Change in BA requirements

Moderators: Site Moderators, FAHC Science Team

Locked
bcavnaugh
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 1:39 pm

Re: Change in BA requirements

Post by bcavnaugh »

PantherX wrote:
bcavnaugh wrote:...Should I run ONE SMP Client on all 64 Cores or break them down to 4 Clients 16 Cores each (1 CPU) or down to 8 Cores and 8 Clients?...
One SMP Client should work. If you want, you can break it down into:
1) 24 CPUs
2) 16 CPUs
3) 12 CPUs
4) 8 CPUs
5) 4 CPUs

The reason for the above breakdown is that some SMP Projects are limited to 12 CPUs or 16 CPUs, etc. The reason is that they can't scale up to bigger values since the atom count is too small or some other factors. With the above breakdown, you cover a huge range of SMP Projects.
Thanks, would this work?
1) 24 CPUs client-type=bigadv / max-packet-size=big
2) 16 CPUs client-type=bigadv / max-packet-size=big OR only client-type=advanced
3) 12 CPUs client-type=advanced
4) 8 CPUs client-type=advanced
5) 4 CPUs client-type=advanced

Or should I keep them all only client-type=advanced or put nothing in?
Thanks
US Army Retired | Folding@EVGA The Number One Team in the Folding@Home Community.
PantherX
Site Moderator
Posts: 6986
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:33 am
Hardware configuration: V7.6.21 -> Multi-purpose 24/7
Windows 10 64-bit
CPU:2/3/4/6 -> Intel i7-6700K
GPU:1 -> Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti
§
Retired:
2x Nvidia GTX 1070
Nvidia GTX 675M
Nvidia GTX 660 Ti
Nvidia GTX 650 SC
Nvidia GTX 260 896 MB SOC
Nvidia 9600GT 1 GB OC
Nvidia 9500M GS
Nvidia 8800GTS 320 MB

Intel Core i7-860
Intel Core i7-3840QM
Intel i3-3240
Intel Core 2 Duo E8200
Intel Core 2 Duo E6550
Intel Core 2 Duo T8300
Intel Pentium E5500
Intel Pentium E5400
Location: Land Of The Long White Cloud
Contact:

Re: Change in BA requirements

Post by PantherX »

With #1 and #2, you will still be assigned bigadv WUs until the changes are implemented. However, if you want to exclusively fold SMP WUs, just leave it at the default settings, i.e. no need to add client-type advanced or anything.
ETA:
Now ↞ Very Soon ↔ Soon ↔ Soon-ish ↔ Not Soon ↠ End Of Time

Welcome To The F@H Support Forum Ӂ Troubleshooting Bad WUs Ӂ Troubleshooting Server Connectivity Issues
bcavnaugh
Posts: 147
Joined: Tue Apr 30, 2013 1:39 pm

Re: Change in BA requirements

Post by bcavnaugh »

PantherX wrote:With #1 and #2, you will still be assigned bigadv WUs until the changes are implemented. However, if you want to exclusively fold SMP WUs, just leave it at the default settings, i.e. no need to add client-type advanced or anything.
Great, Thank you

1) 24 CPUs client-type=bigadv / max-packet-size=big 1st one is the longest one and slowest P8101. 20 Hours to complete, should be OK. 311807.7 for Credit
2) 16 CPUs for SMP 1st one P7645 for Credit 18488.1
3) 12 CPUs for SMP 1st one P7646 for Credit 15952.5
4) 8 CPUs for SMP 1st one P7647 for Credit 13723.4
5) 4 CPUs for SMP 1st one P7645 for Credit

My HFM Site: http://weather.mfc-cs.com/haf/ _FolditAMD64Cores4P Slots 00 to 04
I see how this goes for the next day or two. All Failed, needed 2 or more days to complete any so I removed all and reset as shown below

New setup No BigAdv
Name Client Type TPF PPD ETA Core Core ID Project (Run, Clone, Gen) Credit
16 Cores _FolditAMD64Cores4P Slot 00 Uniprocessor 00:08:13 24185.1 (1.753 WUs) 01:46:49 GRO_A3 A3 P8582 (R0, C2, G364) 13800.1
12 Cores _FolditAMD64Cores4P Slot 01 Uniprocessor 00:10:39 16503.5 (1.352 WUs) 05:51:27 GRO_A3 A3 P8574 (R1, C3, G151) 12205.7
12 Cores _FolditAMD64Cores4P Slot 02 Uniprocessor 00:10:33 16944.1 (1.365 WUs) 05:48:09 GRO_A3 A3 P8571 (R1, C1, G157) 12413.9
12 Cores _FolditAMD64Cores4P Slot 03 Uniprocessor 00:10:43 16140 (1.344 WUs) 05:53:39 GRO_A3 A3 P8577 (R1, C1, G105) 12011.6
12 Cores _FolditAMD64Cores4P Slot 04 Uniprocessor 00:10:44 16384.4 (1.342 WUs) 05:54:12 GRO_A3 A3 P8576 (R1, C0, G151) 12212.5
All at 67% Post Date 25 Dec 22:33 MST
4P 64 Core Rigs I do not think run SMP very well.
Last edited by bcavnaugh on Thu Dec 26, 2013 5:39 am, edited 9 times in total.
US Army Retired | Folding@EVGA The Number One Team in the Folding@Home Community.
orion
Posts: 135
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:45 pm
Hardware configuration: 4p/4 MC ES @ 3.0GHz/32GB
4p/4x6128 @ 2.47GHz/32GB
2p/2 IL ES @ 2.7GHz/16GB
1p/8150/8GB
1p/1090T/4GB
Location: neither here nor there

