1) Message boards : Number crunching : Server error: feeder not running (Message 1754)
Posted 1370 days ago by mikey
Hi everyone,

everything should be up and running.

@Al: Thank you again!

best regards,

I TRIED to send you a PM but even IT is broken!!!!

12/19/2015 12:41:05 PM | primaboinca | Server error: feeder not running

This is NOT inspiring confidence in the long term viability of your project!!!
2) Message boards : Number crunching : Feeder not running? (Message 1745)
Posted 1371 days ago by mikey
It would be REALLY nice if the Admins here would even acknowledge there is a problem and they are 'working on it' as opposed to we users posting that it's broken over and over again!!

ps it's STILL fricking broken:
12/18/2015 9:03:51 AM | primaboinca | Server error: feeder not running
3) Message boards : Number crunching : Poor Credits (Message 158)
Posted 3307 days ago by mikey
if credit is all that matters,just get a mega gpu..ati,nvidia,ect..and go to town on one of those projects that gives big credit for short run times

I TOTALLY agree, credit is not ALL that matters! AND it should NOT matter between projects!!
4) Message boards : Number crunching : Poor Credits (Message 157)
Posted 3307 days ago by mikey
The question then becomes: Should E2 and E3 have the same salary or not?

My answer would be No, as different employers and companies may have totally different market dynamics or size, different suppliers, processes or clientele.

Same No answer goes to cross-project credit parity. It's not feasible in any fair or sustainable way and no brain power or programming effort should be wasted in achieving such parity.

I agree.

Credits have no real value so all arguments about capitalism/socialism are not applicable to the BOINC world. Projects can inflate credits all the way to infinity if they like without consequence. If a real world company would inflate salaries the same way, they would attract quality employees, but soon find their cost base above their revenue and flop. Credits are just a way to measure computing contribution and people use them to compare/compete with their BOINC peers. That's where fairness needs to be introduced.

Fairness?? Why should there be fairness? Your statement is patently hog wash. Capitolism and socialism are 'philosophical ideologies'. And yes, they can quite easily be applied to the BOINC world. Fairness to you means forcing everyone to live by your standards. There is no 'fainess' in that.

On the other hand, how a real world company does it's business is it's mode of operations. A real world company can also be directly influenced by the 'philosophical ideologies' of the country it operates in. But not in the reverse.

BOINC statistics sites large and small have a thing called BOINC Combined (or similar). Applicable to individuals and teams and countries, it's the first thing that comes in their pages and signatures etc. That's were my beef is and probably plenty of others accused of being credit cops.

You crunch hard and make your way into your country's or team's top-10 or top-100 and often find that you cannot climb any further despite having a lot more computing power than those above you. That's only because they are crunching for projects that give silly amounts of credit. To compete you have to join them and free choice is lost there, not gained. Surely it's all only bragging rights and not everyone is interested in competition, but if you make a rank, then the ranking criteria need to be fair.

If the BOINC combined metric (based on just total credit) was removed, the credit parity grief will disappear as well. It could be replaced with a fairer formula (surely that's doable, something similar to boincstats's world cup). So when someone finds a project that gives him a gazillion credits/day for his GPU, who cares, let him get those credits. He'll soon realise that those aren't useful in any ranking outside that project and certainly he won't be ahead of those who dedicate significantly more resources and (with the current system) find themselves outranked.

Ttest, what you have just to shown all of us is what socialistic philosophies can do to someone's moral values and integrities. You are so corrupted by your desire to deny others what you yourself can not achieve, that you blame it on the unfairness of the 'system'. Hoping that if enough people believe as you do, that you will be elevated above your present station in life. I can not help believe that these ideals also permiates throughtout your own personal life.

These all all sign of the corruption of the human spirit for freedom and liberty to be all you can. You are not forced to do anything in distributed computing. It's all voluntary! Your whining about the unfairness of others having and making more credits than you do, is pure envy, greed and jealousy. You want to 'force' them to lower themselves to your level because you can't beat them. There is an old saying, '...if you cant beat them, join them'. A very 'common sense' philosophy of living.

Instead of blaming your petty shortcoming on how unfair life is, why dont you find a way to be a winner. Stop trying to level the playing field and 'earn' your wings by hard work and intellectual prowness. Then you can do all the bragging you want. You will have earned it by 'beating the system'. It's called freedom of choice.

I think the problem is this notion of 'fair and equitable' credits across multiple projects! If we stopped comparing apples to oranges everything would be fine, Project A wants to give a gazillion credits for 10 seconds of work, okay everyone on that project gets that, but when Project B wants to give 1 credit for 10 hours of work it is silly and nonsensical ot try and compare the two! Employee 1 works for Company A and Employee 2 works for Company B, only the Employees care how much the other Company pays, the Companys only care because they want to attract some Employees and sometimes must be comparable, sometimes not. If we can get to the point that we are only competing WITHIN A GIVEN PROJECT then all this talk of comparing credits is gone! I decided to buy some decent, not the top of the line, gpu's for my own reasons. Do I like the credits they give, of course I do! But for me to compare a gpu project to a cpu project is stupid and nonsensical, IMO!! AND to compare 2 different cpu or gpu projects is just as stupid and nonsensical, again IMO!!
5) Message boards : Number crunching : Poor Credits (Message 138)
Posted 3321 days ago by mikey
I did not mean for my post to be a thread killer!!!!
6) Message boards : Number crunching : Poor Credits (Message 137)
Posted 3323 days ago by mikey
You have two employees:
Employee 1: A bit of an idiot. Successfully dresses himself in the morning, then high-fives himself for completing such an arduous task.
Employee 2: Brilliant young man. Could do anything he sets his mind to. Picks up on new things really easily.

I see it more like that:

E2: Gets a more sophisticated tool to work with and completes more work in the same amount of time.


And E2 will walk out the door as soon as he realizes he is not being appreciated by your company! As an employee if my boss does not appreciate me, or the company does not, I am onto one that does! Company loyalty extends as far as the front door, ON BOTH SIDES! How many people work for Government Contractors? Do you think for one minute when that company loses that contract they keep those employees working? NOT ON YOUR LIFE THEY DON'T! The only way to keep the contract is to bid less and do more. Paying E1 and E2 the same amount of money in a business environment is just nuts!

What should happen is all this talk about cross project parity should stop and we should be comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges. A comparison was made to a game with runs, okay I am playing a baseball game and you are playing a softball game, should the runs be the same at the end of the day, NO THEY SHOULD NOT! A win or loss is what is important not the runs scored! So if project a wants to give everyone a chance to bat every inning and project b wants 3 outs per inning no matter how many people bat, in the end it only matters who won or lost! If I do a million workunits for project a and also crunch for project b and only do 300, why is it important that both give the same credits per workunit, or per hour of work? It should only be important within the project, not to any other project. This cross project parity stuff is someones idea of making their own project relevant while making others irrelevant!

John a question for you, Seti allowed for 'optimized' apps a while back, do they still pay more than the Seti written apps? Or have you gotten rid of the 'optimized' app altogether, or does the process continue for those that choose to install it and get more credits? And if the 'optimized' app is still allowed which one is this new credit plan based upon?

One last question...John you tried to explain about percentage of users and used the 1000 people as an example, my question is when you reach the break over point of over 50%, and I don't care if you wait until it reaches 60% or 75%, do you reduce the credits earned for the majority or reduce the credits earned for the minority? Because if you reduce neither, everything stays as it is now, each project paying what they want for the workunits they put out.

Main page · Your account · Message boards

Copyright © 2019 primaboinca.com