Please add abort function

[Lamberto Vitali]

I often find I don't want to run the tasks I have. Perhaps they downloaded by mistake (the software is pretty keen - especially as it lacks something important between pause-on-start and not - the same as it was before reboot!), perhaps they will take too long, or the machine is going to soon be turned off or used for another purpose. At the moment I'm having lots of tasks time out, which is presumably a waste of your time, simply because I can't press a button to say I don't want to run it, which could immediately hand it to someone else.

Just ask the (completely volunteer) Boinc guys how they managed to get all this stuff right.

[Neil-B]

Might I respectfully suggest that given your posts which have been critical of the FaH software and that detail how it doesn't work in the way you like whereas Boinc does that perhaps utilising your kit to simply run Boinc might be a solution and cause you less stress?

FaH is what it us and runs the way it does .. it works sufficiently well for some but not for others .. it benefits from stable dedicated resource and fairs less well with unstable or regularly changing kit .. it develops in the manner it does and for the majority of donors (may due to a selection bias) works well enough that they choose/continue to donate their resources .. it is by no means perfect and it is hoped that the next version of the client will address a good few of the issues and change requests that have been requested however it isnt Boinc and from what I have seen over the years is unlikely ever to be and if that is what you want then I'm afraid you will be disappointed

[JimboPalmer]

I notice you say "BOINC guys", this may be a clue.

F@H had a lone programmer until this last year when they could afford another. He coded the clients, the servers, and the web page. He takes direction from the biochemists, not the volunteers.

It is incredibly bad for a F@H project if a folder aborts or loses a Work Unit, so F@H is not set up to promote aborting WUs. A new generation of WUs can only start when all of the last generation has been returned, so consistent folders are beneficial, but sporadic folders actually slow down the project. This drives a great deal of development.

[toTOW]

I often find I don't want to run the tasks I have.

This leads to a practise called cherry picking and has always been forbidden ... so don't expect any option like this to be added to the client.

Also, do you realise that you posted in a forum section that is about a very old version of the client that is not longer maintained ?

[Lamberto Vitali]

Might I respectfully suggest that given your posts which have been critical of the FaH software and that detail how it doesn't work in the way you like whereas Boinc does that perhaps utilising your kit to simply run Boinc might be a solution and cause you less stress?

There's no biology on GPU in Boinc.

FaH is what it us and runs the way it does .. it works sufficiently well for some but not for others .. it benefits from stable dedicated resource and fairs less well with unstable or regularly changing kit .. it develops in the manner it does and for the majority of donors (may due to a selection bias) works well enough that they choose/continue to donate their resources .. it is by no means perfect and it is hoped that the next version of the client will address a good few of the issues and change requests that have been requested however it isnt Boinc and from what I have seen over the years is unlikely ever to be and if that is what you want then I'm afraid you will be disappointed

Boinc's pretty rubbish too, but this client lacks very basic things.

[Lamberto Vitali]

I notice you say "BOINC guys", this may be a clue.

F@H had a lone programmer until this last year when they could afford another. He coded the clients, the servers, and the web page. He takes direction from the biochemists, not the volunteers.

AFAIK Boinc has ONE programmer who is not paid.

It is incredibly bad for a F@H project if a folder aborts or loses a Work Unit, so F@H is not set up to promote aborting WUs. A new generation of WUs can only start when all of the last generation has been returned, so consistent folders are beneficial, but sporadic folders actually slow down the project. This drives a great deal of development.

That was my point, the tasks I now have sitting on my machine that will not be processed because I'm running something else on that machine are wasted. The project will now wait a few days then have to hand them out again. If one of the following were true, they could be being crunched now:

1) There was a very basic option (as in a must-have) to have the client operate in the mode (fold or pause) it was in before rebooting. I can only set it to fold or to pause, not to remember.

2) I was allowed to cancel the unit.

[Lamberto Vitali]

I often find I don't want to run the tasks I have.

This leads to a practise called cherry picking and has always been forbidden ... so don't expect any option like this to be added to the client.

