Is this possible or is this user doing something they shouldn't. # 21 under Top Computers.

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/results.php?hostid=458961

---

Is this possible or is this user doing something they shouldn't. # 21 under Top Computers.

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/results.php?hostid=458961

It could have something to do with the number of decoys he is generating.
On an earlier claim that granted over 4200 credits, more than 540 decoys were generated and the one you picked up did over 1100 decoys.
> Even so with a preference time of 10,000 seconds or less these are unbelievable amounts to be getting.

>On a 21,000 second (6 hour) preference generating 325 decoys I am lucky to get 90 to 100 credits.
So yes, your example is amazing.

I have been saying for a long time the credit granted is quite low on this project but this person owning Host 458961, probably does not think so.

---

Is this possible or is this user doing something they shouldn't. # 21 under Top Computers.

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/results.php?hostid=458961

Clearly, it is not funny business on the side of the client. The claim was correct. If there is a problem, it is with the application or the server.

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

Is this possible or is this user doing something they shouldn't. # 21 under Top Computers.

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/results.php?hostid=458961

Clearly, it is not funny business on the side of the client. The claim was correct. If there is a problem, it is with the application or the server.

I believe the claim is based on BOINC's algorithm using benchmarks and time, but the credit award is based on Rosetta's own credit scoring based partly on number of decoys processed. One problem here - these huge awards are going to skew the awards to others processing the same jobs by increasing the average.

Either there is a 5.67 client bug in reporting the number of decoys processed, or this particular PC has "issues" perehaps related to overclocking (other failed results would support this), or someone has figured out a way to play with the returned result to incorrectly report decoys to game the scoring system.

---

Proudly Banned from Predictator@Home and now Cosmology@home as well. Added SETI to the list today. Temporary ban only - so need to work harder :)



"You can't fix stupid" (Ron White)

Is this possible or is this user doing something they shouldn't. # 21 under Top Computers.

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/results.php?hostid=458961

Clearly, it is not funny business on the side of the client. The claim was correct. If there is a problem, it is with the application or the server.

I believe the claim is based on BOINC's algorithm using benchmarks and time, but the credit award is based on Rosetta's own credit scoring based partly on number of decoys processed. One problem here - these huge awards are going to skew the awards to others processing the same jobs by increasing the average.

Either there is a 5.67 client bug in reporting the number of decoys processed, or this particular PC has "issues" perehaps related to overclocking (other failed results would support this), or someone has figured out a way to play with the returned result to incorrectly report decoys to game the scoring system.

But points awarded are averaged now, right? This has to be a server, WU, or application issue.

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

If you look at the Work Unit ID for this WU it looks like another user (Rabidjamdealer) missed out on an easy 9300 creds by aborting :O

---

my bet would be incorrect no of decoys being reported as Angus suggested.

---

Well, let's hope someone from the project can look into this.

---

Proudly Banned from Predictator@Home and now Cosmology@home as well. Added SETI to the list today. Temporary ban only - so need to work harder :)



"You can't fix stupid" (Ron White)

Or maybe decoys are being completed extremely quickly, maybe a bug in the application? It may not even be generating valid results.

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

I got this message once many months ago.

<core_client_version>5.4.9</core_client_version>
<stderr_txt>
# random seed: 3378452
# cpu_run_time_pref: 14400
No heartbeat from core client for 31 sec - exiting
# cpu_run_time_pref: 14400
WARNING! error deleting file .aat331.out
======================================================
DONE :: 1 starting structures built 0 (nstruct) times
This process generated 1701603686 decoys from 12015648 attempts
0 starting pdbs were skipped
======================================================


BOINC :: Watchdog shutting down...
BOINC :: BOINC support services shutting down...

</stderr_txt>

---

Or maybe decoys are being completed extremely quickly, maybe a bug in the application? It may not even be generating valid results.

There are also some results with "computing error" in the user's list, so I'd say it is a matter of instability just at the brink of failure, whatever the reason (temperature, overclock, bad memory...).

I think this to be the most probable explanation beacuse it looks a little like the "just get it to calculate rubbish and finish quick" thing that buggered the classic SETI@home: Some people used to get their machines to finish WUs with invalid results in almost no time by overclocking them. Got them lots and lots of finished WUs a day without any valuable contribution (on the contrary: as there was no quorum it was rather destructive to the science).

But I would in no way imply it is done intentionally, mind. It is just the resemblance of the phenomenon. The user surely does not know his machine needs a little tending to at the moment.

I doubt it is an over-clock issue. Look at the benchmarks:

"empty" machine:
AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4600+
Measured floating point speed 2135.93 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 3980.39 million ops/sec


my machine (stock):
AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4200+
Measured floating point speed 2193.72 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed 4001 million ops/sec

empty's benchmarks with a faster CPU are slightly lower than mine.

Again, I believe the problem is with either the application or that particular WU.

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA