...Fair enough..
yes, supposed to be fun..exactly my point..and thats where the competitions come into play and the points necessary for running those said competitions..and the stability of the points system is crucial to that..
IE: you run a given speed computer for a given time you expect it to produce a given number of points..not to find that it has run 15 hours at 1% and you have lost that time and ergo the points that go with it..That just leaves the participant with an empty feeling and also asking themselves" Why did I just run my machine for nothing?" and the nothing I refer to is not just the loss of points, but the fact that the machine did not contribute anything to the science.
I not only want to see credit issued for time spent on a WU, but the problem of WU's sent that can't be crunched. Thats the core issue, fix that and there are no issues about lost time.
Again, we're back to partnership. The closer we can work together on issues like this the more computing power that can be brought to this project.
I'd like nothing more than to see Dr.Baker on the cover of Time with a breakthrough that greatly benefits mankind. That to me would be the best "payment" that I could think of!
I'm glad to see that we agree at least in most areas..
Thank you for your time,
Movieman from XS

We actually agree on almost everything, and please feel free to consider the questions I am going to raise as rhetorical, as they are not directed at you specifically.

The difficulty I see is that many people do not realize that a big part of Rosetta is development of the software required to run accurate models. Because of this, there is a lot of variability in the WUs and the way they are run. While many people expect the project to be as mature and stable as SETI and some of the other projects that have been around for a while, that is not the case here. So at least for now, a number of people cannot simply load the software and let it run without SOME monitoring. But many more can. This will change. That is the focus of Ralph.

I think your question is fair. If a WU is flat out bad, that is an issue. But it is also fair to say that even if it fails on two systems, if it runs to success on the third, then it might not be the WU that is at fault. It could be, but more than likely it is not. So what is the fair ground here? Considering the extra work for the project to award credits outside the normal process, and the fact that diverts them from fixing the problem itself, should there not be some point at which it is fair to say a user might loose some computer time?

I see many people trying to run the project with systems that are clearly not up to the task. They say they run other projects just fine. But this project is not like other projects. The requirements are clear for Rosetta, and people should expect to have trouble if they do not meet those requirements. When they don't, they may loose credits. Is this the fault of the project? Man of these users are among the loudest on this issue. How far should the project go to address these demands for credit?

Many users complain about leaving the application in memory, and they criticize Rosetta for that. But the fact is that if you do not leave applications in memory you will loose CPU cycles at application switches on ALL of the projects. With Rosetta the loss is more significant, but even CPDN will loose up to 15 min for each swap. It is not a requirement to keep applications in memory, but it improves the success rate, and saves cycles, so it is suggested. If people do not follow that suggestion, and they crash a WU, or loose CPU time, or hang a WU, who is at fault? Not all systems crash WUs on restart after a swap, and not all are running with apps in memory.

So I guess what I am saying is, that asking for fair credit awards is reasonable, but there also has to be some consideration given as to what is a fair request, and the time frame in which the project must actually award the credits once they have committed to do so. The answer to that varies from user to user, so there are about 46,000 opinions.

