Message boards : Number crunching : Totally Disgusting
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
Profile Steve Cressman
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Sep 04
Posts: 47
Credit: 6,394
RAC: 0
Message 16041 - Posted: 5 Jan 2007, 9:48:25 UTC
Last modified: 5 Jan 2007, 9:56:43 UTC

Was looking through my results when I came across this result . I just don't know how people can live with themselves especially when they so blatantly try to cheat like this person. My claim was 27.92 and his digusting claim is 121.85 There is no way you can say that a claim that is more than 4x what it should be is a mistake. I bet this person also cheats at solitaire. And if you want to be disgusted even further look at that persons other results.
98SE XP2500+ @ 2.1 GHz Boinc v5.8.8
ID: 16041 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile pschoefer

Send message
Joined: 14 Jul 05
Posts: 21
Credit: 3,486,046
RAC: 0
Message 16042 - Posted: 5 Jan 2007, 10:36:28 UTC - in response to Message 16041.  

Was looking through my results when I came across this result . I just don't know how people can live with themselves especially when they so blatantly try to cheat like this person. My claim was 27.92 and his digusting claim is 121.85 There is no way you can say that a claim that is more than 4x what it should be is a mistake. I bet this person also cheats at solitaire. And if you want to be disgusted even further look at that persons other results.


I think this guy uses BOINC v5.5.0, which is always used by cheaters. This version always claimes very too much credit. That's the reason why some projects now have fixed credits.

The projects could ban 5.5.0, but some hosts has problems with 5.4.11. For more information, see this thread at PrimeGrid.
ID: 16042 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Ocean Archer
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 13 Jul 05
Posts: 143
Credit: 263,300
RAC: 0
Message 16043 - Posted: 5 Jan 2007, 11:12:40 UTC

Hi there Steve - you too Pschoefer --

At first look, I was ready to agree with you fully, until I looked at the results file for the individual in question. There's a problem all right, but (s)he may not be aware of it.

The WU result you are discussing comes from a machine that appears (to the software anyway) as having 4 CPUs. It and three other WUs have the identical start times, with a completion time of nearly 6 hours later. I do not know how the BOINC program awards time/credit, but apparently it assigned the total computing time to each of the four units - resulting in the bloated credit number you mention.

Perhaps, the programmers need to examine more carefully the way multiple processor machines report their work ...


If I've lived this long, I've gotta be that old
ID: 16043 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile sysfried

Send message
Joined: 27 Sep 04
Posts: 282
Credit: 1,415,417
RAC: 0
Message 16045 - Posted: 5 Jan 2007, 13:26:02 UTC - in response to Message 16043.  

I wouldn't bother too much. LHC needs 3 valid results. With one result claiming way too much, the granted results are lower. The "cheat" client doesn't do any good here. It doesn't hurt either. No need to worry.

Regards,

Sysfried
ID: 16045 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Steve Cressman
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Sep 04
Posts: 47
Credit: 6,394
RAC: 0
Message 16048 - Posted: 5 Jan 2007, 14:46:27 UTC - in response to Message 16045.  

I wouldn't bother too much. LHC needs 3 valid results. With one result claiming way too much, the granted results are lower. The "cheat" client doesn't do any good here. It doesn't hurt either. No need to worry.

Regards,

Sysfried

If you look through his results you will see there are instances where he gets in a quorum with another overclaimer and the high claims are awarded. So while a quorum does stop most of it, it does not stop all of it. And no I'm not bothered by the credits, I'm just bothered by the choices people make in life.

Steve
98SE XP2500+ @ 2.1 GHz Boinc v5.8.8
ID: 16048 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
PovAddict
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Jul 05
Posts: 275
Credit: 49,291
RAC: 0
Message 16049 - Posted: 5 Jan 2007, 15:20:26 UTC - in response to Message 16043.  

Hi there Steve - you too Pschoefer --

At first look, I was ready to agree with you fully, until I looked at the results file for the individual in question. There's a problem all right, but (s)he may not be aware of it.

