Folding Forum

Nathan_P wrote:The mod's will already have a fair idea as to who punchy is referring to

What does it matter whether they know or don't know. A Mod's job is to Moderate the discussion when it gets out of hand. They don't manage the assignment servers nor do they set the policies, the assignment requirements or the priorities for any project. Everybody probably has a personal opinion about what they consider cheating, including the Mods, but they can't really do anything more than what punchy is doing, calling attention to what he believes is an important issue for the Pande Group to consider changing.

codysluder wrote:What does it matter whether they know or don't know. A Mod's job is to Moderate the discussion when it gets out of hand. They don't manage the assignment servers nor do they set the policies, the assignment requirements or the priorities for any project. Everybody probably has a personal opinion about what they consider cheating, including the Mods, but they can't really do anything more than what punchy is doing, calling attention to what he believes is an important issue for the Pande Group to consider changing.

Exactly

In my original post, I should have said "nearly 100%" and "nearly 0%" in the first paragraph. If I understand the assignment server weightings correctly (quite possibly I don't), systems with 16 cores or more should get 9% 6901/3/4 or smaller SMP, and 91% 8101.

ChasR wrote:Since memory failed and observation wasn't properly carried out regarding this issue, I reinstalled the temporary drive I was running FAH on and read the log. I installed FAH on July 4th and downloaded a p6903,and subsequently p6901, then got a string of 5 p8101s before removing FAH on July 16.

The p8101 streak started with assignments on July 7-8, so your sample shows 100% p8101 in that time.

I have found quite a few users with 100% p8101 in that period, and a handful with very few p8101s in the same period. p8101s are pretty easy to differentiate from p6903/4 in EOC stats - p8101s typically appear in the 220K-320K point range while the others give 500K-700K credit. For users with fewer systems running, between the credits and the gaps between the credits, you can figure out what they are processing.

Adjusting the BIOS of any dual hexacore Intel based motherboard to disable hyper-threading will result in a 12 core machine that reports properly to the AS. It is then eligible for, assigned, and receives P6901-6904 among other BA SMP projects.
This simple modification reduces operating temps while folding in summer heat at a cost of approx 12% production; IMHO that is a much better option than shutting down due to heat. Is a single change in BIOS now considered cheating?

At 12% reduction? Is that originally in the 220K-320K point range or the 500K-700K range?

Being an intel, It's only bout 120-180K

7im wrote:At 12% reduction? Is that originally in the 220K-320K point range or the 500K-700K range?

I would guess he's referring to 12% production reduction in the 6901/3/4 series, because he wouldn't get assigned the p8101s with HT off and would be very close to the edge on completing them before the deadline with HT off anyway. So, that would be the ~500K (on a 2P Intel) credit WUs.

KMac wrote:Adjusting the BIOS of any dual hexacore Intel based motherboard to disable hyper-threading will result in a 12 core machine that reports properly to the AS. It is then eligible for, assigned, and receives P6901-6904 among other BA SMP projects.
This simple modification reduces operating temps while folding in summer heat at a cost of approx 12% production; IMHO that is a much better option than shutting down due to heat. Is a single change in BIOS now considered cheating?

I wouldn't think so. In that case, you're processing with WU with the configuration you told the AS that you had.
Now, if one were to disable HT, download the WU, then re-enable HT to process the WU, IMO that would be cheating.

I have no dog in this fight, but it reminds me of a quote:

"Improvise, Adapt, Overcome"
-Gunnery Sgt. Tom Highway

I also don't see how it can be cheating when I don't see a list of rules anywhere.

DoctorsSon wrote:...I don't see a list of rules anywhere.

A Best Practices FAQ is posted.

Macaholic wrote:

DoctorsSon wrote:...I don't see a list of rules anywhere.

A Best Practices FAQ is posted.

Since it wasn't labeled "Rules" I never bothered to read that and I am sure many others haven't either.

DoctorsSon wrote:

Macaholic wrote:

DoctorsSon wrote:...I don't see a list of rules anywhere.

A Best Practices FAQ is posted.

Since it wasn't labeled "Rules" I never bothered to read that and I am sure many others haven't either.

Maybe, but at least to me, "Rules" has a negative connotation about it. "Best Practices" seems a better phrasing IMO. Most people shouldn't have a need to check the "legality" of their F@h actions anyway, but its good to read anyway.

6.Donors should not intentionally stop/pause the FAH Client to manipulate the completion time or wuresult upload time of work units.

i pause all the time:/

Jesse_V wrote:

DoctorsSon wrote: Since it wasn't labeled "Rules" I never bothered to read that and I am sure many others haven't either.

Maybe, but at least to me, "Rules" has a negative connotation about it. "Best Practices" seems a better phrasing IMO. Most people shouldn't have a need to check the "legality" of their F@h actions anyway, but its good to read anyway.

I agree.
But just like many tweak their system for maximum folding some are bound to tweak the client for maximum ppd.

I just run V7 as it installed itself and tweak the hardware side.
I'm having a good day when my main folding comp hits 30k.
All the other smaller systems add to the daily total though, so I'm happy enough til I convince myself to loosen the wallet for 4P.

Here is the Folding@home rules and policies statement.