High Credit
log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Number crunching : High Credit

1 · 2 · Next
Author Message
Profile McShane of TSBT
Send message
Joined: 13 Nov 15
Posts: 5
Credit: 36,627,282
RAC: 5,802
Message 976 - Posted: 3 Sep 2016, 21:15:39 UTC

I wonder how many cores required to score 2,546,560. BaBe seem to achieve this every day. If it is not the number of cores than what modifications like app_config is required. Any thoughts?
____________

Profile Moises Cardona
Send message
Joined: 6 Dec 15
Posts: 91
Credit: 7,227,900
RAC: 11,429
Message 977 - Posted: 3 Sep 2016, 21:28:14 UTC

Very likely it could be the use of Virtual Machines. That would make 2 wu per hour per VM.

HAL9000
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 15
Posts: 88
Credit: 66,085,300
RAC: 146,392
Message 978 - Posted: 4 Sep 2016, 11:14:35 UTC - in response to Message 977.

Very likely it could be the use of Virtual Machines. That would make 2 wu per hour per VM.
\r\nBOINC supports running multiple instances. Which if you understand how to configure will use much less overheads than running a shed load of VMs.
____________

Join the BP6/VP6 User Group today!

Profile [boinc@poland]goofyx
Project administrator
Project developer
Project scientist
Help desk expert
Send message
Joined: 8 Nov 15
Posts: 541
Credit: 9,002,054
RAC: 8,283
Message 979 - Posted: 5 Sep 2016, 6:17:47 UTC

Since december 2015 I blocked 10 users who used boinc multiple instances <- with massive count. For example 3 users had more that 10000 instances each.\r\nI know my project is NCI but even that there is a border for cheating.

Profile Beyond
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Sep 16
Posts: 12
Credit: 2,318,020
RAC: 7,400
Message 996 - Posted: 6 Oct 2016, 2:30:25 UTC - in response to Message 979.

Since december 2015 I blocked 10 users who used boinc multiple instances <- with massive count. For example 3 users had more that 10000 instances each.\r\nI know my project is NCI but even that there is a border for cheating.
\r\nPretty much all the top users are finding various ways to rack up huge numbers in order to "game" the DC Vault scores (multiple BOINC instances, config hacks, virtual machines). Some teams have multiple users doing this. If you want this to happen let everyone know and bar the doors. If you don't want it to happen, sanction the offenders and pull their scores. It's really your decision to make. Just let us know what you decide.

Profile [boinc@poland]goofyx
Project administrator
Project developer
Project scientist
Help desk expert
Send message
Joined: 8 Nov 15
Posts: 541
Credit: 9,002,054
RAC: 8,283
Message 998 - Posted: 7 Oct 2016, 6:26:12 UTC - in response to Message 976.
Last modified: 7 Oct 2016, 6:27:13 UTC

I wonder how many cores required to score 2,546,560. BaBe seem to achieve this every day. If it is not the number of cores than what modifications like app_config is required. Any thoughts?
\r\nIf you want that RAC you need 6627 host like BaBe. \r\n6,627 hosts * 46WU per day (24h) = about 304,842 WU per day\r\n\r\nI sent warning to BaBe, because there is a border of my tolerance of cheating.\r\nIf BaBe don't stop I will reset his/her account.

Profile Coleslaw
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 13 Nov 15
Posts: 38
Credit: 55,116,621
RAC: 291,048
Message 999 - Posted: 7 Oct 2016, 12:49:33 UTC - in response to Message 998.

I think what is being said is that you need to clearly outline what is acceptable and what is not. What is the limit? Are multiple clients allowed? How many? Are virtual machines allowed? How many? It is unfair to donors if it isn't spelled out. You use the word cheating. Please explain your definition of cheating. There are no rules posted in this regard. Thus cheating by definition cannot occur. You deleted the old threads talking about not allowing virtual machines. Has your stance changed on those? Why aren't you coming out and being open with what is and is not allowed so that all know what rules to play by. It is NOT fair to punish one person for using multiple clients without punishing everyone else that has them unless there is a set limit that has been broken. \r\n\r\nYou may call it cheating, but I call it lack of clarity by project admins.
____________

StyM
Send message
Joined: 17 Jul 16
Posts: 2
Credit: 444,936,360
RAC: 60,563
Message 1000 - Posted: 7 Oct 2016, 14:41:19 UTC - in response to Message 999.