The WU result you are discussing comes from a machine that appears (to the software anyway) as having 4 CPUs. It and three other WUs have the identical start times, with a completion time of nearly 6 hours later. I do not know how the BOINC program awards time/credit, but apparently it assigned the total computing time to each of the four units - resulting in the bloated credit number you mention.

Perhaps, the programmers need to examine more carefully the way multiple processor machines report their work ...

One of those unofficial "calibrating" clients let you set how many CPUs to claim to have, so you run 4 units at a time on a single-core...
ID: 16049 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile sysfried

Send message
Joined: 27 Sep 04
Posts: 282
Credit: 1,415,417
RAC: 0
Message 16051 - Posted: 5 Jan 2007, 15:55:24 UTC - in response to Message 16048.  

I wouldn't bother too much. LHC needs 3 valid results. With one result claiming way too much, the granted results are lower. The "cheat" client doesn't do any good here. It doesn't hurt either. No need to worry.

Regards,

Sysfried

If you look through his results you will see there are instances where he gets in a quorum with another overclaimer and the high claims are awarded. So while a quorum does stop most of it, it does not stop all of it. And no I'm not bothered by the credits, I'm just bothered by the choices people make in life.

Steve


Well, I officially admit that I did use the "cheat client" as well. While I've re-installed most of my machines, I think I've upgraded my hosts to the regular client.

My 2 cents about the credits @ lhc... if a high claimed credit causes the granted credit to rise, the other participants also gain from this, because their granted credit is above the claimed.

Sincerely,

Sysfried
ID: 16051 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Gary Roberts

Send message
Joined: 22 Jul 05
Posts: 72
Credit: 3,962,626
RAC: 0
Message 16056 - Posted: 6 Jan 2007, 2:23:56 UTC - in response to Message 16049.  


One of those unofficial "calibrating" clients let you set how many CPUs to claim to have, so you run 4 units at a time on a single-core...


If you are referring to the Boinc Studio client, which does indeed allow you to easily fake the number of CPUs your box has, you are incorrect in your claim about running four units at once. The purpose of claiming four CPUs was to work around the very frustrating daily result limit that Einstein@Home had at the time. Many people with recent machines (and not particularly fast ones either) were exhausting their daily allowance of work in less than 12 hours. By faking the number of CPUs to four, people were able to get four times the daily limit from the server if they needed to. It was a lifesaver for many people with moderately fast boxes.

However, the work was processed one unit at a time per actual CPU and NOT one unit per faked CPU. Whilst it is possible to run multiple science app instances per CPU (and you don't need Boinc Studio to do this), you would be silly to do so as each instance effectively consumes 100% of the cpu when it is running. The context switching overhead created by cycling between the instances would consume enough CPU cycles to give a reduction in total output rather than an increase.

Cheers,
Gary.
ID: 16056 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
PovAddict
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Jul 05
Posts: 275
Credit: 49,291
RAC: 0
Message 16059 - Posted: 6 Jan 2007, 3:38:57 UTC

Even official BOINC lets you fake CPU count and run X tasks at once (for debugging purposes).
ID: 16059 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
zombie67 [MM]
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 24 Nov 06
Posts: 76
Credit: 7,914,481
RAC: 27,114
Message 16063 - Posted: 6 Jan 2007, 6:11:10 UTC - in response to Message 16042.  

I think this guy uses BOINC v5.5.0, which is always used by cheaters.


1) No it's not. 5.5.0 is not required to cheat. Cheating can be *easily* done with the official build version.

2) Not all users of 5.5.0 are cheaters. After all, this version was used to create a level playing field for AMD users on a specific project.

3) A legitimate problem then arises when someone is "legally" using 5.5.0 for project A, and is also attached to project B.

4) When there is a quorum of 3 or more, there is little impact overall. Yes, if you get a WU with 2 or more results from hosts that inflate claims (cheating or no), you will get an inflated credit. However, that is fairly rare.

5) #1-4 are reasonable points, but the likelihood is that the person is using 5.5.0 to inflate scores.
Dublin, California
Team: SETI.USA

ID: 16063 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote

Message boards : Number crunching : Totally Disgusting


©2024 CERN