And just why shouldn't I be allowed to devote my resources to cancer only (since my neighbour just died of it)? Mind you if the server handed out what I asked for, people wouldn't need to cherry pick. And if every task gave the same credits (which I see no reason not to), there would be no point in cherry picking.

Also, do you realise that you posted in a forum section that is about a very old version of the client that is not longer maintained ?

I saw only two sections in the forum, and thought I'd selected the newest one. Why is this section still in "CURRENT software" if it isn't?

"Board index < Current Software < V7.5.1 Public Release Windows/Linux/MacOS X"

[Joe_H]

One thing to add, the function to abort a WU already exists in the client, it is not part of the web or advanced controls for reasons mentioned above.

I saw only two sections in the forum, and thought I'd selected the newest one. Why is this section still in "CURRENT software" if it isn't?

"Board index < Current Software < V7.5.1 Public Release Windows/Linux/MacOS X"

There are 7 sections under "Current Software", not two. We usually keep active the sections for the most recent version and the prior version. Both sections do list the version number, you selected the obviously older version. Or are you running version 7.5.1? The other specifically lists that it is for V7.6.x.

And just why shouldn't I be allowed to devote my resources to cancer only (since my neighbour just died of it)? Mind you if the server handed out what I asked for, people wouldn't need to cherry pick. And if every task gave the same credits (which I see no reason not to), there would be no point in cherry picking.

The selections have always been described as "preferences". Your client will get WUs from projects that match if they are available, otherwise whatever project has the highest priority will be assigned. Most people prefer it that way so their machines will stay busy. And that really does not have much to do with people cherry picking projects. That has mostly come from people competing in team reward events or going for crypto currency offered by some teams based on points earned for F@h.

As for getting the same points, your argument totally ignores the differences between projects. People are not going to be happy if they process a WU for one project for 10 hours and get the same points for another project that takes 20. The do benchmark the various projects during internal testing to try and keep the points awarded consistent within about a plus or minus 10% range.

Note: topic has been moved to the section for V7.6.x

[Lamberto Vitali]

One thing to add, the function to abort a WU already exists in the client, it is not part of the web or advanced controls for reasons mentioned above.

How do I access it?

There are 7 sections under "Current Software", not two.

No idea where you get 7 from. Current software has two categories, forum and archives. Within forum are 6 categories. Within archive are 7. Only two versions of the software are listed not being under archive, the other 4 entries are for specific hardware.

We usually keep active the sections for the most recent version and the prior version. Both sections do list the version number, you selected the obviously older version. Or are you running version 7.5.1? The other specifically lists that it is for V7.6.x.

I must have clicked the wrong one by mistake. Why do you have an older one under "current"? Why are you even supporting the out of date one?

[The selections have always been described as "preferences". Your client will get WUs from projects that match if they are available, otherwise whatever project has the highest priority will be assigned. Most people prefer it that way so their machines will stay busy.

I would prefer it that way too, but that's not what it does. The setting of which one I prefer has precisely zero effect on what tasks I receive. No matter what I select, I always get a mix of everything, and that proportion does not change one iota.

And that really does not have much to do with people cherry picking projects. That has mostly come from people competing in team reward events or going for crypto currency offered by some teams based on points earned for F@h.

Does that really matter? If you want people to do more for project X, you could simply up the points for it, then the competition folk would choose it.

As for getting the same points, your argument totally ignores the differences between projects. People are not going to be happy if they process a WU for one project for 10 hours and get the same points for another project that takes 20. The do benchmark the various projects during internal testing to try and keep the points awarded consistent within about a plus or minus 10% range.

That's exactly what I was suggesting! That points per hour should be roughly equal, therefore no cherry picking would ever happen.

[Joe_H]

One thing to add, the function to abort a WU already exists in the client, it is not part of the web or advanced controls for reasons mentioned above.

How do I access it?

From the command line. Try FAHClient --help, and look for the dump command and its arguments.

There are 7 sections under "Current Software", not two.

No idea where you get 7 from. Current software has two categories, forum and archives. Within forum are 6 categories. Within archive are 7. Only two versions of the software are listed not being under archive, the other 4 entries are for specific hardware.

