in short it is no different then seti so far as the "blocks" you get. each computer gets what ever block is next on the list. so lets say you have 1,000,000,000,000 blocks to distribute daily but you only have 10,000 computers asking for blocks daily.
so comp 1 gets block 1, but comp 2 may get block 4 or 5 depending on how fast he put in his request after finishing his last block.
at least that is how i understand it to work. the F@H page will have much greater detail, but that is close enough.
as for the team stats they take all of the computers in a team, total up the number of WU completed in a set amount of time, then calculate how much time was spent on each WU to provide a score. that is how the ranking goes.
Introduction. Much of what drives distributed computing is the sense of collegiate competition to compute the most for the project as possible. One way to quantitatively assess this is through the points that FAH keeps track of (in our statistics or "stats" pages). Here, we detail the nature of how our points are determined and why that method is used. There are lots of methods one could use, but we've found that over time (and with extensive discussions with Folding@Home donors) that our current method is a reasonable compromise, given all the complexity of awarding points for Folding@Home work units.
How do you decide how much credit a work unit is worth? Points are determined by the performance of a given machine relative to a becnhmark machine. Before putting out any new work unit, we benchmark it on a dedicated 2.8GHz Pentium 4 machine with SSE2 disabled (more specifically, as reported by /proc/cpuinfo on linux: vendor_id : GenuineIntel, cpu family : 15, model : 2, model name : Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz, stepping : 9, cpu MHz : 2806.438, cache size : 512 KB). This machine runs linux, so all WUs are benchmarked with the linux core.
We plug the results of this into the following formula:
points = 110 * (daysPerWU)
where daysPerWU is the number of days it took to complete the unit. This equation was chosen to match the points for previous Gromacs WUs to the previous point system. The upshot is that Tinker WUs will be worth more than before we set up the new points (i.e. before April 2004).
Please note that the very concept of a reference machine will mean that some WU benchmarking will vary from the performance on your machine. Even between P4s, there are significant differences in architectures over the years. Moreover, variations between FAH WUs can also lead to differences in benchmarking points.
Our goal is consistency within a given definition of a reference machine setup (described above), but beyond that the natural variation from machine to machine and WU to WU will never allow any point system to perfectly reflect what you get on your machine.
Why are some projects given significantly more points than others? Certain projects require substantially more donor computer resources than others, either in terms of more disk space, more network transfer, or more RAM used. By default, these work units are given out to clients which opt in to request them. To reward those donors for donating resources beyond the typical client, we currently give bonus points for these larger work units.
How big are bonus points? Currently the bonus points are a 50% increase over the standard benchmark point determination (described above). Please note that this value is subject to change.
How do I configure my client to get bonus point WUs? Please see our configuration FAQ for these details.
Is there any risk of taking on bonus point work units? These work units are larger and more experimental: for example, they often involve new cores, such as the QMD core. Thus, they are more experimental. Thus, one should not run big work unit clients on non-dedicated machines. The bonus points are a reward for giving more resources to FAH and so one should not be surprised that these work units are very intrusive and take the complete resources of the machine.
Why can't AMD machines get QMD WUs, which have large points? Please check out the FAQ on the QMD core. We describe in great detail the situation regarding AMD chips and the QMD core. This situation is present only in QMD WUs, which represents a very small part of FAH.
so that is how the points work.