Posts by [AF>Amis des Lapins] Jean-Luc

1) Message boards : Number crunching : Too much credit ? (Message 2393)
Posted 8 Apr 2019 by [AF>Amis des Lapins] Jean-Luc
Post:
Personally, I think that now the credits are very fair !
2) Message boards : News : GPU app status update (Message 2378)
Posted 7 Apr 2019 by [AF>Amis des Lapins] Jean-Luc
Post:
Congratulations to Eric Driver for making the search much faster.
This is incredible !

For credits, it's excellent right now.
But when the GPU tasks come out, it will certainly be necessary to give a fixed credit for the tasks.
A good solution might be to average all the credits given for the tasks currently and take this average as a fixed credit for the tasks.
This should be very fair...

There is no longer any hope now that it is possible to make GPU calculations significantly more efficient than CPU calculations.
However, one thing worries me. If the calculations become 30 or 100 times more efficient, a GPU task will then take about 80 or 25 seconds, which is very short !
This will generate a lot of traffic !
3) Message boards : Number crunching : Too much credit ? (Message 2345)
Posted 31 Mar 2019 by [AF>Amis des Lapins] Jean-Luc
Post:
Eric,

Thanks for your answer.

I'll be there in a few weeks to remind you that there are things to change on the first page !
But yes, it is more urgent to finalize the rest of the GPU app versions.
I look forward to testing...
4) Message boards : Number crunching : Too much credit ? (Message 2342)
Posted 31 Mar 2019 by [AF>Amis des Lapins] Jean-Luc
Post:
800 points per WU, this is much more reasonable than 8000 and remains acceptable !
In my humble opinion, 500 would be much fairer...

I'm not sure the number of GPU points will be very high with 800 or 500, but it will be more accurate. The same case occurs for most projects with GPU remuneration below 1,000,000 points per day, even with a 100% load on the "GPU Load": Einstein, AP27 or GFN (PrimeGrid), Milkyway...
And for example Einstein remains very popular, despite this low remuneration compared to Collatz ! I remember very well : with a R9 290 X AMD GPU, during several years on Einstein, I made 60,000 points a day. Then it went up to 200,000 for a few years and then to 400,000. The reason is that the programmes have been improved, that is what I understood.
Collatz remunerates almost twice too much ! But from what I understand, it is very convenient to program 3*x+1 on GPUs, which explains the very high efficiency of GPUs compared to CPUs.
For other projects, this seems much more difficult.
I am active within the Alliance Francophone and I know that for most of us, it is not only the number of points that motivates us, but also the subject of study of the project itself.
For example, I have never crunched for the Bitcoin Utopia project (no scientific content !), but I crunched for Collatz, because I find it very interesting to observe the behavior of these digital sequences whose question nobody knows today how to approach in a theoretical way : we only have the computer to attack this question, so, in my opinion, it is worth it !
But some malicious people started cheating on this project because of GridCoin which I disapprove of !

For NumberFields, obviously, the remuneration will remain low and it is true that it will attract fewer people, that is for sure. I may be wrong, but the other way to attract people (people who are sensitive to the scientific interest of the projects) is to show how the project can advance many areas of science, even if only in the distant future. This is what I tried to do on a page in the Alliance Francophone forum where I rank NumberFields in the "Class 4" projects: https://forum.boinc-af.org/index.php/topic,7991.msg482370.html#msg482370
The problem with the NumberFields project is that the notions are extremely abstract for amateurs like most of us, including myself ! I had to spend several hours trying to understand what this project was working on. I don't think many people are willing to spend hours on it ! And in fact, I'm not sure I understood exactly, you can see below !
Who among us knows what the Langlands program is (https://numberfields.asu.edu/NumberFields/ProjectDescription.html) ?
Humbly, I think that on this page (https://numberfields.asu.edu/NumberFields/), should appear a few lines explaining very simply for example something like that (it'is just an idea !) :
"NumberFields is a project that should help to unify different fields of mathematics apparently unrelated. This will make it possible in a more or less distant future to progress much faster in many areas of mathematics. However, progress in mathematics also means progress in physics, computer science and biology. The potential indirect applications of NumberFields are countless. It is a fundamental research project that could even contribute to the creation of a new physics, beyond Einstein's relativity and quantum mechanics. However, everyone knows what applications have resulted from these two physical theories born at the beginning of the 20th century : understanding black holes, cosmology, mastering the atom, inventing the computer and all the applications allowed by this new machine (genetics, biology, astronomy, mathematics...)
In short: NumberFields is a project that aims no less than that: to better understand mathematics and the relationships between its different fields to create a new physics: that of the 21st century !".

In my opinion, NumberFields is not an ordinary project and if everyone understands that, there should be more people crunching on it !
I hope I myself have understood the scope of NumberFields' research object, because I am only a non-professional scientist ! If I say anything stupid in my bold italic paragraph above, please let me know !

;-)

Humbly, I think it is essential that mathematicians do the same work as astronomers to explain in terms understandable to all audiences the subject of their researchs. Then people will be passionate about it, like for the Einstein project, which talks about "pulsars" and "black holes", fascinating physical objects !
Mathematical abstractions are just as fascinating, if not more so, but it is extremely difficult to explain to the public !


I just have one more question about WU CPUs and WU GPUs : are they exactly the same or are CPUs calculating WUs that are impossible to calculate on GPUs ?
5) Message boards : Number crunching : Too much credit ? (Message 2334)
Posted 30 Mar 2019 by [AF>Amis des Lapins] Jean-Luc
Post:
OK, sorry, I didn't see that discussion.

I still think that this remuneration for CPU is far too high and does not reflect the reality of the work provided by the CPU.
I don't know if it would be possible to process WU CPUs independently of WU GPUs ?

It's just an observation !

I would also like to thank and congratulate the people behind the NumberFields project for all their work. This is my #1 project in order of preference and I look forward to making my GPUs available to NumberFields as soon as possible for me (my OS is Windows) ! I think that this project has a very large scope for the deep knowledge of integers and that this research is fundamental and may even influence physics !
6) Message boards : Number crunching : Too much credit ? (Message 2332)
Posted 30 Mar 2019 by [AF>Amis des Lapins] Jean-Luc
Post:
The credit system was changed because the gpus got to much credits. Now we get the same credits for every wu. In my opinion this is fair.


In my opinion, these new credits cannot be fair !
My CPU has a theoretical power of 9.5 billion ops/sec.
This must represent about 20,000 points per day.
Now, I get 350,000 points a day, almost 18 times too many !
The remuneration of WU CPUs therefore no longer makes any sense.
This remuneration should realistically indicate, as far as possible, the number of elementary operations performed by the CPU in a given time.

I don't exactly know what's wrong, but I really think there's a beug !
7) Message boards : Number crunching : Too much credit ? (Message 2329)
Posted 30 Mar 2019 by [AF>Amis des Lapins] Jean-Luc
Post:
Hello,

I have been calculating Work Units for years for the NumberFields project.
I've been using the same computer since the beginning with the same CPU.
Until last week, my credit was about 20,000 points per day.
Then, with the same hardware, the same CPU, my credit went up to 350,000 points per day last week !
Is this a mistake ?

Otherwise, I look forward to testing my two RTX 2080 Ti that are in the same computer, but my OS is Windows !

;-)

Thank you.





Main page · Your account · Message boards


Copyright © 2019 Arizona State University