I think what is being said is that you need to clearly outline what is acceptable and what is not. What is the limit? Are multiple clients allowed? How many? Are virtual machines allowed? How many? It is unfair to donors if it isn't spelled out. You use the word cheating. Please explain your definition of cheating. There are no rules posted in this regard. Thus cheating by definition cannot occur. You deleted the old threads talking about not allowing virtual machines. Has your stance changed on those? Why aren't you coming out and being open with what is and is not allowed so that all know what rules to play by. It is NOT fair to punish one person for using multiple clients without punishing everyone else that has them unless there is a set limit that has been broken. \r\n\r\nYou may call it cheating, but I call it lack of clarity by project admins.
\r\n\r\nsome volunteers here have the audacity to accuse others of cheating when there is NO CLEAR RULE with what's allowed or not.\r\nmy nick was even changed without me knowing, had to revert it this morning.\r\n \r\nthis is just sad and pathetic, a RULE SHOULD BE IMPOSED ON WHAT'S ALLOWED\r\nOR NOT, rather than resort to this childish act.\r\nin 13 years doing DC this is the first time i've been accused of something.

fractal
Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 16
Posts: 16
Credit: 37,968,810
RAC: 123,442
Message 1001 - Posted: 8 Oct 2016, 0:30:21 UTC

Wow. Not really sure how to respond to something like this.\r\n\r\nSeriously, we all know what an unfair advantage is. Saying "anyone can do ..." does not change that one little bit.\r\n\r\nI can seriously sympathize with the staff. Writing hard and fast rules for people who want to take an advantage just gives them a line to walk ... and turns the staff into the police. I am sure they have better things to do than try to figure out who is "gaming the system."\r\n\r\nWhat gets worse is when they do catch someone. Then what? Do you ban them? What if you get it wrong? What recourse do the falsely accused have?\r\n\r\nMy gosh, this project is goofy. Trying to figure out whether an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters ...\r\n\r\nThat's just plain goofy. It seems that any competition bring out the competitive nature in people, and that competitive nature makes people want to push the rules.\r\n\r\nAnd, as expected, rather than be contrite when caught, they pull the "but the rules are not written down!" cop-out. \r\n\r\nGimme a break.\r\n\r\nI applaud BaBe for demonstrating what a determined individual can do with this project. It is to be commended. But most will agree that what (s)he did is an unfair advantage over the regular person with a couple of machines, or even a Boinc junkie like me with a couple dozen. Now I can, and have, spun up a few dozen VM's. I spin up a new one whenever I have a few spare minutes. There is nothing stopping anyone from doing this. But, 6k machines? That is some determination there...

StyM
Send message
Joined: 17 Jul 16
Posts: 2
Credit: 444,936,360
RAC: 60,563
Message 1002 - Posted: 8 Oct 2016, 7:10:49 UTC
Last modified: 8 Oct 2016, 7:34:46 UTC

wow, the level of assumptions and presumption here is astonishing.\r\nit was only an assumption by some volunteers and now you're saying as if its the truth.\r\nanyways, people can think whatever thay want to think and assume whatever they want to.

HAL9000
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 15
Posts: 88
Credit: 66,085,300
RAC: 146,392
Message 1003 - Posted: 8 Oct 2016, 13:49:06 UTC - in response to Message 1001.

