that's the thing is credits all the time different and completely unclear how they calculate,many aborting works is necessary measure because in that project not have function to select only covid type works so i reject any other tasks that don't have a label covid
yes i know about it,nothing wrong with my system it is working ok

You do realise that not all Covid related WUs have Covid in the name don’t you?

this is unknown

yes i know about it,nothing wrong with my system it is working ok

479 Errored Tasks indicates otherwise, especially so when only 29 are In progress and only 2 are Valid out of 510 in total.

They all appear to be aborted tasks but are shown as errors.

---

read the message again there says why this is happening

Then you should detach from Rosetta as this project obviously isn't suitable for you.
As others have mentioned, just because it doesn't have Covid19 in the name doesn't mean it won't be used for Covid19 research.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

i reject any other tasks that don't have a label covid

Then you might wish to try running World Community Grid and it's Open Pandemic Project as every workunit says it is about the current Pandemic which is Covid-19.

read the message again there says why this is happening

Then you should detach from Rosetta as this project obviously isn't suitable for you.
As others have mentioned, just because it doesn't have Covid19 in the name doesn't mean it won't be used for Covid19 research.

don't tell me what I should do and I won't say where should you go)

i reject any other tasks that don't have a label covid

Then you might wish to try running World Community Grid and it's Open Pandemic Project as every workunit says it is about the current Pandemic which is Covid-19.

i know about this project and participate in it too

i reject any other tasks that don't have a label covid

Then you might wish to try running World Community Grid and it's Open Pandemic Project as every workunit says it is about the current Pandemic which is Covid-19.

i know about this project and participate in it too

Do you do TN-Grid as well? http://gene.disi.unitn.it/test/ as it also does Covid-19 research right now.

I see you only have 1 pc here, splitting time between all the different Covid Projects can affect the 3 day deadline here so unless you have more pc's you might want to pick a Project and focus all you can on it. Both WCG and TN-Grid both more than 7 day deadlines making it easier to split time between them. I have no idea which Covid Project will get there with the right info first but I too crunch for several of them.

I've been number crunching for Rosetta for 15 years now. I think its the MOST important BOINC project. The jobs take over 24 hours per CPU core (Recent upgrade to Ryzen). When all is said and done, I see a PALTRY amount of credit earned for so much computing. One 12 core/24 hour run earned me about 30,000 credits. After searching for the most credit bang for my buck, I found the Collatz Conjecture. Just to be sure, it uses only CPU just like Rosetta. After a few hours on one core, I got about 30,000 credits.

I'm not sure what the right way is to provide credits. I see Rosetta as EXTREMELY STINGY while Collatz is overly generous. I feel I'm not being rewarded for my (computer's) hard work.

Take a look for yourself. 15 years and Rosetta doesn't even comprise 1% of my credits. https://www.boincstats.com/stats/-1/user/detail/6804/projectList

---

I've been number crunching for Rosetta for 15 years now. I think its the MOST important BOINC project. The jobs take over 24 hours per CPU core (Recent upgrade to Ryzen). When all is said and done, I see a PALTRY amount of credit earned for so much computing. One 12 core/24 hour run earned me about 30,000 credits. After searching for the most credit bang for my buck, I found the Collatz Conjecture. Just to be sure, it uses only CPU just like Rosetta. After a few hours on one core, I got about 30,000 credits.

I'm not sure what the right way is to provide credits. I see Rosetta as EXTREMELY STINGY while Collatz is overly generous. I feel I'm not being rewarded for my (computer's) hard work.

Take a look for yourself. 15 years and Rosetta doesn't even comprise 1% of my credits. https://www.boincstats.com/stats/-1/user/detail/6804/projectList

It’s credit inflation by Collatz in an attempt to get more people processing on a far less important project. There’s nothing Rosetta can do about it - the volunteers just have to decide what is at stake, the science or the credits.

So how did you get the same credit in 2 years that took me 15?

---

The jobs take over 24 hours

That is because you have selected ‘1 day’ as the Target CPU run time in your project preferences…

The jobs take over 24 hours

That is because you have selected ‘1 day’ as the Target CPU run time in your project preferences…

And because the system is busy doing things other than crunching, they will take longer to process than the Target CPU time selected.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

I'm not sure what the right way is to provide credits.

From the BOINC project itself.

A BOINC project gives you credit for the computations your computers perform for it.
BOINC's unit of credit, the Cobblestone (named after Jeff Cobb of SETI@home), is 1/200 day of CPU time on a reference computer that does 1,000 MFLOPS based on the Whetstone benchmark.
 GigaFLOPs = RAC/200
 TeraFLOPS = RAC/200,000
 (Remember that a 1 GigaFLOP machine, running full time, produces 200 units of credit in 1 day).
1 GFLOP * 86,400sec = 200 Cobblestones.

I see Rosetta as EXTREMELY STINGY while Collatz is overly generous.

What Rosetta pays isn't the issue- it's what Collatz pays that is the problem- it completely, totally and utterly ignores the actual definition of what a Cobblestone is and just gives out numbers and calles them Credits.
Hence, Collatz is the issue.

If you are interested in a project, do work for that project. If your only interest is Credits, do Collatz.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

So how did YOU get almost as many credits in 5 months that took me 15 years?

