> In summary: > > Is there any clear advantage for using real physical hardware as a > golden reference for performance and credits? > > My view is yes. You get a clear measurement for the credits from which > you can usefully deduce performance and that permits meaningful > comparisons to be made. You can also calibrate other performance > measures if useful, with exactly the same system. > > Moreover, AFAIK such attempts already take place. I've seen on SETI forums thread with such proposal: Some participant would crunch few days for many projects to calculate credit per hour ratio for each project on THE SAME HARDWARE. Then some conclusion could be made if credit parity between projects take place or not.
But much better to have such "same hardware" officially and implement this etalon-based credit parity between projects idea on BOINC level, not BOINC participants level. _______________________________________________ boinc_dev mailing list boinc_dev@ssl.berkeley.edu http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and (near bottom of page) enter your email address.
