Set quorum to 2 WU to avoid cheating

Message boards : Number crunching : Set quorum to 2 WU to avoid cheating

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
Profile [HWU] GHz
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 05
Posts: 3
Credit: 366,762
RAC: 0
Message 7750 - Posted: 27 Dec 2005, 21:23:06 UTC
Last modified: 27 Dec 2005, 21:23:40 UTC

Do you have see the new first user of rosetta?

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/top_users.php

And its host:
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/top_hosts.php
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=105526

And this is the onli assigned WU:
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/workunit.php?wuid=3530614

Looking at the benchmark, i think that joseph is cheating and with the quorum of 1 WU it's very easy to do. Please set the quorum to 2 WU and reset the total credit for that user and its host.

Bye,
GHz
ID: 7750 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Profile Tern
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 05
Posts: 576
Credit: 4,695,450
RAC: 11
Message 7753 - Posted: 27 Dec 2005, 21:33:03 UTC

This has already been discussed - the benchmarks on that machine are wrong. There is no evidence of cheating. This user's data will have to be adjusted after the project staff returns from the holidays.

Setting the quorum to 2 (or redundancy in general) has been discussed as well. Unless the _current_ plans (I believe) to replace the benchmarks with flops-counting fall through, there is little or no need to waste the computing resources on redundancy. The occasional problem like this one host can be dealt with manually.

ID: 7753 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Profile River~~
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 Dec 05
Posts: 761
Credit: 285,578
RAC: 0
Message 7754 - Posted: 27 Dec 2005, 21:34:50 UTC - in response to Message 7750.  
Last modified: 27 Dec 2005, 21:41:43 UTC

Do you have see the new first user of rosetta?
...i think that joseph is cheating


I don't. Any cheat would surely set a value that was plausible, at least making it all numeric! I think it is another knock on effect of the buggy WU

River~~

PS - see also the user has a zillion credits thread in this forum
ID: 7754 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Profile [HWU] GHz
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 05
Posts: 3
Credit: 366,762
RAC: 0
Message 7758 - Posted: 27 Dec 2005, 21:59:37 UTC - in response to Message 7753.  

This has already been discussed

Sorry, i did not see any discussion about this
- the benchmarks on that machine are wrong. There is no evidence of cheating.

Do you thik that is a boinc error?
This user's data will have to be adjusted after the project staff returns from the holidays.

Ok :)

Setting the quorum to 2 (or redundancy in general) has been discussed as well. Unless the _current_ plans (I believe) to replace the benchmarks with flops-counting fall through, there is little or no need to waste the computing resources on redundancy.

Flops-counting? Where I can find information about it?
The occasional problem like this one host can be dealt with manually.

until the problem is only one user there are no problems...;)

Bye,
GHz
ID: 7758 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Profile Tern
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 05
Posts: 576
Credit: 4,695,450
RAC: 11
Message 7761 - Posted: 27 Dec 2005, 22:34:33 UTC - in response to Message 7758.  

This has already been discussed

Sorry, i did not see any discussion about this


It's fallen to "page 2"... the Code Release and Redundancy thread. Contains _almost_ all the info we have right now. :-)

ID: 7761 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
STE\/E

Send message
Joined: 17 Sep 05
Posts: 125
Credit: 4,101,873
RAC: 190
Message 7769 - Posted: 27 Dec 2005, 23:56:36 UTC - in response to Message 7753.  

The occasional problem like this one host can be dealt with manually.


Who says it's occasional .. ?? I pulled this off one of the Hosts & it's by no means a rare instance as I can find many more like this ... 4,962.45 Credits for 11.68 hours of Processing Time. Is it any wonder the Rosetta Project is so Popular these days with this kind of Credit being asked for & the Project graciously giving it out.

19 Dec 2005 7:23:51 UTC 22 Dec 2005 5:51:57 UTC Over Success Done 6,189.83 711.08 711.08
19 Dec 2005 7:23:51 UTC 21 Dec 2005 13:50:39 UTC Over Success Done 4,995.59 573.89 573.89
19 Dec 2005 7:23:51 UTC 21 Dec 2005 13:50:39 UTC Over Success Done 12,636.86 1,451.70 1,451.70
19 Dec 2005 7:23:51 UTC 22 Dec 2005 5:51:57 UTC Over Success Done 4,422.80 508.08 508.08
19 Dec 2005 7:23:51 UTC 21 Dec 2005 5:49:49 UTC Over Success Done 4,085.38 469.32 469.32
19 Dec 2005 7:23:51 UTC 22 Dec 2005 5:51:57 UTC Over Success Done 8,312.92 954.97 954.97
19 Dec 2005 7:23:51 UTC 22 Dec 2005 5:51:57 UTC Over Success Done 2,240.72 257.41 257.41

ID: 7769 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Profile Tern
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 05
Posts: 576
Credit: 4,695,450
RAC: 11
Message 7776 - Posted: 28 Dec 2005, 1:53:51 UTC - in response to Message 7769.  

Who says it's occasional .. ?? I pulled this off one of the Hosts & it's by no means a rare instance as I can find many more like this ...


There is discussion on ways to solve it - all are going to be manual processes until flops-counting can be put in.

ID: 7776 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote

Message boards : Number crunching : Set quorum to 2 WU to avoid cheating



©2024 University of Washington
https://www.bakerlab.org