Re: Change in BA requirements

Post by orion »

Plus 16-24 thread, depending on hardware, may not make BA deadlines.
iustus quia...
NookieBandit
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2012 6:17 pm
Hardware configuration: AMD Opteron 2 x 6274 (32 Cores)
AMD FX-8350 (8 Cores)
Intel i7-4790K (8 Cores)
Intel i7-4790K (8 Cores)
Intel i7-4771K (8 Cores)
Intel i7-3770K (8 Cores)
Intel i7-3770K (8 Cores)
Intel i7-3770K (8 Cores)
Intel i7-3770S (8 Cores)
Intel i7-3930K (12 Cores)
Nvidia GPUs:
GTX 780ti
GTX 780ti
GTX 780ti
GTX 780ti
GTX 780
GTX 690
GTX 690
AMD GPUs:
HD 7970 GBE
HD 7970 GBE
HD 7990
HD 7990
HD 7990
R9 295X2
R9 295X2
R9 295X2
Location: Dallas, TX

Re: Change in BA requirements

Post by NookieBandit »

In fact, "please" does work, at least with me.

I've got a 32 core AMD 6274 box currently folding BA, and glad to configure it to optimally run SMP. Is it best to simply change the Slot-Option to client-type "normal" and leave it at that, or is there a better configuration to utilize for this rig to efficiently fold SMP?
PantherX
Site Moderator
Posts: 6986
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:33 am
Hardware configuration: V7.6.21 -> Multi-purpose 24/7
Windows 10 64-bit
CPU:2/3/4/6 -> Intel i7-6700K
GPU:1 -> Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti
§
Retired:
2x Nvidia GTX 1070
Nvidia GTX 675M
Nvidia GTX 660 Ti
Nvidia GTX 650 SC
Nvidia GTX 260 896 MB SOC
Nvidia 9600GT 1 GB OC
Nvidia 9500M GS
Nvidia 8800GTS 320 MB

Intel Core i7-860
Intel Core i7-3840QM
Intel i3-3240
Intel Core 2 Duo E8200
Intel Core 2 Duo E6550
Intel Core 2 Duo T8300
Intel Pentium E5500
Intel Pentium E5400
Location: Land Of The Long White Cloud
Contact:

Re: Change in BA requirements

Post by PantherX »

NookieBandit wrote:...Is it best to simply change the Slot-Option to client-type "normal" and leave it at that, or is there a better configuration to utilize for this rig to efficiently fold SMP?
Changing the client-type to normal is fine. It is the default setting of the CPU Slot so if nothing is present, it means the same and may not be printed in the log (depends on the setting).

While a single SMP Slot of 16/24/32/64 CPUs might work, a possible limitation that you may encounter is limited number of SMP Projects. The reason is that due to different atom counts and other factors, there are some limits to the number of CPUs that a particular SMP Project can fold on. Thus, you can break down a single CPU Slot into the following combination to add-up to your total CPU count:
1) 24 CPus
2) 16 CPUs
3) 12 CPUs
4) 8 CPUs
5) 4 CPUs

Unfortunately, there isn't a way to figure out what projects have what limits so if you see yourself getting a steady stream of Project X, you may want to change the CPU values to different ones as shown above which may shuffle the Projects being assigned.
ETA:
Now ↞ Very Soon ↔ Soon ↔ Soon-ish ↔ Not Soon ↠ End Of Time

Welcome To The F@H Support Forum Ӂ Troubleshooting Bad WUs Ӂ Troubleshooting Server Connectivity Issues
cokeman54
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2012 5:00 pm

Re: Change in BA requirements

Post by cokeman54 »

bruce wrote:OK.

Please aim your resources at SMP rather than BA.

(I've got to admit I feel pretty stupid doing this.)