Wow. Not really sure how to respond to something like this.\r\n\r\nSeriously, we all know what an unfair advantage is. Saying "anyone can do ..." does not change that one little bit.\r\n\r\nI can seriously sympathize with the staff. Writing hard and fast rules for people who want to take an advantage just gives them a line to walk ... and turns the staff into the police. I am sure they have better things to do than try to figure out who is "gaming the system."\r\n\r\nWhat gets worse is when they do catch someone. Then what? Do you ban them? What if you get it wrong? What recourse do the falsely accused have?\r\n\r\nMy gosh, this project is goofy. Trying to figure out whether an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters ...\r\n\r\nThat's just plain goofy. It seems that any competition bring out the competitive nature in people, and that competitive nature makes people want to push the rules.\r\n\r\nAnd, as expected, rather than be contrite when caught, they pull the "but the rules are not written down!" cop-out. \r\n\r\nGimme a break.\r\n\r\nI applaud BaBe for demonstrating what a determined individual can do with this project. It is to be commended. But most will agree that what (s)he did is an unfair advantage over the regular person with a couple of machines, or even a Boinc junkie like me with a couple dozen. Now I can, and have, spun up a few dozen VM's. I spin up a new one whenever I have a few spare minutes. There is nothing stopping anyone from doing this. But, 6k machines? That is some determination there...
\r\nI happen to know someone that owns a smallish data center. When their machines that are not leased out for use they run BOINC projects on them. The most I have seem them use at once is 2500 machines. Which were either 16c/32t or 32c/64t. Which if they were to direct that many machines to this project would generate ~1,200,00 credit a day. Which would be difficult to distinguish from someone running 2500 instances of BOINC on a single host with 64GB of RAM.\r\nWith the computers I currently have in my home I estimate I could have ~7000-8000 instances of BOINC & this project running at once. I personally think that would be bonkers.\r\n\r\nBOINC project admins can always run their projects however they like. Overnight it could change to one task a day per user account. I would still contribute my electricity & internet bandwidth since I like the premise of this project.
____________

Join the BP6/VP6 User Group today!

Profile Coleslaw
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 13 Nov 15
Posts: 38
Credit: 55,116,621
RAC: 291,048
Message 1004 - Posted: 8 Oct 2016, 16:47:38 UTC - in response to Message 1001.
Last modified: 8 Oct 2016, 16:51:36 UTC

Wow. Not really sure how to respond to something like this.\r\n\r\nSeriously, we all know what an unfair advantage is. Saying "anyone can do ..." does not change that one little bit.\r\n\r\nI can seriously sympathize with the staff. Writing hard and fast rules for people who want to take an advantage just gives them a line to walk ... and turns the staff into the police. I am sure they have better things to do than try to figure out who is "gaming the system."\r\n\r\nWhat gets worse is when they do catch someone. Then what? Do you ban them? What if you get it wrong? What recourse do the falsely accused have?\r\n\r\nMy gosh, this project is goofy. Trying to figure out whether an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters ...\r\n\r\nThat's just plain goofy. It seems that any competition bring out the competitive nature in people, and that competitive nature makes people want to push the rules.\r\n\r\nAnd, as expected, rather than be contrite when caught, they pull the "but the rules are not written down!" cop-out. \r\n\r\nGimme a break.\r\n\r\nI applaud BaBe for demonstrating what a determined individual can do with this project. It is to be commended. But most will agree that what (s)he did is an unfair advantage over the regular person with a couple of machines, or even a Boinc junkie like me with a couple dozen. Now I can, and have, spun up a few dozen VM's. I spin up a new one whenever I have a few spare minutes. There is nothing stopping anyone from doing this. But, 6k machines? That is some determination there...
\r\n\r\nYou are implying that individuals running multiple instances aren't also delivering the science as well. They put in the work and got the same credit per work unit. They didn't manipulate the work units. They ran them. That is not "cheating" by any means. Just because people don't want to put forth the effort to contribute more doesn't make it unfair. Cheating occurs when there is a clear rule that is being broken. The current unspoken rule is 1 of each application per host. They ran just 2 per host. Host (in BOINC terms) is not defined as a physical machine. I completely disagree that the masses will say it was unfair. Not if they look at the entire picture and see that it was all ran within the rules and no manipulation of the work. Is running GPU's with app_configs allowing multiple work units per card unfair at GPU projects? Think long and hard before answering.\r\n\r\nIt is also shameful of the project to change his/her handle like that. A project admin staff that can't agree on clear set of rules and post them have no respect for accusing others of cheating. That is childish.
____________

