They're funded based on the science that they're doing, so at first glance the computer power involved is simply irrelevant.

The first glance is, however, wrong - one of the targets is to reduce as much as possible the computing power required for calculating any given protein, so as you say, they are indeed interested in accurate figures (albeit in a secondary way).

---

I just want to point out two things:

it is very simple to claim more credits than you deserve for work you have done for Rosetta

some people are crunching for rosetta, because it is possible to have big credits, and some people leave Rosetta, because it is not fair

Now reasons: I have tried it on six different computers and it was no problem to start claiming 10 times more. My computers were doing the same work in the same time, only they were asking 10 times bigger credits. (I'm not doing it now, because I believe it should be changed)

Among other people that avoid Rosetta because of credit cheating is also one Akos F. who helped with optimizing several other projects.

And why credits matter at all? Dr. Baker is talking about credits and has also started a competition for most credits during CASP. It means Dr. Baker thinks that credits and competition is important. And I think that cheating (claiming more credits than you deserve) violate this competition.

To Mike:

Aglarond: I don't understand your comment about crunching 24/7 means cheating is likely? Mad credit per day, yes, I understand that, but I don't follow the second half of your argument.

I wanted to say that if someone is crunching 12 hours for Rosetta and 12 hours for Einstein, then I see reason for using optimized boinc (5.5.0). However if he is crunching 24 hours for Rosetta, there is no need to use optimized boinc. Why would someone spend time installing special boinc client on computer, that is crunching only for Rosetta? There are some legitimate reasons, but it is very likely that it was for higher credit claims.

Ah I see, that makes sense.

I am new to grid computing (started today). An article I read on Comcast is the only reason I was aware my computer could be used this way. I followed links and installed BOINC. I was not aware of competitions and only joined to help. I have since read about the teams and I thought it sounded like fun. I found this thread while looking for team information. Now I feel people will think I am a cheater (I leave my computer on 24/7) because I am only running Rosetta and I have BOINC. What do you recommend?

---

Terry, if you use the Boinc client that you downloaded from Boinc, and attached to Rosetta. You will never be accused of cheating. sit back, relax, crunch on.


There are "Special" optimized boinc clients available from third party compilers which were designed for use with other projects that allow "optimized application (project application). since Rosetta hasn't released the source code, there are NO optimized Rosetta apps, and so noone should be using an opt boinc CC (with cal on). This is what is being discussed.

If you stick with standard boinc and rosetta software, you can run it to your hearts content and be glad you've contributed and NOT worry about claims of cheating. That's what I do.

tony

Thanks! I will look for a team.

---

here is a link to the a team ad thread in the cafe forum.

I'd recommend boincsynergy but there are many fine teams out there.

tony

---

Course, if you run the standard client (which I do) and then use akosf on Einstein@home (which I do, version u41-04), then there will be people over there that will tell people about how bad it is to not use an optimized client, because someone who didn't use akosf's app and claimed 51 credits, only got 8 credits (2 people used akosf's optimized science app) for the WU.

Given that I for one, am not going to run 2 seperate BOINC clients on the same computer, and under the same OS install, and then be unable to have it task switch between all projects; there's just no winning on that account. But oh well, I've done what seems reasonable, and what won't end up inflating credits here. Either way (though it has never been personally directed towards me), I s'pose I could hear of it in one form or another...

Oh, and on the team thing; go and search for one that suites your interests (as some teams do have some focus they got together for), perhaps visit the forums and see what the peeps are like, etc... Probably any of us would tell you to go join our team, or that our team is the best. Afterall, if we didn't like our teams, we woulda switched by now; and also why many of us advertize our teams. In the end, and for yourself, it's best for you to settle upon one that you will like :D

---

And why credits matter at all? Dr. Baker is talking about credits and has also started a competition for most credits during CASP. It means Dr. Baker thinks that credits and competition is important. And I think that cheating (claiming more credits than you deserve) violate this competition.

Let's be fair here.

The "competition" Dr Baker mentioned is but a way of getting more computers and people involved . ( Teams recruiting more people , getting more computers running.) The credits and team competition is an useful way of getting more computers, more people involved. At the end, the more people involved , the more models will be produced.

Somehow, for some people, the idea of the teams competing means there is a cutthroat, no holds barred, angry and furious competition where the team members are enemies and do not talk to each other and disrespect each other. I don't know which teams will fit that description but, I can tell you that at least that model doesnt hold for the teams I know about ( and the top three teams are in my know list). I can vouch that competing team members , do post in each others message boards, there may be a little taunting but civility abounds, friendship is there and more important respect for each other. I can talk for the three top teams: we are aware that the more people we get involved , the more models are produced. That is why we egg each other on. Of course we brag!!! Hey we have BBQs , stampedes, and we even raid the Beer Freezer of the top producer of an opposing team (Note to PY22, some of us would like you to have some Iced Tea available in the Fridge).

Many of you may not be aware of this, but, recently a team when they found out that a large chunk of their credits did not come from legit sources, removed them, voluntarily even though it represented 10% of their credits. This in the middle of a "furious" battle for top spot. So there is honor among teams.

As long as the BOINC code is public/open, there will be optimized clients.

By its nature, Rosetta is not one of those applications where multiple quorums is a feasible possibility (it is actually a waste of computing resources). And right now using another manager (one that is not BOINC, is not paractical)

The Rosetta Project, is in the process of designing a new internal Benchmark. I think it is going to be a fair one and it will still allow for the fun and healthy competition among teams while emphasizing what should matter the most: production.

That said, it is also obvious that there are some credit claims that do boggle the mind and test the realm of credibility. Suffice to say they are being reviewed. The reviewers recomendation will be made in the near future.

