Folding Forum

Jesse_V wrote:

Horvat wrote: No, I mean any -bigadv. Why is this being such an elusive answer? I want a plain, simple answer.. Yes or no. Anyone... please. To run BA, 16 physical cores or 16 logical cores.

Clearly 16 physical cores does bigadv much faster than 16 logical cores. But I believe the servers see the number 16 either way, which may be why it isn't specified. In light of that, I'd say that 16 logical cores will be sufficient, but 16 physical cores is better.

Thank you for the clarification. Having that question clarified will help a lot of contributors plan for future hardware upgrades in a manner that best suites them and their financial resources. Again, thank you and have a great day.

Looks as though all the whiners and cheats who have been using scripts to run Cpu's that just squeeze in under the bonus points
deadlines have finally done it,
In one stroke they are going to render useless for bigadv anything less than 8 core 16 thread machines, even my SR-2 only just
meets that.........
So hex core Cpu's, no matter how powerful or carefully overclocked, will no longer be assigned bigadv Wu's, what a totally ridiculous
descision to make when so many are feeling the pinch of rising power costs,
If this ill thought out plan is brought in in the New Year it may well be the final straw that has be bidding goodbye to Folding totally,
And yes I was around when Bigadv started, I was around when QMD started and finished, I was around when Gpu2 rendered early ATi cards useless,
I was even around when "big" Wu's were worth 4.5 points, but there is a limit,
After 10 years and close to 110,000 Wu's and closer to 140 million points it's been a joy mainly thanks to my team mates,
but enough is enough.

After folding for nearly two years and upgrading my PC twice, I finally created an account a few days ago. I first upgraded a Celeron D to a whole new machine with a Celeron Dual Core before I was introduced to folding@home. Once I was introduced to folding@home, I upgraded again to a Core2 Quad Q9400. After much consideration on how well the i7-2600k produced point wise, I upgraded yet again a few months back. Point production was literally dropped across the scale of SMP/BigAdv at the same time I made my 2600k purchase.

I honestly did not think my first post on the forum would be to say "Goodbye and good luck with your project". I'm not trying to be vulgar or disrespectful an anyway. I do however want to express myself thoughts before I leave in hopes that something can be done about it.

Here is a little background on who I am. I was introduced to folding@home through Team Icrontic. Being a mod on a Windows 7 forum, I was highly motivated in spreading the word. I created a team for w7forums and started promoting the project. Shortly after I became involved with EVGA. I have accumulated about 8.5 million points under clifford_cooley for various teams.

My enthusiasm and motivation to promote this project, died through point drops and trying to explain why someone with 50% my processing power is only earning 15% of the points. And then to have my goals of earning points stripped from me during purchases and shortly after has pushed me out the door.

kendrak wrote:Not sure where some of you were, but people at the [H] knew changes were coming over a week ago.

And my understanding was that the information to be found at [H] over a week ago was unauthorized leaks of confidential information.
It's clear that the DAB concept still isn't really fully thought out.

Horvat wrote:

k1wi wrote:As I said in the other thread you created - it's 11pm in California, I don't think Pande Group should be required to respond to your message at such a time in the evening.

I hope the Pande group doesn't come to an abrupt stop, you'll become momentarilly blind by the loss of light.

I am certain you can take this trash talk somewhere else, it doesn't belong in this forum. It only serves to make you appear petulant and more concerned about the size of your e-peen instead of the science.

Punchy wrote:

kendrak wrote:Not sure where some of you were, but people at the [H] knew changes were coming over a week ago.

And my understanding was that the information to be found at [H] over a week ago was unauthorized leaks of confidential information.
It's clear that the DAB concept still isn't really fully thought out.

The DAB is used to move information from team members to PG and back again. This helps in the creation of policy to benefit doners and the project, and to aid in COMMUNICATION.

Notice at the [H] everything is calm. People knew to expect a change and when it was announced it was taken in good order. I think I did my job.

My point is that the Pande group is putting bigadv's out of reach for many folders. But it is their project so I understand they have the right to do as they please.
I will reach my personal goal of 50,000,000 points soon, then I will shut down FAH but I'm sure the Pande group doesn't care cause I can't afford a mulitsocket board.

I have a suggestion on how the new changes can be slowly phased in, so that the contributors who have spent a lot of money upgrading or built new rigs just for folding, do not feel shortchanged, and Pande Group can achieve their goal of getting WUs back as quickly as possible, so that the science is not delayed.

I understand that my proposal may not be perfect, so do feel free to suggest any changes if anyone has a better suggestion.