Profile Beyond
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Sep 16
Posts: 12
Credit: 2,318,020
RAC: 7,400
Message 1005 - Posted: 11 Oct 2016, 3:06:00 UTC - in response to Message 1004.
Last modified: 11 Oct 2016, 3:09:14 UTC

Cheating occurs when there is a clear rule that is being broken. The current unspoken rule is 1 of each application per host. They ran just 2 per host. Host (in BOINC terms) is not defined as a physical machine. I completely disagree that the masses will say it was unfair.
\r\nI wish that the Admin would answer the question that I asked above. A 1 minute search yielded this posted on several team forums:\r\n\r\n"Please don't create special virtual machines for my project <- in my opinion is not fair in relation to other. For now i had sent 3 warnigs message to user to abandon that way of crunching.\r\nI don't want to have situation like was with FreeHal project. 2 days ago I had to ban and delete 3 user account with more than 150 VM's.\r\nToday I sent next warnings to 3 users."\r\n\r\nSeems clear enough, but now it appears that whole thread has been deleted.\r\n\r\n
Is running GPU's with app_configs allowing multiple work units per card unfair at GPU projects? Think long and hard before answering.
\r\nNot the same. Goofy uses virtually no resources so it should be possible to write a script to spawn a vast number of sessions with little impact on the machine. It was intentionally designed to be an NCI app. App configs for GPUs simply allow a few (generally 2-4) WUs to run simultaneously for apps that are not completely utilizing the GPU. AFAIK this has always been allowed and even encouraged by the Admins.\r\n\r\nIf multiple sessions are going to be allowed, why not just implement a setting in the project config to allow people to run as many instances as they like?

Profile Tarmo Ilves
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 18 Jan 16
Posts: 22
Credit: 23,841,120
RAC: 102,500
Message 1006 - Posted: 11 Oct 2016, 12:25:11 UTC

Simplest way to resolve this issue is to create CPU intensive apps.\r\nHow can you call it cheating when I run tasks and return valid results? In scientific point of view it don't matter how I get results important is that they are valid. \r\nWhat is more important for project, getting more work done or fight those who do it?

Profile Coleslaw
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 13 Nov 15
Posts: 38
Credit: 55,116,621
RAC: 291,048
Message 1007 - Posted: 11 Oct 2016, 13:26:40 UTC - in response to Message 1005.
Last modified: 11 Oct 2016, 13:28:01 UTC

Beyond, I know it isn't the same. It is VERY similar though in concept for the discussion. The implication is that since people have to do work arounds to get more work units to process on their hardware then it is unfair. Look at Einstein. They implemented a way to run multiple instances on a GPU from their project from the project settings. That implies they allow it. Other projects don't. Is this to imply that you are cheating at those projects? That is what fractal is implying. Just because it is NCI doesn't mean that you can't run more. For example, some people will only run this project because it is NCI. That is because they don't care that much about the science. So, they can contribute without impeding other projects. Now, someone that wants to push the science further or someone that is answering this admins call for additional resources can elect to better use their CPU by running additional work. Now the NCI could be implemented simply to appeal to those that don't care. Since the admin is not posting ANY rules at their project in regards to this any more, it is to be assumed it is ok to contribute more. \r\n\r\nJust because something is NCI does NOT mean that you have to run it like any other NCI project. Remember, this is the first project to even have 2 NCI applications being sent out at once. So again, just because it uses virtually little resources does not mean my example of GPU app_configs is invalid. There is no rule on how intense it must be before using work arounds to get more work on your system. Some GPU projects use more GPU than others. Again, food for thought.
____________

Profile Beyond
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Sep 16
Posts: 12
Credit: 2,318,020
RAC: 7,400
Message 1008 - Posted: 11 Oct 2016, 15:04:07 UTC - in response to Message 1007.

