> "Let the market rule" doesn't work here. No analogy to money works with
> BOINC
> credits, because giving more credits doesn't cost anything to projects.
Apart from inflation. In other words if wh...@home credits you with £100
whilst betatestingmypokerplayingprog...@home only gives you one cen
ng on.
I think the idea of a credit exchange has merit, but unless I have a reason to
really negotiate with you, I might as well make it 1000 to 1 or even a million.
- Original Message
From: Richard Kavanagh
To: boinc_dev@ssl.berkeley.edu
Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2009 11:38:00 AM
Subj
El Miércoles 05 Ago 2009 15:38:00 Richard Kavanagh escribió:
> Some people think credits are important. Therefore credits have value.
> Rename credits for each project as Pounds, Francs, Zlotys etc and set up a
> currency market. Let the market rule and forget about it. Sometimes
> capitalism is a
Some people think credits are important. Therefore credits have value. Rename
credits for each project as Pounds, Francs, Zlotys etc and set up a currency
market. Let the market rule and forget about it. Sometimes capitalism is a good
thing.
Richard Kavanagh
El Miércoles 05 Ago 2009 10:51:38 Martin escribió:
> How do you *measure* "expanding the knowledge of the world" so that
> 'something' can be 'awarded' fairly? That is all very subjective. That
> 'something' hopefully attracts a participants interest in a project in
> the first place.
You don't.
If "credit neutrality" is a good idea, then anything that alters credit
away from measuring only work is a very bad idea.
Trying to adjust credit to reflect "efficiency" or "merit" or some other
criteria is going to be nearly impossible.
Best to leave credit out of the more subjective criteria.
Eric J Korpela wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 7:07 AM, Martin wrote:
>> john.mcl...@sybase.com wrote:
>>> A few thoughts:
>>>
>>> There is no guarantee that any two computation devices (general sense here)
>>> will be equally efficient at a particular computation. The CPU and GPU in
>>> a single
Mikus Grinbergs wrote:
>>> Goal: The credit granted for all tasks for a single WU needs to be
>>> identical, no mater what computation devices it runs on.
>> Sorry, disagree... What happens for the case where the CPU application
>> is highly optimised whereas the GPU application is brazenly waste
inc_dev-bounces ,
> @ssl.berkeley.edu boinc_stats
>
>cc
> 07/28/2009 02:55
> PM Subject
>R
stats
cc
07/28/2009 02:55
PMSubject
Re: [boinc_dev] credit
BOINC dev
>
> 07/24/2009 11:04 Subject
> AMRe: [boinc_dev] credit goals
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ... but only if the client pa
BOINC dev
07/24/2009 11:04 Subject
AM Re: [boinc_dev] cr
cc
BOINC dev
07/24/2009 11:04 Subject
AM Re: [boinc_dev] cr
... but only if the client participates in more than one project???
Otherwise, you have a whole bunch of clients reporting the average for
the project that needs to adjust.
john.mcl...@sybase.com wrote:
> One possibility is that every client tracks credits granted per hour of CPU
> time (and se
@ssl.berkeley.edu cc
Subject
07/24/2009 12:42 Re: [boinc_dev] credit goals
AM
>> Goal: The credit granted for all tasks for a single WU needs to be
>> identical, no mater what computation devices it runs on.
>
> Sorry, disagree... What happens for the case where the CPU application
> is highly optimised whereas the GPU application is brazenly wasteful of
> the GPU resource
El Jue 23 Jul 2009 10:10:06 john.mcl...@sybase.com escribió:
> A few thoughts:
>
> There is no guarantee that any two computation devices (general sense here)
> will be equally efficient at a particular computation. The CPU and GPU in
> a single box may very well have different efficiencies, and s
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)
john.mcl...@sybase.com wrote:
> A few thoughts:
>
> There is no guarantee that any two computation devices (general sense here)
> will be equally efficient at a particular computation. The CPU and GPU in
> a single box may very well have different efficiencies, and should be
> treated as separate
] credit goals
07/22/2009 09:53
PM
El Miércoles 22 Jul 2009 21:17:02 Martin escribió:
> >> How can you satisfy all of these?
> >> 1. credits per day in CPU app same for both projects
> >> 2. credits per day in GPU app same for both projects
> >> 3. within each project, same WU should give same credits no matter the
> >> processor us
David Anderson wrote:
> That's an excellent example;
> it shows that no credit system can satisfy all goals simultaneously.
> Any given system will violate some goals -
> the challenge is to balance the levels of violation
> based on the importance of the goals.
>
> Currently this is mostly fuzzy
Unless one was to take the example of successful businesses, and provide
some kind of incentive for fair completion of workunits over a broad system
Simply: bo...@home closed source benchmarking project module.
As some 'major upgrade' like "version 7.0" the bo...@home 'project' would need
to be
That's an excellent example;
it shows that no credit system can satisfy all goals simultaneously.
Any given system will violate some goals -
the challenge is to balance the levels of violation
based on the importance of the goals.
Currently this is mostly fuzzy and subjective;
there's no official
El Miércoles 22 Jul 2009 14:35:37 David Anderson escribió:
> 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 ge
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 projec
26 matches
Mail list logo