Before I propose my idea, I like to clarify some matters, so that everyone who reads my proposal will understand where I am coming from.

I have a AMD Phenom II X6 1090T desktop and a Intel Core 460M laptop, which I run on SMP, while I have a Intel E6700 desktop, which runs on uniprocessor WUs only, because it takes too long for my own liking, when it runs SMP, and I try to follow the Best Practices FAQ.

I have not run any Big Advanced Projects, or do I plan to do so in the near future.

My proposal is this, my understanding is that Big Advanced Projects have to be requested by contributors, that is, I may have a 24 core machine, but if I do not request for Big Advanced Projects, only regular SMP WUs will be sent to me. Of course, I may be wrong, since I have never folded any Big Advanced WUs before. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

In that case, why not impose a small penalty for folders who do not meet the preferred deadline? For example, Big Advanced Projects give significant bonuses for returning the WUs much earlier han the suggested preferred deadline, when the WUs are returned neared to the deadline the bonuses are reduced. If folders return the WUs after the preferred deadline, then the points awarded should be slightly less than regular SMP.

When folders who have machines that are not suitable for Big Advanced Projects, yet attempt to do so get less points than regular SMP, this will cause them to have a rethink and start to fold regular SMP WUs instead.

Of course, the above proposal is based on the assumption that Big Advanced Projects are requested by the folders, if Big Advanced Projects WUs are given based on the Assignment Server on whether one has the
"minimum system requirements", as a small percentage of folders may be able to trick the server into believing that their system is capable of running Big Advanced Projects.

From the Best Practices FAQ,

5) Running a FAH Client on hardware that will only marginally meet the WU's Preferred Deadline is strongly discouraged. For example, it is not recommended to run bigadv work units on slower systems or systems with less than 8 cores and it is not recommended to run SMP work units on slower 2-core systems. If you notice your hardware is not going to complete the assigned WU by the Final Deadline time, stop the client, delete the work unit, and please visit this thread or this guide to select a FAH Client that better fits your needs.

As Xavier Zepherious has mentioned,

"the fact that a dual xeon(4c/8t) at stock is slower than a sandy-e 6 core overclocked doesn't make this a fair system either it should be based on time to complete the WU...not on the hardware of your system"

Some folders have overclocked their systems to ensure that they can complete the WUs ahead of the preferred deadlines. If folders are able to make the preferred deadlines, let them continue to fold. If they do not meet the deadlines, then penalize them, since these folders requested for Big Advanced Projects, they should not complain of being penalized if they are unable to meet the requirements.

Another suggestion I would like to make, is to all the folders who run bigadv, is to send in your log files, via your folding team's representative, to the Donor Advisory Board (DAB). When I say send in your logs, I do not mean sending in the full log files. Just send in your system configuration, the bigadv WU details and the last 5 mins of the log files. These will let the Pande Group know that the Big Advanced Projects are being completed well before the preferred deadline.

Since the DAB was formed to improve communication in both directions, by voicing your views through the DAB, we can let the Pande Group know of our concerns and hence improve on how we can make Folding@home better.

I am sure that Pande Group has thought about the impact to donors regarding these changes, and have tried to implement these changes as best as they can.

There are still 2 months to go, so there is still time to improve on the proposed changes before they are implemented.

I fully understand the need for Pande Group to raise the minimum requirements, if they have the intention to push out new projects that need to be completed within a shorter deadline.

However, feedback from the donors cannot be ignored, because although FAH is a voluntary contribution by donors, who wish to contribute to science, there are also many folders who have gone beyond the norm, by building dedicated folding rigs, spending time and money to contribute to FAH.

If anyone has a better suggestion on how to improve my proposal, do feel free to do so. The purpose of my post is to try to find a middle ground between the bigadv folders and the Pande Group, so that everyone can be satisfied with the outcome.

I sincerely hope that during these 2 months, a compromise can be achieved, because losing folders means taking more time to get results, which affects the chances of finding a cure for the diseases that afflict mankind.

I have lost relatives to cancer before, and I fold in the hope that the cure for cancer and other diseases can be found, so that no one else has to suffer from them.

kendrak wrote: The DAB is used to move information from team members to PG and back again. This helps in the creation of policy to benefit doners and the project, and to aid in COMMUNICATION.

If that were really true, then the DAB hidden forum should be visible to all donors.

Notice at the [H] everything is calm. People knew to expect a change and when it was announced it was taken in good order. I think I did my job.

