Message boards :
Number crunching :
Faster is not always better. More credit for being last.
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 2 Sep 04 Posts: 209 Credit: 1,482,496 RAC: 0 |
|
![]() Send message Joined: 2 Sep 04 Posts: 378 Credit: 10,765 RAC: 0 |
I thought they picked the middle number in case of three people validating a result, and the lower number in the case of two people validating a result. > ______________________________________________________________ Did your tech wear a static strap? No? Well, there ya go! :p |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 2 Sep 04 Posts: 209 Credit: 1,482,496 RAC: 0 |
|
Send message Joined: 2 Sep 04 Posts: 3 Credit: 16,040 RAC: 0 |
> I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that credit was granted to the first two > sucessful results based on the lowest credit claimed. Once this value was > determined any sucessful results returned before the deadline were granted the > same amount. They might have changed the rules, but thats what I remember. You're right, Keith - http://lhcathome.cern.ch/FAQ.html#2.4 Your chances are better if you come in 3rd (or 4th or 5th...) although of course you can end up with less credit too. I think we should still try to get them in as fast as possible for testing & science, but it is an argument against constant updating even if you do have a faster computer. SETI does take the middle of 3 valid results - at least that's how it was last time you could check. |
Send message Joined: 2 Sep 04 Posts: 16 Credit: 15,568 RAC: 0 |
I think that this depends on the particular systems involved. I have noticed that my HT P4 2.8 tends to claim less credit than others (especially when paired with Athlons), so it's being third will most often result in more credit (i.e., it is usually the lowest claimed of the three). Conversely, those with the Athlons would want to get their results in ASAP since they seem to clam higher credit. I think this also applies with slower systems (for example, my P3 1Ghz tends to claim more credit than faster pentium systems). Of course, mine is a very small sample of results. |
Send message Joined: 1 Sep 04 Posts: 4 Credit: 9,912 RAC: 0 |
I think one in around 50 results of mine might get the credit claimed. The vast majority get less, often a lot less. Whether I've processed on the P4 2800 desktop, or the Athlon 1800 laptop seems irrelevant to this spread of results. If the credit process was supposed to average itself out, it doesn't seem to be working. |
Send message Joined: 18 Sep 04 Posts: 1 Credit: 2,326 RAC: 0 |
What are teh credits for? Can i change them to free minutes on my mobile or get a burger @ BK? LOL |
![]() Send message Joined: 17 Sep 04 Posts: 27 Credit: 298,995 RAC: 0 |
> What are teh credits for? Can i change them to free minutes on my mobile or > get a burger @ BK? LOL > > I guess you have not been told about the online LHC@H store? ;) <a> |
Send message Joined: 27 Sep 04 Posts: 1 Credit: 1,296 RAC: 0 |
> I think one in around 50 results of mine might get the credit claimed. The > vast majority get less, often a lot less. Whether I've processed on the P4 > 2800 desktop, or the Athlon 1800 laptop seems irrelevant to this spread of > results. If the credit process was supposed to average itself out, it doesn't > seem to be working. > > It seems to me that linux machines claim much less credit than windows machines for the same units... |
©2025 CERN