At the present time, I am running two computers on Moo! Wrapper. One of them has a 1.42 GHz processor with one core, and the other has a 3.00 GHz processor with two cores. It takes an average of 3,000 cpu seconds to complete a wu on the 1.42 machine and 4,800 cpu seconds on the 3.00 GHz machine. I receive 72 points of credit for each task. I think it would be better if different amounts of credit were assigned based upon the length of the task (tiny, small, normal and huge).

Thanks

At the present time, I am running two computers on Moo! Wrapper. One of them has a 1.42 GHz processor with one core, and the other has a 3.00 GHz processor with two cores. It takes an average of 3,000 cpu seconds to complete a wu on the 1.42 machine and 4,800 cpu seconds on the 3.00 GHz machine. I receive 72 points of credit for each task. I think it would be better if different amounts of credit were assigned based upon the length of the task (tiny, small, normal and huge).

Thanks

If you could get a couple of inexpensive gpu's you could get a TON more credits! A cheap AMD 5770 will get you 6,584.00 credits for 3,588.30 seconds or about an hours worth of work. An AMD 5870 would get you the same credits but for half the work time.

The idea of giving the same amount of credits is based on being able to do more work with the faster pc, a unit is worth x amounts of credits whether it takes you 6 hours or 6 minutes to finish. A faster pc will finish the unit faster and can then move on to the next unit giving you more credit per pc than the slower pc.

I understand this. The problem was that the same amount of credit is granted when the computation time on the same computer varies.

I understand this. The problem was that the same amount of credit is granted when the computation time on the same computer varies.

But essentially isn't that do the same thing as what you want? You get 72 credits if you can finish the unit is 3 seconds, 3 minutes, 3 hours or 3 days. That IS essentially giving you different credits for the amount of time it takes you to finish a unit.

The gpu units do a similar thing too. I get 6,144.00 credits no matter how long it takes a unit to finish, in this pc's case 3,339.19 seconds or just under an hour. Occasionally I DO get other amounts of credits but I don't know why.

However, if you examine the valid tasks for computer 3276 you will notice that 72 points of credit are granted for a task that takes 2,651.00 seconds of CPU time and a task that takes 5,005.00 seconds of CPU time. The first post was confusing and did not convey the point I was trying to make.

However, if you examine the valid tasks for computer 3276 you will notice that 72 points of credit are granted for a task that takes 2,651.00 seconds of CPU time and a task that takes 5,005.00 seconds of CPU time. The first post was confusing and did not convey the point I was trying to make.

Maybe the pc was busy and only sharing cpu time at that point, I really don't know but I am pretty sure all cpu units only get 72 points each.

If you look at the "Server and Computing Status" page, you will notice that there are tasks of different lengths (e.g. Tiny, Small, Normal, Huge). You receive more credit when it takes longer for your gpu to complete a task.

If you look at the "Server and Computing Status" page, you will notice that there are tasks of different lengths (e.g. Tiny, Small, Normal, Huge). You receive more credit when it takes longer for your gpu to complete a task.

You ARE correct, my mistake, sorry!

If you look at the "Server and Computing Status" page, you will notice that there are tasks of different lengths (e.g. Tiny, Small, Normal, Huge). You receive more credit when it takes longer for your gpu to complete a task.

All CPU tasks are Tiny, and they all get the 72 points in credits since they all contain 7 packets with 1*2^32 keys to check on each. Other tasks are for GPUs and they do pay up better but only because they have more packets and bigger key sizes in them. Despite that GPUs crunch through the bigger tasks faster.

As for CPU time measurements there might be problems with measuring this so it might actually be reported wrong on some tasks. It's better idea to watch and optimize the actual time it took to crunch through a task. The faster you get through them, the more you get paid in the end. :)

-w