Moderator9:
Lets try and solve these issues one at a time. I'm not a software engineer. I understand and can do simple programming( very simple) but I'm a damn good hardware guy and I build rock solid systems so I'm going to speak from that perspective.
Solve the issue of PC's that "aren't up to snuff" by setting rosetta so that if a machine doesn't make a total combined (whet and drystone) benchmark of X number the program will not run period. That will eliminate some of the problem but is not a totally accurate formula. I have a 1998 Supermicro Dual P3 xeon server. SM S2DGU motherboard. Dinosaur by todays standards BUT it runs rosetta 24/7 and does app 250-300 points a day and rarely errors out.This is with 2-700/2mb/100 cpu's and a gig of Crucial PC-13 ram. Old but when built was tops in it's field, but as to benchmark, LOL, a joke.
It's 1/10th of what my DX3600 is. So benchmark isn't the total answer either but a step in the right direction I think. One part of this is that the benchmark that is used in Rosetta is very poor in my opinion. No consistancy whatsoever. Thats not meant as criticism but as an observation.Something for us to consider and think about at least.
The two of us look at this from different viewpoints on the issue of points:
You from defending the current status quo and explaining the point of a WU being able to work on one machine but not two others so ergo the other two machines must be at fault in some way.
I from the perspective that I beleive the computing time itself is worth the points.I could draw the parrallel that were a company to go and purchase computer time they would pay(points,credits,etc) no matter if the said purchased computing time paid off in any way.
Where to go from here? I don't know if I can persuade you to understand my point of view and beyond that get any changes done in this matter.
I can see that you feel strongly in your position and I also feel strongly in mine.I am a firm beleiver that two rational people can sit down and sort out issues which is why I started this thread.
The written word sometimes loses the meaning that two parties are trying to get across and I feel that I have failed to get my feelings across properly.
I'm also of the opinion that I am talking with the wrong person as you are not in any decision making position. I do not mean that to be insulting to you, just a statement of why take the time to hash out an issue with someone that can't make decisions in the matter.
This process is very frustrating to me personally and as I have no other option but to post in this forum, thats what I have done.
Thank you for your time,
Movieman from XS

---

...
The two of us look at this from different viewpoints on the issue of points:
You from defending the current status quo and explaining the point of a WU being able to work on one machine but not two others so ergo the other two machines must be at fault in some way.
I from the perspective that I beleive the computing time itself is worth the points.I could draw the parrallel that were a company to go and purchase computer time they would pay(points,credits,etc) no matter if the said purchased computing time paid off in any way.
Where to go from here? I don't know if I can persuade you to understand my point of view and beyond that get any changes done in this matter.
I can see that you feel strongly in your position and I also feel strongly in mine.I am a firm beleiver that two rational people can sit down and sort out issues which is why I started this thread.
The written word sometimes loses the meaning that two parties are trying to get across and I feel that I have failed to get my feelings across properly.
I'm also of the opinion that I am talking with the wrong person as you are not in any decision making position. I do not mean that to be insulting to you, just a statement of why take the time to hash out an issue with someone that can't make decisions in the matter.
This process is very frustrating to me personally and as I have no other option but to post in this forum, thats what I have done.
Thank you for your time,
Movieman from XS

First, I don't insult easily, so no worries there.

As to the systems configurations, memory appears to be the most critical issue. While the requirements say 512MB is the min., a lot of people only have 256, and even the folks who have 512, forget that the system uses varying amounts of that to support itself. I am seeing a pattern where systems that are running 512 or less simply have a lot of errors, and systems that have more have less errors. All of my system have at least 1GB and one has over 8GB. I have almost no errors since they fixed the Max time problem. Even in Ralph I can run WUs for the 4 day max without problems.

We actually do not view the credit issue that differently. I do believe that credits should be awarded under the terms of the BOINC environment, and any additional offerings a project might make. I would also agree that the project should within reason do what it can to make adjustments when that is necessary. But the analogy of purchasing cycles is flawed in the context of BOINC projects. All of these projects would be running in some context, even if they were not open to the public. The use of public time donations moves the science along at a faster pace and allows for some computing intensive projects to progress beyond laboratory curiosities. But the fact is that credits are awarded for those donations, and participation is voluntary.

What we are talking about is a very small amount of credit by comparison to the total volume of credit possible, that fails to be awarded IMMEDIATELY. There is an issue when time is spent crunching, that is not and cannot be documented. While it might be nice to say that people should just get what they say the project owes them, that simply will not work. As for the credits that can be documented, the issue is not that it is never awarded, or even that it has not been promised, but that it was not awarded at the time someone expected it to be awarded. All I have said is that as a practical matter it does not matter if the credit is awarded today, or three weeks from today. Now we might quibble over this timing issue but that would really be pointless as the credits will come when they come.

As for discussing this with me as opposed to the project team. You are correct that I am not in a position to negotiate with you. But, the project people DO read these discussions, and frequently will make decisions based on what they read and even join in when they feel the need. One of the services they get from the volunteer Moderators is that WE have the time to engage people in these detailed discussions, and air the topic, and frequently they do not. Then when all of the discussion is out in the open, they can determine a course of action. So in fact discussions such as this are useful, and from my point of view, are dead center on target what these forums are for. As long as people are as cordial and thoughtful (as you have been) it is fruitful engagement.

---

Moderator9
ROSETTA@home FAQ
Moderator Contact

...
The two of us look at this from different viewpoints on the issue of points:
You from defending the current status quo and explaining the point of a WU being able to work on one machine but not two others so ergo the other two machines must be at fault in some way.
I from the perspective that I beleive the computing time itself is worth the points.I could draw the parrallel that were a company to go and purchase computer time they would pay(points,credits,etc) no matter if the said purchased computing time paid off in any way.
Where to go from here? I don't know if I can persuade you to understand my point of view and beyond that get any changes done in this matter.
I can see that you feel strongly in your position and I also feel strongly in mine.I am a firm beleiver that two rational people can sit down and sort out issues which is why I started this thread.
The written word sometimes loses the meaning that two parties are trying to get across and I feel that I have failed to get my feelings across properly.
I'm also of the opinion that I am talking with the wrong person as you are not in any decision making position. I do not mean that to be insulting to you, just a statement of why take the time to hash out an issue with someone that can't make decisions in the matter.
This process is very frustrating to me personally and as I have no other option but to post in this forum, thats what I have done.
Thank you for your time,
Movieman from XS

First, I don't insult easily, so no worries there.

As to the systems configurations, memory appears to be the most critical issue. While the requirements say 512MB is the min., a lot of people only have 256, and even the folks who have 512, forget that the system uses varying amounts of that to support itself. I am seeing a pattern where systems that are running 512 or less simply have a lot of errors, and systems that have more have less errors. All of my system have at least 1GB and one has over 8GB. I have almost no errors since they fixed the Max time problem. Even in Ralph I can run WUs for the 4 day max without problems.

We actually do not view the credit issue that differently. I do believe that credits should be awarded under the terms of the BOINC environment, and any additional offerings a project might make. I would also agree that the project should within reason do what it can to make adjustments when that is necessary. But the analogy of purchasing cycles is flawed in the context of BOINC projects. All of these projects would be running in some context, even if they were not open to the public. The use of public time donations moves the science along at a faster pace and allows for some computing intensive projects to progress beyond laboratory curiosities. But the fact is that credits are awarded for those donations, and participation is voluntary.

What we are talking about is a very small amount of credit by comparison to the total volume of credit possible, that fails to be awarded IMMEDIATELY. There is an issue when time is spent crunching, that is not and cannot be documented. While it might be nice to say that people should just get what they say the project owes them, that simply will not work. As for the credits that can be documented, the issue is not that it is never awarded, or even that it has not been promised, but that it was not awarded at the time someone expected it to be awarded. All I have said is that as a practical matter it does not matter if the credit is awarded today, or three weeks from today. Now we might quibble over this timing issue but that would really be pointless as the credits will come when they come.

As for discussing this with me as opposed to the project team. You are correct that I am not in a position to negotiate with you. But, the project people DO read these discussions, and frequently will make decisions based on what they read and even join in when they feel the need. One of the services they get from the volunteer Moderators is that WE have the time to engage people in these detailed discussions, and air the topic, and frequently they do not. Then when all of the discussion is out in the open, they can determine a course of action. So in fact discussions such as this are useful, and from my point of view, are dead center on target what these forums are for. As long as people are as cordial and thoughtful (as you have been) it is fruitful engagement.

Moderator9:
I thank you for your input and it's been a pleasure to speak with you and I appreciate Dr. Baker's comments.It was nice to hear from him.
I think at this time we've both said all that can be said on this issue.
We've both shared our points of view and both been able to see the others perspective.
I'm assuming that you've received the email I sent you friday. If I can help in any way on the data in that email please feel free to email me at the address that I sent that from.
Once again, I thank you for your time.
Movieman from XS

---