claimed credit: 50.12, granted credit: 9.96

Message boards : Number crunching : claimed credit: 50.12, granted credit: 9.96

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
Papa Protein

Send message
Joined: 25 Jul 08
Posts: 4
Credit: 3,346
RAC: 0
Message 55546 - Posted: 4 Sep 2008, 19:30:24 UTC

link https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/result.php?resultid=189240710


Is it a bug?
ID: 55546 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Mod.Sense
Volunteer moderator

Send message
Joined: 22 Aug 06
Posts: 4018
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
Message 55547 - Posted: 4 Sep 2008, 19:36:05 UTC

Please reference the following threads:

granted credit < 10% of claimed credit
Low credit from mini version vs prior
Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Sense
ID: 55547 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
ramostol

Send message
Joined: 6 Feb 07
Posts: 64
Credit: 584,052
RAC: 0
Message 55577 - Posted: 6 Sep 2008, 9:51:52 UTC

No, this is not a bug, nor a specific miniRosetta issue.

Invoking all possible caveats I shall try to give a possible explanation:

You will notice that the wu (1 model) in question ran quite long compared to your default runtime and compared to other models in wus of the same category. This may be a clue.

Credits are based on averages. And while it is easy to assume that all models that might be generated within a certain wu need approximately the same time to complete, this is not always the case. Effective CPU runtime may differ with several hundred percent between models within the same wu. If a special type of wu consists of lots of short models and a few longer ones this will of course affect the average credits per model. The losers are those completing the small number of large models.

In all fairness, one may also get a surprise the other way when a series of long models suddenly will be interrupted by a quick decoy earning lots of "undeserved" credits.
ID: 55577 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Profile dcdc

Send message
Joined: 3 Nov 05
Posts: 1832
Credit: 119,675,695
RAC: 11,002
Message 55579 - Posted: 6 Sep 2008, 11:09:53 UTC
Last modified: 6 Sep 2008, 11:11:31 UTC

from observation, i think part of the problem is that CPUs with a smaller cache have the difference between claimed and granted exaggerated because minirosetta seems to be more cache-dependent.

Of course CPUs with a smaller cache get a higher benchmark than they should as the cache size isn't taken into account in the benchmark, but this is the same for both minirosett and old rosetta...
ID: 55579 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive    Reply Quote

Message boards : Number crunching : claimed credit: 50.12, granted credit: 9.96



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