Folding Forum

jrweiss wrote:

7im wrote:As for just swapping the order of the download/upload, that goes back to what I said about making changes. No change is a small change where reprogramming 400,000 clients, and 25+ servers is concerned.

I have to disagree here.

They would only be reprogramming a dozen or so clients, and I suspect the source code logic in that segment of the client is identical for all of them. The number of servers is totally irrelevant. All it takes is to move the initial download connection to just prior to the initial upload connection. All the remaining logic remains intact, including the timing for waits between subsequent attempts of either action.

As it is, an unsuccessful upload attempt can delay the download of the next WU for hours, and the start of the next WU in the server queue is not at all affected by the WU results awaiting upload. We know this because there will eventually be a download attempt even if the upload does not complete.

7im wrote:

jrweiss wrote:

7im wrote:As for just swapping the order of the download/upload, that goes back to what I said about making changes. No change is a small change where reprogramming 400,000 clients, and 25+ servers is concerned.

I have to disagree here.

They would only be reprogramming a dozen or so clients, and I suspect the source code logic in that segment of the client is identical for all of them. The number of servers is totally irrelevant. All it takes is to move the initial download connection to just prior to the initial upload connection. All the remaining logic remains intact, including the timing for waits between subsequent attempts of either action.

As it is, an unsuccessful upload attempt can delay the download of the next WU for hours, and the start of the next WU in the server queue is not at all affected by the WU results awaiting upload. We know this because there will eventually be a download attempt even if the upload does not complete.

Go ahead and disagree.

How well does this simple switch work with 200,000 clients using the old way, and 200,000 clients using the new way during the change over? How does this count against you for -bigadv bonuses?

How do you stop an unstable client from just downloading all the WUs, and never uploading any? (Yes, I know this can be prevented, with more coding and checks.) So you see, there is a lot more to think through than simply flipping a switch, or swapping a load order.

7im wrote:Go ahead and disagree.

How well does this simple switch work with 200,000 clients using the old way, and 200,000 clients using the new way during the change over? How does this count against you for -bigadv bonuses?

How do you stop an unstable client from just downloading all the WUs, and never uploading any? (Yes, I know this can be prevented, with more coding and checks.) So you see, there is a lot more to think through than simply flipping a switch, or swapping a load order.

jrweiss wrote: It doesn't count for or against me for -bigadv bonuses, because I don't do -bigadv WUs. What is the issue with them?

Zagen30 wrote:

jrweiss wrote: It doesn't count for or against me for -bigadv bonuses, because I don't do -bigadv WUs. What is the issue with them?

AFAIK, the bonus points are awarded based on a continuous function of the time since it was downloaded. Uploading a few minutes later would decrease your bonus, but I'm not sure by how much.

jrweiss wrote:

Zagen30 wrote:

jrweiss wrote: It doesn't count for or against me for -bigadv bonuses, because I don't do -bigadv WUs. What is the issue with them?

AFAIK, the bonus points are awarded based on a continuous function of the time since it was downloaded. Uploading a few minutes later would decrease your bonus, but I'm not sure by how much.

In that case, it would only apply to the first WU after the client upgrade, because the subsequent WUs would start a few minutes/seconds earlier.

tear wrote:
Being a naysayer isn't very hard, is it, 7im?

7im wrote:

tear wrote:
Being a naysayer isn't very hard, is it, 7im?

Hijacking isn't hard either, eh tear? langouste?

7im wrote:I wasn't being a naysayer. I was informing people they hadn't thought through everything that was involved. Swapping upload order is NOT simple. Doable, probably. Simple, no. Just look at all the EULA breaking tricks you have to play with the client files to make this work with langouste.

why Stanford hasn't made your "simple" change and taken advantage of more processing time?

7im wrote:I can't prove a negative, but maybe you would like to theorize as to why Stanford hasn't made your "simple" change and taken advantage of more processing time?