Milkyway and Poem were also popular projects for running more than one instance (again 2-4). That was because the code was not efficient enough to optimize the GPU use. It was fine with the admins. The project I run the most is GPUGrid and a few people with very fast GPUs run 2x WUs. It's fine with the admins even though they prefer 1x in order to minimize turn around time. None of these projects gain a huge amount by running multiple instances and it's only done to maximize the valuable GPU resources. Very different than an NCI project where almost limitless copies can be run with little effect on resources.\r\n\r\nFirst we need a clear statement from the Admin. There's also a very easy solution to this whole question:\r\n\r\nIf multiple sessions are going to be allowed: just implement a setting in the project config to allow people to run as many instances as they like.

Profile Coleslaw
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 13 Nov 15
Posts: 38
Credit: 55,116,621
RAC: 291,048
Message 1009 - Posted: 11 Oct 2016, 16:28:34 UTC - in response to Message 1008.
Last modified: 11 Oct 2016, 16:31:37 UTC

Beyond, I am aware of the projects that are GPU capable and that most don't mind. That isn't the debate. The debate is whether something is fair or is cheating. What we have is a scenario where people are capable of running more instances of an application on a given piece of hardware to better utilize it. That is what we do with GPU's using app_configs and that is what we CAN do with NCI projects with VM's and multiple clients. The concept is EXACTLY the same. Some want more utilization of their resources. This admin has no rules posted saying otherwise because the admin actively pulled those rules from the project. The admin asked for ways to get more resources and got them. Now people are complaining because of points not because people are actually better utilizing their hardware. Unfortunately, the admin didn't think things through very well and IMO is over crediting work units. But that is up to the admin to determine. So, as we have agreed above, the admin just needs to decide on a fair set of rules and let everyone decide how much resources to put towards the project.
____________

Profile Beyond
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Sep 16
Posts: 12
Credit: 2,318,020
RAC: 7,400
Message 1010 - Posted: 11 Oct 2016, 17:04:59 UTC - in response to Message 1009.
Last modified: 11 Oct 2016, 17:08:19 UTC

If the Admin wants to allow multiple instances it's his decision. The reasonable way to do that would be to set the number of instances in the project preferences. As I remember that's what FreeHal did (with a limit of 15 in that case). Personally I feel sorry for the Admin. All he wants to do is run a nice little project that he devised, and then it gets put in the highly competitive DC Vault and all heck breaks loose. I know of at least 3 ways to do a large number of multiple instances. The question is: is that what the Admin wants? I won't do it without his permission.

Profile Coleslaw
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 13 Nov 15
Posts: 38
Credit: 55,116,621
RAC: 291,048
Message 1011 - Posted: 11 Oct 2016, 17:18:17 UTC - in response to Message 1010.
Last modified: 11 Oct 2016, 17:20:08 UTC

Actually this began before DC-Vault inclusion. It was added to Formula-BOINC first. And the admin approved inclusion knowing it would increase contribution in a competitive nature. So, this didn't spawn directly from DC-Vault.\r\n\r\nAlso, your suggestion doesn't fix this issue. It will only amplify it. The setting FreeHAL had would apply to all hosts and therefore people could still run multiple instances and get an insane amount. Like other suggestions...probably best to release a CPU intensive version and then adjust credits according to the amount of work being done.
____________

Profile Beyond
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 22 Sep 16
Posts: 12
Credit: 2,318,020
RAC: 7,400
Message 1012 - Posted: 11 Oct 2016, 17:35:14 UTC - in response to Message 1011.
Last modified: 11 Oct 2016, 17:37:14 UTC

The setting FreeHAL had would apply to all hosts and therefore people could still run multiple instances and get an insane amount.
\r\nThere wouldn't be any point if it was unlimited. If it was limited, have a hard rule against multiple instances and enforce it. \r\nThat way the Admin could also adjust his desired project WU level by simply changing the max allowed (in the project preferences) from time to time.\r\n\r\n
Like other suggestions...probably best to release a CPU intensive version and then adjust credits according to the amount of work being done.
\r\nAs you say, probably the best idea, but of course it's up to the Admin.

1 · 2 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : High Credit


Main page · Your account · Message boards


Copyright © 2018 Goofyx

Generated 11 Dec 2018, 4:27:22 UTC