They ignore you too huh ?orion wrote:Don't worry, they ignore me anyway.Jester wrote:don't give them any more "good idea's" right now though,
Ok....
I'm the big bad AMD x6 bigadv guy
Sad story of the last 19 pages here...
Moderators: Site Moderators, FAHC Science Team
They ignore you too huh ?orion wrote:Don't worry, they ignore me anyway.Jester wrote:don't give them any more "good idea's" right now though,
Ok....
I'm the big bad AMD x6 bigadv guy
I realise that this was one way to handle it but surely not the best way.bruce wrote:Nobody likes their contribution to earn less that it once did, but considering all of the factors, that seems to be the best way to put the system back in balance.
How can we have any real idea of direction when it seems the whole project is reactive instead of proactive.......phoenicis. wrote:I realise that this was one way to handle it but surely not the best way.bruce wrote:Nobody likes their contribution to earn less that it once did, but considering all of the factors, that seems to be the best way to put the system back in balance.
The ramifications continue to sink in. I've just picked up a 2684 on a dedicated Linux folder - a 980X at 4.2GHz now earning a ppd of 45K. There doesn't seem to be enough 6903/6904s to go around and the Project now doesn't think this configuration is particularly effective for completing regular bigadv science, so considering the purchase and running costs, this rig will likely be the first up for decommissioning and sale. I could believe that this machine was cost effective and still making a valuable contribution if it was a multi-purpose PC but it's not.
I can't see how a plan of action and a form/speed of introduction that makes someone want to sell existing rigs and cease any upgrades is the best way. With more changes potentially on the way I really have no idea which direction they want us to go in.
I know the chaps at Stanford have a really difficult job but what an incredible mess. There had to be a better way.
That's a superficial understanding of the concerns that have been expressed in this thread. Yes, I realize it's a long thread and perhaps difficult to digest. Although it would be easy to call your (apparent) attitude smug and arrogant, that too would be superficial. I realize you are a dedicated contributor, and for that, you have my respect.Just whine about those already doing that and more.
A bit of a misstatement- I meant to convey the introduction of lesser-valued projects like 670x several months ago.Nathan_P wrote:We have already had that issue with 2684 and again when 6903/6904 came out. We also see it across regular SMP projects as well.Zagen30 wrote:Wouldn't that have introduced the aggravation of having projects running concurrently with wildly different PPD values? From past experience people don't like that, either, though the forewarning would probably have mitigated some of the snap judgments it seems people are making.Nathan_P wrote: It probably would have gone down better if the new points structure had been put in place for new projects ratehr than modifying existing ones. At the moment there are some mightly upset -bigadv folders who may end up pulling their hardware
Ultimately it's human nature that's responsible for this.road-runner wrote: Rather selfish the way they treat the folks that support them
Because there are lots out there who have no idea of the time, effort and dollars needed to run good Bigadv capable systems,Dave_Goodchild wrote:This moving of the goal posts has left me something of a dilemma, I am currently in the process of building several multi socket systems to run the bigadv projects with the goal of hitting 1mil ppd which will now no longer be possible short of buying more kit which I'm not willing to do even more so now.
Whilst the science is the main reason I fold the points are what our contribution is measured by and the competion is what makes it more fun, without which I wouldn't be folding with anywhere near as much kit or have spent as much on it, everyone folding bigadv has spent a lot of time and money on the kit why shouldn't the points be higher?
Hence the (12c/24t). Also try tellling the F@H cores that its only a threadorion wrote:What you have is a pair of 12 core machines that run 24 threads each.Nathan_P wrote:12 cores is not enough, i have a pair of 24 core machines (12c/24t) and a fair few on one of the teams i fold for have far more powerful machines than that.
12 cores should be for regular -bigadv, and 24 for the big -bigadv
I bet Intel doesn't market them as 12 core cpu’s
Very well put, there are grumblings on many of the team boards about this being the wrong way to handle it. I bet we will see a whole host of machines up for sale in the next few weeks.phoenicis. wrote:I realise that this was one way to handle it but surely not the best way.bruce wrote:Nobody likes their contribution to earn less that it once did, but considering all of the factors, that seems to be the best way to put the system back in balance.
The ramifications continue to sink in. I've just picked up a 2684 on a dedicated Linux folder - a 980X at 4.2GHz now earning a ppd of 45K. There doesn't seem to be enough 6903/6904s to go around and the Project now doesn't think this configuration is particularly effective for completing regular bigadv science, so considering the purchase and running costs, this rig will likely be the first up for decommissioning and sale. I could believe that this machine was cost effective and still making a valuable contribution if it was a multi-purpose PC but it's not.
I can't see how a plan of action and a form/speed of introduction that makes someone want to sell existing rigs and cease any upgrades is the best way. With more changes potentially on the way I really have no idea which direction they want us to go in.
I know the chaps at Stanford have a really difficult job but what an incredible mess. There had to be a better way.
Leonardo wrote:That's a superficial understanding of the concerns that have been expressed in this thread. Yes, I realize it's a long thread and perhaps difficult to digest. Although it would be easy to call your (apparent) attitude smug and arrogant, that too would be superficial. I realize you are a dedicated contributor, and for that, you have my respect.Just whine about those already doing that and more.
The whole point of reevaluating the points awarding system and making changes, if any, is for the long term benefit of the project. Pande Group should, and I am confident they will, do:
a. what is necessary to motivate users to work on what's most important
b. cultivate current members into more productive members
c. encourage members with lower production to stay with the project and perhaps improve their production in the future
in answer to this:-Leonardo wrote:That's a superficial understanding of the concerns that have been expressed in this thread. Yes, I realize it's a long thread and perhaps difficult to digest. Although it would be easy to call your (apparent) attitude smug and arrogant, that too would be superficial. I realize you are a dedicated contributor, and for that, you have my respect.Just whine about those already doing that and more.
The whole point of reevaluating the points awarding system and making changes, if any, is for the long term benefit of the project. Pande Group should, and I am confident they will, do:
a. what is necessary to motivate users to work on what's most important
b. cultivate current members into more productive members
c. encourage members with lower production to stay with the project and perhaps improve their production in the future
But you did say 24 core machine after allNathan_P wrote:Hence the (12c/24t). Also try tellling the F@H cores that its only a thread
I won't comment on FAH's point-system, but I'll still give one or two ideas that can be useful:Jester wrote:don't give them any more "good idea's" right now though,