My avg. credit is sinking like a stone. I formerly received a 'granted credit' that was 90-100% of the 'claimed credit'. Now I receive 30-50%. This is happening on both machines, I have made no changes to either.

This trend started around May 1 2008.

Any ideas? Thanks.

My avg. credit is sinking like a stone. I formerly received a 'granted credit' that was 90-100% of the 'claimed credit'. Now I receive 30-50%. This is happening on both machines, I have made no changes to either.

This trend started around May 1 2008.

Any ideas? Thanks.

Hello Mikey,

On my Windows XP machine I see some lower granted credits for the minirostta 1.19 compared to the beta 5.96. However not as much as you describe.
The 1.19 was introduced on may 5 th, perhaps your lower credits are a result of the introduction of the 1.19.

Let's see if more people are having a lower granted credit since may 1 st.

Have a nice day,
Path7.

I too am seeing a drop in granted points and only getting credit for on average about 1/2 of what my 2 PC's claim.
Rosetta is very low on the credit scale for credit/hr.

---

I looked at the credit from some of my recent WUs and it looks like a cache issue. If the CPU has 1MB of cache per core or more, the granted credit is usually => the claimed credit. If the CPU has 512KB cache, the granted credit is usually < the claimed credit.

This is a quick observation.

---

Thx!

Paul

I too am seeing a drop in granted points and only getting credit for on average about 1/2 of what my 2 PC's claim.
Rosetta is very low on the credit scale for credit/hr.

So is this a Rosetta issue, or a BOINC issue? On this computer I can see that the host average has dropped steadily for the past month (by around 20%).

Also, a dual Xeon system I brought online is only getting about 60% of the claimed credit. With some granted credit being in the 20% range at times.

So, could it be anything to do with:

1) An OS issue? The system with Server 2003 looks to be getting the lowest granted credit. The system with Vista gets the highest granted credit.

2) Communication problem (with BOINC / Rosetta code) On every system, whenever I look, there are task at 100% but BOINC doesn't communicate (I have tried all kinds of settings). It is almost like the next task has to finish and “push” the old one out of the way, (not all the time, say 85% of the time. I have DSL and always connected).

If the low credit is just a Rosetta issue, I can switch to another project. If the problem is with BOINC, I may need to turn of the dual Xeon server. It puts out a lot of heat for so little credit (it only runs BOINC / Rosetta 24x7 – it is a home toy).

---

So is this a Rosetta issue, or a BOINC issue? On this computer I can see that the host average has dropped steadily for the past month (by around 20%).

Also, a dual Xeon system I brought online is only getting about 60% of the claimed credit. With some granted credit being in the 20% range at times.

So, could it be anything to do with:

1) An OS issue? The system with Server 2003 looks to be getting the lowest granted credit. The system with Vista gets the highest granted credit.

Just my guess, but as long as you're using win32, any OS-difference between any of NT4/win2k/xp/2003/vista/2008 would be a couple % at most, except if you've got too little memory to run vista that is...

2) Communication problem (with BOINC / Rosetta code) On every system, whenever I look, there are task at 100% but BOINC doesn't communicate (I have tried all kinds of settings). It is almost like the next task has to finish and “push” the old one out of the way, (not all the time, say 85% of the time. I have DSL and always connected).

To not put unneccesarily extra load on the Scheduling-server and database, BOINC-client will wait to report any "ready to report"-results until next time needs to connect. Next connection to Scheduling-server happens:

1; Next time needs to ask for more work. On average, would guess this happens roughly 1/2 the target-run-time after result finished.
2; If 24 hours since result uploaded.
3; If less than 24 hours to deadline.
4; If less than "connect about every N days" to deadline.
5; Manually triggered by user.
6; To send trickle-up (CPDN).

---

"I make so many mistakes. But then just think of all the mistakes I don't make, although I might."

1; Next time needs to ask for more work. On average, would guess this happens roughly 1/2 the target-run-time after result finished.
2; If 24 hours since result uploaded.
3; If less than 24 hours to deadline.
4; If less than "connect about every N days" to deadline.
5; Manually triggered by user.
6; To send trickle-up (CPDN).

Thanks for the information. I went ahead and took the server off the project, as my P4 2.0GHz computer was generating more credit than it. The server had generated more results than any of my other computers, but the credits were just not there...

---