You initially stated there were just 2 sections, and ignored the other 5 sections under "Current Software" One is for V7.6.x, one for V7.5.1, the ARM client, unsupported Linux distributions, new GPUs, the deprecated Android client, and the archive of posts for the older V7 releases of the client. We did prune out the section of posts about the older V6 client that no longer works at all.

We usually keep active the sections for the most recent version and the prior version. Both sections do list the version number, you selected the obviously older version. Or are you running version 7.5.1? The other specifically lists that it is for V7.6.x.

I must have clicked the wrong one by mistake. Why do you have an older one under "current"? Why are you even supporting the out of date one?

The older versions are still mostly compatible with the servers. Within the last couple years I have seen stats that there was even someone out there running a V7.1 client and getting work. I have seen a log posted here on the forum within the last month or two that was from V7.4.4. The information is still useful to those running the prior version, though "support" is stronger than what this forum can do to help if the problem is too version specific. So far forcing upgrades has not been a policy of F@h.

I would prefer it that way too, but that's not what it does. The setting of which one I prefer has precisely zero effect on what tasks I receive. No matter what I select, I always get a mix of everything, and that proportion does not change one iota.

The setting will make a difference, you are making the assumption there is always work available for the cause you set. They do not keep a reserve of WUs for any project. If they are all out, then until someone returns a WU that will be used to generate the next Gen of the series, there will be none available to assign.

[Joe_H]

And that really does not have much to do with people cherry picking projects. That has mostly come from people competing in team reward events or going for crypto currency offered by some teams based on points earned for F@h.

Does that really matter? If you want people to do more for project X, you could simply up the points for it, then the competition folk would choose it.

F@h is tries to act in a team agnostic manner. What you are asking for here is that they favor one team or several teams over others. The competitions are run by the teams, not F@h. Members of those teams running a competition have the same chance at WUs from various projects as any other folder.

As for getting the same points, your argument totally ignores the differences between projects. People are not going to be happy if they process a WU for one project for 10 hours and get the same points for another project that takes 20. The do benchmark the various projects during internal testing to try and keep the points awarded consistent within about a plus or minus 10% range.

That's exactly what I was suggesting! That points per hour should be roughly equal, therefore no cherry picking would ever happen.

The points should be close to the same per hour for the same hardware already, are you arguing that they should be the same for someone running something like a GTX 3090 and someone running an older GTX 1060? In practice there are WUs that fold proportionally much more quickly on a 3090 than other WUs.

[Lamberto Vitali]

F@h is tries to act in a team agnostic manner. What you are asking for here is that they favor one team or several teams over others. The competitions are run by the teams, not F@h. Members of those teams running a competition have the same chance at WUs from various projects as any other folder.

I'm not asking that you favour anyone but yourselves. If one of your projects is more important than the others, you up the points for it to encourage it to get done.

The points should be close to the same per hour for the same hardware already,

They're not, I see a difference of a factor of 2 on GPUs. And it always favours certain things like cancer. I assumed that was deliberate.

are you arguing that they should be the same for someone running something like a GTX 3090 and someone running an older GTX 1060? In practice there are WUs that fold proportionally much more quickly on a 3090 than other WUs.

A GPU twice as fast should get double the points per hour, not sure why you thought I meant otherwise.

[toTOW]

A GPU twice as fast should get double the points per hour, not sure why you thought I meant otherwise.

I think you should read the Points FAQ before arguing about points : https://foldingathome.org/support/faq/points/

[Lamberto Vitali]

A GPU twice as fast should get double the points per hour, not sure why you thought I meant otherwise.

I think you should read the Points FAQ before arguing about points : https://foldingathome.org/support/faq/points/

Which part of the huge page are you referring to? I'm not going to read all of it. All I know is I get the same average of points on a 280X on my slow computer, a 280X on my fast computer (direct 16 lane PCI-E v3), and when I look up what others have got on a 280X. It is working fully. I can see it's working fully. Hot air flies out the back.