Originally posted by: Assimilator1
It's somewhat OK for projects that have a quorum and initial replication of 1.
Which projects fall under this catogory?
if WUs are a standard size (e.g. Riesel Sieve), or claim credit proportional to time
target_nresults = how many copies is initially made per wu to be sent-out. This is also called "Initial Replication" if you click on a wu on web-page.
min_quorum = how many "success" results must be reported for a wu before tries Validation.
A project can use target_nresults > min_quorum, to speed-up validation (and crediting), and to account for errors and "missing" results.
Using min_quorum >= 2 means results is Validated against eachother. This guards against unintentional errors like random hardware-problems and "too much overclock", but also users intentionally trying to pass-on garbage as "real" results. As a "free" bonus, it also makes it much harder for users trying to cheat with too high credit-claims.
Since crediting is not done before wu Validated, it means users often must wait for another user to return their result for same wu before credit is given. With a little "luck", you're paired-off with the user sitting with a 10+ days cache, so you'll have a long list of "pending" results before crediting finally starts...
Still, after a slow startup, most users will reach an equilibrium with fairly steady credit-flow, depending on your own production. Adding/removing a computer can take a couple days before shows-up as increase/decrease in production, but it will show-up after a little time.
Most projects uses min_qourum >= 2, and only if the Science can be easily validated another way should a public DC-project run without redundancy, min_quorum = 1.
Of the "big" projects, CPDN and Rosetta@home uses min_quorum = 1. Of the various small projects, atleast QMC doesn't use redundancy, and probably a couple other also...
As for "claim credit proportional with time"...
Seti_enhanced is proportional to the Scientific Work done, since it "counts flops". This should in theority be proportional with time, but in practice it's not. The problem is, if example 2 computers A and B crunches the exact same wu with AR=0.4 and both uses 6h, if both crunches another wu with example AR=1.5 computer A can use example 1h while computer-B can use 2h...
Since the Scientific Work Done is the same regardless of A or B, the "pay" is also the same for both computers. But, this means one of the computer will get "paid" more per hour than the other for some of the angle-ranges, and this isn't anything to do anything with.
![S@H1[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif](mailto:S@H1[img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-happy.gif){kind=link}