Will change over soon to regular SMP work. All you had to do was ask kindly. Merry Christmas and nothing stupid about this, all we can do is try. :D
Horvat
Posts: 43
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 4:07 am
Hardware configuration: Rig1: Asus Z8PE-D12X/Dual Xeon X5675 3.06 Ghz
Rig2: Asus Z8NA-D6/Dual Xeon E5620 2.4 Ghz
Rig3: Asus Z8NA-D6C/Dual Xeon X5670 2.93 Ghz
Rig4: Asus Z8NA-D6C/Dual Xeon E5649 2.53 Ghz

Re: Change in BA requirements

Post by Horvat »

bruce wrote:OK.

Please aim your resources at SMP rather than BA.

(I've got to admit I feel pretty stupid doing this.)
Why would you feel stupid asking for help? You have just earned a lot of respect from me. I posted this on the EVGA site and I will say it here; if you need help ask instead of forcing it down our throats. Old saying, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

I would rather turn my resources to complete an -smp backlog than have my entire rack of 2P Xeon servers become useless for -bigadv. I have also posted at EVGA that I can understand the 24 core requirement but to follow it up 2 months later with a 32 core requirement is not right and not well thought out. Not to mention it will run a lot of folders off just like it did last time.

In conclusion, ask and thou shalt receive. I will unleash my server rack on -smp's when the current -bigadv WU's are complete.

Fold On!
Bill1024
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:45 am

Re: Change in BA requirements

Post by Bill1024 »

Don't forget the WCG Christmas challenge is still going on.
And it may take a day or two spread the word. Plus with the Holiday.
Lets see how this shakes out over the next several days.
As of right now I am on holiday.
Merry Christmas
Mike_Shaffer
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 5:51 pm

Re: Change in BA requirements

Post by Mike_Shaffer »

I agree with the latest posts from Bill1024 and the post on another forum. Points don't buy coffee. I added a few 8/12 core 1P tonight and will work on switching over a 40 core 2P to 16/16/8 and see if that works okay in V7.

Thanks PantherX for the smp core explanations.

Image

Merry Christmas
Punchy
Posts: 125
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 1:49 am

Re: Change in BA requirements

Post by Punchy »

The real solution is so obvious - PG created too much demand for bigadv by making the reward high. All they need to do is create more demand for SMP by making its reward appropriately high - whether on a temporary or permanent basis. Begging seems like an acknowledgement that they really don't know how to manage their own points system.

Perhaps PG should also hire an economist that can help structure a reward system to manage supply and demand.

Back to the original topic, I offer 3 equally helpful bits of guidance which you may use to help with your future choices:
Geologist: there will be a major earthquake on the San Andreas fault in the future
Doctor: you will die in the future
PG: core requirements will change in the future
mflanaga
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 4:35 pm

Re: Change in BA requirements

Post by mflanaga »

All you guys had to do was ask nicely in the first place. Just communicate the need next time rather than come up with artificial machinations to achieve your objectives. :ewink:
Switching over next wu's!
ChristianVirtual
Posts: 1576
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 12:14 pm
Location: Tokyo

Re: Change in BA requirements

Post by ChristianVirtual »

Punchy wrote: Geologist: there will be a major earthquake on the San Andreas fault in the future
Doctor: you will die in the future
PG: core requirements will change in the future
With those choices we all hope PG is faster :lol:
ImageImage
Please contribute your logs to http://ppd.fahmm.net
Skripka
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:24 pm

Re: Change in BA requirements

Post by Skripka »

Punchy wrote:The real solution is so obvious - PG created too much demand for bigadv by making the reward high. All they need to do is create more demand for SMP by making its reward appropriately high - whether on a temporary or permanent basis. Begging seems like an acknowledgement that they really don't know how to manage their own points system.

Perhaps PG should also hire an economist that can help structure a reward system to manage supply and demand.
I believe I can speak for lots of folks on my team in mostly agreeing with this.

I would add that GPU QRB put the nail in the coffin of SMP's worthwhileness for the power. The SMP projects only get more and more huge (i.e. 4p bigadv TPF size), and the returns get worse and worse....until finally for the handful of points per day, donors ask "why bother, when I can GPU or BA and actually have something respectable to show for my efforts?". Hell all BA donors have idle 1P desktop machines they would gladly fold on, if it was even *remotely* worth the electricity for the points and science. Crank the multiplier for 1p SMP to something similar to GPUs, and suddenly a ton more clients would come online and that backlog would vanish.

To quote the philosopher,"equal points for equal work".
Last edited by Skripka on Wed Dec 25, 2013 3:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
Macaholic
Site Moderator
Posts: 811
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:57 pm
Location: 1 Infinite Loop

Re: Change in BA requirements

Post by Macaholic »

Bill1024 wrote:And it may take a day or two spread the word. Plus with the Holiday.
Lets see how this shakes out over the next several days.
Thank you. Merry Christmas. :)
Fold! It does a body good!™
Locked