---

I've been number crunching for Rosetta for 15 years now. I think its the MOST important BOINC project. The jobs take over 24 hours per CPU core (Recent upgrade to Ryzen). When all is said and done, I see a PALTRY amount of credit earned for so much computing. One 12 core/24 hour run earned me about 30,000 credits. After searching for the most credit bang for my buck, I found the Collatz Conjecture. Just to be sure, it uses only CPU just like Rosetta. After a few hours on one core, I got about 30,000 credits.

I'm not sure what the right way is to provide credits. I see Rosetta as EXTREMELY STINGY while Collatz is overly generous. I feel I'm not being rewarded for my (computer's) hard work.

Take a look for yourself. 15 years and Rosetta doesn't even comprise 1% of my credits. https://www.boincstats.com/stats/-1/user/detail/6804/projectList

I don't mean to be rude (meaning I'm about to be anyway) but have you thought of actually running Rosetta occasionally compared to all your other projects?
Going by Boincstats, but also your info here, you run the occasional Rosetta once every few weeks while running other projects a whole lot more.
Maybe the answer's as simple as increasing your Rosetta resource share if you believe it to be the most important project of all (which I agree with)
Looking at Einstein, Milky Way and Collatz (and especially Seti) I wouldn't personally give any of them a single minute of my processing time, but you might consider reducing their Resource Shares to zero and use them as backup tasks if you happen to like them. Or maybe 1 - whatever you consider appropriate to their importance in your view.

---

I've been number crunching for Rosetta for 15 years now. I think its the MOST important BOINC project. The jobs take over 24 hours per CPU core (Recent upgrade to Ryzen). When all is said and done, I see a PALTRY amount of credit earned for so much computing. One 12 core/24 hour run earned me about 30,000 credits. After searching for the most credit bang for my buck, I found the Collatz Conjecture. Just to be sure, it uses only CPU just like Rosetta. After a few hours on one core, I got about 30,000 credits.

I'm not sure what the right way is to provide credits. I see Rosetta as EXTREMELY STINGY while Collatz is overly generous. I feel I'm not being rewarded for my (computer's) hard work.

Take a look for yourself. 15 years and Rosetta doesn't even comprise 1% of my credits. https://www.boincstats.com/stats/-1/user/detail/6804/projectList

If you have a gpu that can crunch you should try using that at Collatz, especially if you use the optimized settings, if you think the cpu gives great credits you ain't seen nothing yet!!!

More credits creates a ton of problems because people who chase credits will come to the Projects with the higher credits, that means more demand on the project servers which in turn means more time spent fixing things than doing Science stuff. It also means more users banging the servers to get and return their tasks often meaning new servers need to be provided, more bandwidth too but it alone can't fix the lack of ability to talk to the server. Years ago Seti did a time check of how long it takes for the Server to acknowledge you want to talk to it, respond to your request, do the actual task, ensure everything is valid and then shutdown the connection, that connection took a few seconds most of the time. HOWEVER there are only so many seconds in a day and if every user is trying to get and return new tasks multiple times per day there are only so many users that can physcially get thru. And ALL THAT because they raised the credits being given out!!!

So how did YOU get almost as many credits in 5 months that took me 15 years?

2 computers, running 24/7/365, with 6c/12t each. And only running the one project.
If you allocate most of your time to other projects (that's what Resource share is all about), then you won't get much Credit from this one since you're not doing much work for it. The less work you do, the less Credit you get (except of course for Collatz. Every rule has it's exceptions).

---

Grant
Darwin NT

I see Rosetta as EXTREMELY STINGY while Collatz is overly generous.

What Rosetta pays isn't the issue- it's what Collatz pays that is the problem- it completely, totally and utterly ignores the actual definition of what a Cobblestone is and just gives out numbers and calles them Credits.
Hence, Collatz is the issue.

If you are interested in a project, do work for that project. If your only interest is Credits, do Collatz.[/quote]

This is alot of the Seti mindset of of a single credit system, ie "credit new", for every project and fails to take into account the reason Admins setup and run their projects. If project A is getting money to provide a product and they choose to give out 1000 times the normal credits who cares, it's not like anyone can take those credits and buy a cup of coffee with them!! Credits are ONLY comparable within a project NOT from project to project and they will never will be anything more than that!! If giving out more credits than another project encourages cheating that's the projects problem not us crunchers problem, we crunchers give our resources where we choose to for a million different reasons...ie, badges, credits, the science, the humanity of a project, the fact our relatives work for the project, it sounds cool, etc etc ETC. There are only so many consistent Boinc crunchers iver time and if projects don't have a way to entice us to them then Boinc is history as even Seti itself, the starter of this whole thing, is on hiatus due to a lack of funding and other reasons!!!

SETI predates BOINC and is what got me into sharing my computer, way back in the 90s. I continued on with it for old time's sake. I am moving my other projects to use GPU only, which should free up my CPU for Rosetta stuff. I have also reduced the Rosetta run time to 8 hours from 24. I'm not sure if that is better for Rosetta's needs. The GPU-based credits far outnumber the CPU ones anyway. Thanks for everyone's help!

---

I have also reduced the Rosetta run time to 8 hours from 24. I'm not sure if that is better for Rosetta's needs.

Since it's the default value, i'd suggest it's what the project considers to be best for their needs.
Some Tasks will run longer than the Target CPU time, if they need to.

---

Grant
Darwin NT