Answers to: Reasons for not using F@H.

[sdack]

It does not answer the question, 7im. People may want to use an old machine to run Folding@Home 24/7 and forget about it, and without upgrading it. People who build machines only for the purpose of folding and upgrading it whenever better hardware becomes available will then never have this question - they would run their machines even when it meant it would damage them. Overclockers for instance then constantly take this risk of damaging their hardware.

[Ahavi]

It is nice to see that my question got added to this list (...), but I would like to comment on another one:

Won’t running my computer at full usage/100% all the time damage it?

It is very likely that a good computer lives longer when run 100% at all times than one that gets turned on and off once a day. Most faults in electronics - it does not matter if it is a computer, a TV or a microwave oven - are in fact temperature related. Some are the result of overheating (and a bad environment or a hardware design is to blame) but others are the result of thermal stress, and are simply unavoidable. Because different materials expand differently when exposed to heat they then build up tension and cause friction, also known as thermal stress. Whenever a computer is turned on and off its components change in temperature by as much as 40c to 60c, causing thermal stress in all contacts, cables, PCBs and solderings. Given enough time will it cause most materials to break - like a piece of plastic or metal that is being bend too often. A computer which is running at full speed 24/7 and producing a constant heat will receive a lot less thermal stress than one that is being turned on and off once a day, and therefore live longer.

Again, this implies a good computer as well as a good environment! With computer components getting hotter each year, requiring more cooling than ever before, they also tend to die earlier because of over-heating. A computer on a dusty carpet in a crowded office will most-likely die of dust before any thermal stress can kill it.

Indeed. We should not be discussing the impacts of 100% load on *PUs, as they seem to work fine with it. But rather the motherboard components, the capacitors, voltage controllers etc etc. I would rather worry about them burning.

[tipoo]

thanks for this, i posted it here:

http://forumplasma.com/showthread.php?t=19141

trying to get more of those guys to join up.

[spazzychalk]

the bit about fah being a screensaver is now antiquated isnt it?

[bruce]

the bit about fah being a screensaver is now antiquated isnt it?

Yes

[John Naylor]

It is, but it's how a lot of people who have asked me about the project were introduced to it, sadly. Hence why it's still there, but if you think I should remove it then please say so.

[spazzychalk]

i think it might be confusing to people who are coming in to it new. my sales pitch is set it and forget it, and heavily emphasize the low priority that theyll never even know its there. i would also update the power usage stats with some actual #s (rounded up to monthly no one wants to see daily) from foldings own web site http://folding.stanford.edu/English/FAQ-main#ntoc58 and this for the ps3 http://www.hardcoreware.net/ps3-power-u ... ldinghome/ with a side note that this test was done on the older 200w power supply and the newer 80gig and up models have the 115w power supply with even lower power consumption. i had to dig these up for my own letters i send people and have them foward around. i also would say, like i read another on here say, ditch the bit about the computers heating the house. the first thing i thought when i read that was "what about summer". the cold hard #s of 5-6$ a month much better info

[John Naylor]

I've edited it, please tell me if that is better

[spazzychalk]

great. there is still the bit about the screensaver in there though

[John Naylor]

Woops It's gone now and I've added the bit about F@H backing off as you suggested

[klasseng]

How much more science would be done if:
- the FAH client software had the same user friendliness of good consumer software
- the client software would install with a simple drag application package to the Applications folder
- the user would double click on the client application and it would just run, asking for additional information on initial run
- the client software would quit gracefully (instead of the user having to make sure that it isn't in the middle of writing data when quiting)
- the client software would detect and facilitate software updates
- the client software had some robust error detection and correction
- the client software would detect a problem WU/Server/Client install, and handle it gracefully
- the client software would inform the administrators of a problem WU/Server on it's own
- users wouldn't have to post questions to a forum, search for repair utilities, search (in other places) for instructions in the use of those utilities

Perhaps, just perhaps, the figures in:
http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/mai ... pe=osstats
would show that many more than the current ~ 10% of total CPU's are active CPU's; people would start folding and continue because it would be easy to do and would have few frustrations.

Perhaps many more people would run FAH and run it more efficiently.

[John Naylor]

That is true, but I account for about 50 of those total CPUs despite only having 17 machines folding (my stats say more but that's a stats bug). Why? OS reinstalls and updated hardware... Many of the other big folders are the same, and if I can account for 3x as many processors as I actually have in nearly 3 years, then 10% in 8 and a bit years is not so bad...

However it has to be said that this project's software is not the most usable in the world, which is why it's still undergoing development. The standard CPU clients (excluding the viewer) are the model that the Pande Group is aiming for the rest to match...

[nekojx]

Here is reasons for NOT USING F@H!!!

We let F@H to use our computers for free, that is not the problem, but some of the results are not allowed to us for free!!!

For example ht*p: //w*w .sciencedirect. com for some F@H research want from us to pay for work which is done by our computers?????
That is unlogically, I think everyone should to use F@H but when will have access to all results, and for now F@H should be shutdowned!!!!

[MtM]

what does sciencedirect have to do with f@h, all F@H results are posted on the stanford site. Mhm first post, reported for trolling?

[John Naylor]

I think a few of the results on the Stanford site link to elsewhere. So maybe those papers should be hosted locally if possible, but for now if sciencedirect wish to charge, there is nothing this project can do about it.