---

This and no other is the root from which a Tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
Plato

Reality-check, people: the majority of crunchers on projects like this one are in it for the POINTS and the COMPETITION between different teams... the fact that there's some scientific gain that comes with it is a nice bonus, but believe me, it's not number 1 on the list.

This is very true:

Most TeraFLOPS and consistent participation, come from people who care about the POINTS (credits) VERY MUCH.

I may not share this point of view, nor care much about points myself crunching for a project with very TANGIBLE and relatively short-term benefits like Rosetta, but we have to accept reality.

Reallity check: Five teams account for close to 50% of the production.

---

This and no other is the root from which a Tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
Plato

Reallity check: Five teams account for close to 50% of the production.

IMHO that's not correct. You were probably adding the percentage displayed in the free-dc-stats, but my guess is that they are counting the percentage of credits from each team against all credits which which are contributed through a team and not against all credits which are contributed (through a team or not).

If you add up the raw numbers you get a share of about 32% for the 5 top teams on overall credit and rac. Still impressive and shows the importance of credits and teams.

The current race between Xtremesystems and Free-DC is the best what could happen to Rosetta - that's why I joined the weaker side. ;-)

---

If you think some of the numbers are mind boggling repeat after me : Conroe. Within the month you will be seeing the first Conroe based rig running and crunching.

---

This and no other is the root from which a Tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
Plato

random dual Xeon 2.8 (HT) from top list
my dual Xeon 2.4@2.8GHz (HT)
what am I doing wrong here?



just a thought....reprogram the validator to cap the creditclaims at realistic levels?

here is my Xeon at 3G (HT)

You are doing nothing wrong.

random dual Xeon 2.8 (HT) from top list
my dual Xeon 2.4@2.8GHz (HT)
what am I doing wrong here?



just a thought....reprogram the validator to cap the creditclaims at realistic levels?

random dual Xeon 2.8 (HT) from top list
my dual Xeon 2.4@2.8GHz (HT)
what am I doing wrong here?



just a thought....reprogram the validator to cap the creditclaims at realistic levels?

You're doing nothing wrong, he is using an optimized client... and looking at his specific benchmarks it's also overclocked or he's using some other tricks to bump his benchmarks (I have a Xeon 1.6 @ 3.2 and my benches are a little lower, not much)

Maybe showing the last benchmark date in the computer summary would bring some more light into this affair too. If the last benchmark date "has been" in the future, it is very likely that the benchmark result is edited.


I'm using a future benchmark date on 3 BOINC boxes at work too though in order to inhibit the benchmarks - the benchmark makes java programs on those boxes unresponsive (makes them loose the DB2 connect) and unfortunately work is more important than crunching ;-)

None of those boxes@work are running Rosetta or QMC though, they all run projects with a higher quorum.


(@Jose : Merge and Delete should work, I did delete some outdated CC4.19 hosts entries with zero credits lately - just the link is missing, the function is working)

Maybe showing the last benchmark date in the computer summary would bring some more light into this affair too. If the last benchmark date "has been" in the future, it is very likely that the benchmark result is edited.


I'm using a future benchmark date on 3 BOINC boxes at work too though in order to inhibit the benchmarks - the benchmark makes java programs on those boxes unresponsive (makes them loose the DB2 connect) and unfortunately work is more important than crunching ;-)

None of those boxes@work are running Rosetta or QMC though, they all run projects with a higher quorum.


(@Jose : Merge and Delete should work, I did delete some outdated CC4.19 hosts entries with zero credits lately - just the link is missing, the function is working)

I know it is working. :) I did a prety nice job of merging to show the reality that I have only one computer working.

---

This and no other is the root from which a Tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
Plato

Can some one tell me how someone with only has 3,822.20 points get a RAC of 30,128.86??

6 PF2002 30,128.86 3,822.20 Netherlands 3 Jan 2006 15:17:02 UTC

I have 66+ PC's running 24/7 and upload 2X's his over all total every 6 HR's and my RAC is 31,650.90 Thats only 1500 more then his

Is this guy cheating by changing the numbers on his end

---

If You Want The Best You Must forget The Rest
---------------And Join Free-DC----------------

A lot of the first time posters are showing strange results like that, Lauren2.

Credit: 4
RAC: 250
single or double digit Credit, and RAC in the 3 digit range. Is RAC being calculated differently with Boinc 5.4.9 or Rosetta's .22 release?

---

Can some one tell me how someone with only has 3,822.20 points get a RAC of 30,128.86??

6 PF2002 30,128.86 3,822.20 Netherlands 3 Jan 2006 15:17:02 UTC

I have 66+ PC's running 24/7 and upload 2X's his over all total every 6 HR's and my RAC is 31,650.90 Thats only 1500 more then his

Is this guy cheating by changing the numbers on his end

Do you have his computer ID? If so please contact me at joseantonio@choicecable.net or contact BOK. Do so ASAP, please

---

This and no other is the root from which a Tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
Plato

A lot of the first time posters are showing strange results like that, Lauren2.

Credit: 4
RAC: 250
single or double digit Credit, and RAC in the 3 digit range. Is RAC being calculated differently with Boinc 5.4.9 or Rosetta's .22 release?

This is not 250 BUT 30,128 His RAC is 8X his points And if you look all his points are way over 30 days old. So I am not sure 5.4.9 was inplay then

If this is let passed by the system Lords as OK I want my RAC boosted to 19,490,032 RAC score

I think the system lords here need to look into ways to make the point system that is more fair and even to all. If not people will see the unbalance and walk a way

Thats my 2 cents

---

If You Want The Best You Must forget The Rest
---------------And Join Free-DC----------------