Why does the estimate always wabble between the high 30,000's and the low 40,000's? With all of these new users and hosts each day you'd think we'd be approaching the mid to high 40,000's. What am I missing here?

---

Hi David,

first of all: the active users are pretty constant during the last 2 months. In other words: Rosetta gains about as many users as it loses in the same time.

Another effect that I guess is this: many Mac users have turned away from Rosetta because of too little credits per WU. But these machines contributed to the credits dealt out by the new credit system a lot. In numbers: a certain Mac may have claimed something around 10 to 15 credits per hour but was only granted 3 to 5. In words: these machines claim many credits per decoy, but do not really give the performance. Credits were inflated by some degree by these machines. With them gone, this inflation is gone too.

On the other hand a lot of the new machines are pretty fast and their architecture brings it with it that they show in the benchmarks much poorer than they really are. This means, that e.g. a Core 2 Duo may claim 30 credits per hour but is granted 50 or 60 or 70, meaning it contributes much less to the accumulated credits dealt out than it takes out. This way the credits the project shows are lower than the really would be regarding the processing power.

In short: Macs leaving and new machines coming in which have more crunching power than they show in the benchmarks both lower the credits.

To further show what I mean:Here is the link to the thread where I did an example calculation showing how the new credit system works in this respect. Three posts higher there is another example of what happens when a Mac reports first and when a Core 2 reports first.

If you read the example carefully you will note: if all machines were Core 2s, then all machines would get the same low credits als claimed and granted would be equal. To say it another way: the more high-power machines we have the less will the credits really reflect the crunching power behind the project unless someone really comes up with a new benchmarking system that tells what a machine does on Rosetta and not on the uniform and pretty useless BOINC benchmark.

[Edit] What I am saying about "inflation" is in no way intended as a pun against pre-Intel Macs, on the contrary. The Rosetta project, the way it presently does its calculations, is not optimized for pre-Intel Macs in any way and thus underrates the true power of these machines. Leaving Rosetta was thus just natural for many Mac users who either feel disregarded or think they can contribute more in other places. I really value this project, but I am not sure if it was still my choice if I was a pre-Intel Mac user myself [/Edit]

Hi David,

first of all: the active users are pretty constant during the last 2 months. In other words: Rosetta gains about as many users as it loses in the same time.

Another effect that I guess is this: many Mac users have turned away from Rosetta because of too little credits per WU. But these machines contributed to the credits dealt out by the new credit system a lot. In numbers: a certain Mac may have claimed something around 10 to 15 credits per hour but was only granted 3 to 5. In words: these machines claim many credits per decoy, but do not really give the performance. Credits were inflated by some degree by these machines. With them gone, this inflation is gone too.

On the other hand a lot of the new machines are pretty fast and their architecture brings it with it that they show in the benchmarks much poorer than they really are. This means, that e.g. a Core 2 Duo may claim 30 credits per hour but is granted 50 or 60 or 70, meaning it contributes much less to the accumulated credits dealt out than it takes out. This way the credits the project shows are lower than the really would be regarding the processing power.

In short: Macs leaving and new machines coming in which have more crunching power than they show in the benchmarks both lower the credits.

To further show what I mean:Here is the link to the thread where I did an example calculation showing how the new credit system works in this respect. Three posts higher there is another example of what happens when a Mac reports first and when a Core 2 reports first.

If you read the example carefully you will note: if all machines were Core 2s, then all machines would get the same low credits als claimed and granted would be equal. To say it another way: the more high-power machines we have the less will the credits really reflect the crunching power behind the project unless someone really comes up with a new benchmarking system that tells what a machine does on Rosetta and not on the uniform and pretty useless BOINC benchmark.

[Edit] What I am saying about "inflation" is in no way intended as a pun against pre-Intel Macs, on the contrary. The Rosetta project, the way it presently does its calculations, is not optimized for pre-Intel Macs in any way and thus underrates the true power of these machines. Leaving Rosetta was thus just natural for many Mac users who either feel disregarded or think they can contribute more in other places. I really value this project, but I am not sure if it was still my choice if I was a pre-Intel Mac user myself [/Edit]

a neat web site you might like...............http://www.rense.com/general72/size.htm

the scripts that credit errored tasks will probably throw the terraflops estimate out too as there'll suddenly be a jump in credits (assuming they're still running those scripts at intervals).

---

wow it's a long time since I last saw such a low Tflops estimate:
22.138

---

why did the tflops go down over 10 in the last 2 or 3 weeks ???????

It looks to me as if the decline has taken place in just the last 6 days.

Reviewing the 60 day history, this looks like a pretty serious drop.

---

Rosie, Rosie, she's our gal,
If she can't do it, no one shall!

Everybody now supports POEM@Home during the CASP race. Many crunchers moved (temporarily?) to this project as I predicted last month in the "CASP8" thread in the science section...
POEM went from 7Tflops to over 35Tflops!

I suppose a number of them will still come back for July after this race.

---

Everybody now supports POEM@Home during the CASP race. Many crunchers moved (temporarily?) to this project as I predicted last month in the "CASP8" thread in the science section...
POEM went from 7Tflops to over 35Tflops!

I suppose a number of them will still come back for July after this race.

I'm tempted to move over there due to all the errors I am getting now.

Due to all the errors I did move away to Poem@home parialy, i keep checking if there are Beta WU's. The main thing keeping me at rosetta are the Graphics of the beta version. I'm sure this doesn't count for everyone but the errors are a pain.

Over the past 8 days, the estimated teraflops for the project has declined by 20%

This is not a blip, but a week long trend that shows no sign of bottoming out.

What is happening?

---

Rosie, Rosie, she's our gal,
If she can't do it, no one shall!

we're looking into this right now. It's a little difficult to figure out the cause.

Thank you very much =)

---

Rosie, Rosie, she's our gal,
If she can't do it, no one shall!

I hope I don't jinx this by taking note of it too soon but...

It appears the teraFLOP hemorrhaging has stopped.

---

Rosie, Rosie, she's our gal,
If she can't do it, no one shall!

I hope I don't jinx this by taking note of it too soon but...

It appears the teraFLOP hemorrhaging has stopped.

hope so .....it was getting very disappointing

while I hope I'm wrong, it's possible that folks are leaving for Folding@Home. F@H just added nVidia cards and there is considerable excitement around F@H. They are now getting over 700 teraflops from GPUs alone (not counting PS3)

---

while I hope I'm wrong, it's possible that folks are leaving for Folding@Home. F@H just added nVidia cards and there is considerable excitement around F@H. They are now getting over 700 teraflops from GPUs alone (not counting PS3)

I think that most of the decline was due to t405 tasks stalling clients. We'll have to wait and see how much the teraFLOPS recovers over the next few days

---

Rosie, Rosie, she's our gal,
If she can't do it, no one shall!

Back up to about 57 t-flops now! :))

Drat those t405's.... keep up the good work, in a couple days it will be one year to the day I put my boxes on Rosetta. (Not going to mention the prev project I was on, that was an "Epic Fail", lol)

- Happy Camper (well, cruncher)

It took a little bit, but I am glad to see the TFLOPS estimate back to 70. :-)

Crunch on.

---

74 now, gogogo! Lol, ;p

---