I was curious why sometimes there seems to be a pretty big discrepancy between claimed vs granted credit.
Like for one project I noticed that claimed is 69.85, granted is 36.94. Just over half.
Why is this? Thanks!
I was curious why sometimes there seems to be a pretty big discrepancy between claimed vs granted credit.
Like for one project I noticed that claimed is 69.85, granted is 36.94. Just over half.
Why is this? Thanks!
Thats a good question that i dont have an answer forOriginally Posted by artemis8
If i were to take a guess maybe its something to do with this new credit system they implemented, which for me doesnt make sence and gave up trying to understand it a while back. I ask once on a project website forum and didnt receive a very nice welcome so never went back to find out the answer.
There are several possible reasons:
In the old credit system:
1) The project could be awarding fixed credits, per task.
2) The project may be using a quorum system, where multiple copies of a WU are sent to two or more crunchers. When the tasks are returned and validates, credit is awarded based on the claimed amount. It might be the lesser of all the claims for that WU, or the greater of all, or the middle of all.
In the new system (AKA CreditNew):
It is almost completely random. The over-all goal is to under-award faster machines, in order to....well, I am not sure what the point is really. Discourage crunchers from upgrading their machines, is the consequence, intentional or otherwise.
Creditnew?
Now thats the best answer yet
Envelope with white powder to DA.
Gots to keep this generic.
Joined Original Message Board: Fri Jan 27, 2006 1:47 pm, Currently with 11298 Posts
If it ain't crunch'n, unplug it!
White powder. DA.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
