https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/result.php?resultid=32329251
This process generated 59 decoys from 59 attempts
Granted credit 21.7816396684088
Granted work credit 1.2804942607273

and this one:

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/result.php?resultid=32329252
This process generated 42 decoys from 42 attempts
Granted credit 21.5844895146452
Granted work credit 26.9278520568427

big difference.

---

The first one is the result of a error in some scripts this morning (or evening) producing a low result in the Granted Work Credit (only for a few WUs). It's OK in the second WU.

The Granted credit is the credit you receive for a given WU. The Granted work credit is the 'new' credit system which is being tested.

So at this point, the Granted work credit means nothing, but eventually all of our points will turn into that? Or they still havn't decided?

---

Yes it's only a test.
There's no decision until the project team find an agreement with users.

If it was a test then it should have been kept and tested in the labs, not out in the wild. all it has succeeded in doing is driving out a lot of us! You say with agreement of the users, who, the volatile ones or the ordinary ones like the vast majority....it should havebeen left exactly as it was!

The first one is the result of a error in some scripts this morning (or evening) producing a low result in the Granted Work Credit (only for a few WUs). It's OK in the second WU.

The Granted credit is the credit you receive for a given WU. The Granted work credit is the 'new' credit system which is being tested.

ok - thanks for the info.

---

If it was a test then it should have been kept and tested in the labs, not out in the wild. all it has succeeded in doing is driving out a lot of us! You say with agreement of the users, who, the volatile ones or the ordinary ones like the vast majority....it should havebeen left exactly as it was!

Sometimes the only way to really test something is to throw it to the wolves. As a case in poin, I'm working on some code that is a software simulation of a broken floating point processor that's sufficiently different from IEEE that the FPU in the host system (a PPC) can't be used.

So I had to write a FP add using pure integer ops, tear the two inputs apart into sign, exponent and mantissa, try to duplicate the hardware (for which we have NO documentation at all), and produce an answer.

After a week or so, I knew enough to get something that seemed to work. So we set it up for a soak test by throwing random numbers at it.

It took a week and three days running 24 / 7, about 5 million tests a second, before one pathological case caused a breakage.

I'm not saying that the new credit system is quite this squirrely, but at the same time, it does need a hard soak test before going live.

That's what it's getting. I'd sugest that rather than removing it, there could have been a better explanation of exactly whaddinhell was going on.

The problem is people tend to see low numbers and immediately think the whole credit system is about to crash, burn and go down in flames. Well, despite what Chicken Little may have believed, the sky is not falling.

---

Maybe this one has to be added to the list:
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/workunit.php?wuid=28344343
There is a discrepancy in claimed and granted credit.

---

greetz, Uli

I fixed the granted work credit values in the results. Please post any significant discrepancies here.