Another reason for non-parity between the projects on one special machine may be that it's simply better suited for on project then another.
Some OS/CPU combinations are better for Einstein, some for Rosetta, some for CPDN...
There are three possible fair methods of granting:
1) Take a measure for the possibilities of a puter (benchmark) and count the donated CPU-time, multiplied with some factor to make this number manageble, and you have more or less the original system.
But the benchmarks were easy to manipulate, so a serverside solution was looked for, say #2:
2) If you know beforehand how much effort a WU will take, you can grant a certain amount per WU, consistent with the amount generated via 1), and grant it regardless of benchmarks.
This will as well show how good your puter is for this particular project, as a well suited puter will get more c/h then a not so well suited.
let's not forget the othe clientside solution:
3) You can count the actual mathematical operations (flop-count) within the WU. AFAIK it's the Seti-method.
I'm no puter wizzard, but I think this will have to take some time away from actual science, and it will probably show as well different c/h amounts for different projects on the same puter.
1) is fair as it grants the same for the donated puter power, if the projects don't utilize it, it's not the participants fault. On the other hand will nobody know whether his/her puter will be better on another project.
2) and 3) are fair, as they grant the same credit for the same science accomplished, and it's easy to see where my puter is good at.
Grüße vom Sänger
