinc.berkeley.edu/dev/forum_thread.php?id=10953> boinc.berkeley.edu I originally started a discussion over at cryptocointalk about this: https://cryptocointalk.com/topic/46130-discussion-3rd-generation-boinc-credit-system/ > > There's been about 77 posts to the thread, the general consensus was that a > new > BOINC credit system is a good idea but thus far the definition/specs of such a > next gen system has not been agreed upon. > > What are the BOINC dev's thoughts on this topic? I'd love to continue this > discussion & work towards a next-gen BOINC system. > > Cheers guys :) > > _______________________________________________ > 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.
