Proposal to the PG: Optimizing Performance using v7

[Jesse_V]

It is bad form (bad software etiquette) to change software configurations behind the scenes (without user intervention). There is a small minority of people that would complain about this very loudly.

The only option is to shutdown the client when it fails to meet the deadline on "N" number if SMP WUs, and prompt the user to switch configurations, even provide a link to a guide to do so.

As you adequately put, the problem is choice.

Ergo, those who refused the program, while a minority, would constitute an escalating probability of disaster?

I like your idea. If Mr. Coffland doesn't like my automatic reconfiguration idea, we could go for something like this. At the very least we need to present better information in the installation choice, like "SMP: ... Highly recommended if your system is powered on almost continuously" My point is that detecting cores is simply not adequate, because there is more to the decision than that, like whether their ATI GPU interferes with their SMP folding, if their quad-core is a laptop and is on battery or not available much of the day, or for other reasons. If automatic reconfiguration is not desirable, your solution finds the nice middle ground.

[GreyWhiskers]

It seems that the Pande Group makes their decisions on the following grounds:
1. Computer should be utilized to the greatest reasonable degree possible (emphasizing user choice of course)
2. Each type of Work Units should be run on the most appropriate hardware available
3. Reasonable efforts should be made to minimize user interference or maintenance
4. Exceeding deadlines is detrimental to science and should be discouraged/prevented
5. Completing WUs significantly before the deadline is preferred
6. F@h should be as simple as possible for the donor
7. Changes to F@h should minimize donor disruptions while maintaining the above
8. F@h should be competitive, fun, and slightly addictive, while focusing on the above
9. Any proposed change must be examined in the long term for its cost-benefit ratio

Jesse V.

Thanks for bringing up these topics.

One "motivation" that I think is important, from the science standpoint a little divorced from the folding community, is that each project has its timelines, its natural history to deal with. In many cases, projects are tied to a dissertation, to an upcoming conference, to an academic year, to availability of a cadre of post-docs or grad students, etc.

Thus, for any given project, it is desirable to steer, through assignment priorities, design of the PRCG structure, initial and follow-on availability of a sufficient number of work units, and selection of the right mixture of folding computers to provide the CAPACITY to complete the project in its appointed time. If the design is too restrictive, you can't get enough horsepower (unless, of course, you can harness the power of A giant has come to our shores. 40 Million PPD).