That could also be taken as an indication that at the [H] the change does not affect the top 20 folders, who are really the ones that do the most posting (and more than 50% of the team's production). And that right there indicates the whole problem with the QRB and the fact that the latest change actually INCREASES the gap between the "haves" and the "have nots".

Occupy Stanford!

morpheous_2812 wrote:My proposal is this, my understanding is that Big Advanced Projects have to be requested by contributors, that is, I may have a 24 core machine, but if I do not request for Big Advanced Projects, only regular SMP WUs will be sent to me. Of course, I may be wrong, since I have never folded any Big Advanced WUs before. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

In that case, why not impose a small penalty for folders who do not meet the preferred deadline? For example, Big Advanced Projects give significant bonuses for returning the WUs much earlier han the suggested preferred deadline, when the WUs are returned neared to the deadline the bonuses are reduced. If folders return the WUs after the preferred deadline, then the points awarded should be slightly less than regular SMP.

This is correct. You must add the -bigadv flag to your SMP client in order to ask the server for bigadv. But that doesn't guarentee you'll get bigadv, since obviously you also have to have the right hardware.

Also, if you don't make the Preferred Deadline, aren't you only awarded base credit? See this page: http://folding.stanford.edu/English/FAQ-PointsNew And if you don't meet the Preferred Deadline, the WU is reassigned by you get that base credit. If you don't meet the Final Deadline the WU has been reassigned and you don't get any credit. Both of those events are the small penalty imposed. I've never run bigadv, but is the base credit below what you would get with SMP?

morpheous_2812 wrote:Another suggestion I would like to make, is to all the folders who run bigadv, is to send in your log files, via your folding team's representative, to the Donor Advisory Board (DAB). When I say send in your logs, I do not mean sending in the full log files. Just send in your system configuration, the bigadv WU details and the last 5 mins of the log files. These will let the Pande Group know that the Big Advanced Projects are being completed well before the preferred deadline.

Since the DAB was formed to improve communication in both directions, by voicing your views through the DAB, we can let the Pande Group know of our concerns and hence improve on how we can make Folding@home better.

Thank you for that other suggestion and your words following it. It is my understanding that the Pande Group has access to the information on the hardware a WU was completed on, and how close to the deadline. For example, I believe they can see that a WU was completed on a 12-core processor with 8 GB of free RAM, and was completed 40% of the way to the deadline. Obviously, I'm not an admin, so I don't have access to those kinds of things, but I believe they collect that kind of thing. For some evidence of this you can look in your log and see the client reporting cores and RAM to the server. The server also knows how long it took you to complete the WU, as that value is also used to calculate F@h's FLOPS. So I guess they kind of have that information already, and this change may have been based off of that (along with of course info gathered in the forums). When people post their logs for troubleshooting that also gives insights.

What I see here is a bunch of people who have gotten carried away with folding thinking it is a competition or a race to be #1. Who are you guys/gals racing against other than yourselves. So you will not be able to fold BA WU's after 1/16/2012 unless you meet certain criteria. You can still get up to same amount ppd with SMP WU's. I started folding 1/27/09 and in that time I managed to get over 13 million points starting with gpu folding then gradually working up to the 2 I7's that I currently have today and starting to bring out a 3rd system. I may have done a bit of BA WU's but my majority have been SMP's and GPU's.

Go ahead and bring up the "I laid a lot of money to bring out the badass folding machine that I have today and you guy's want to shaft me" excuse, you have no one but yourself to blame for that. I fold for the reason that I want to, not for the reason it is some super duper competition and that you get the crown of king or queen of folding. By the way, this is research, not a competition. And some good has come out of it.

Sorry for not being more clear in the post. It's 16 physical cores in terms of speed (to make the deadlines), but since the client just looks for logical cores (and can't tell the difference between logical and physical cores), the client hard minimum will be 16 logical cores (if we made the client minimum 32 cores, then there would be cases of people with 16 physical cores not working). Since this is a bit confusing to say, I tried to stress the speed needed (16 physical cores), but as before, the key determining issue will be making the deadlines (especially since some people often spoof the number of cores the client detects anyway).

We very much understand how upsetting any change is, especially since donors work hard to optimize their setups. That is why we tried to give advance notice, especially since people might buy new equipment over the holidays. Please keep in mind that BA is very much experimental and that future changes not just could happen but most likely will. We are making this change since as time marches on, pretty soon all new machines will be BA-capable, which defeats the purpose of the whole BA project.

Moreover, we understand that change is upsetting for donors, so we are trying to be much more conservative with changes to other parts of FAH.

Wow, all theses post only ever show is which users never had to fold just unicore units.

Back in the day where 200ppd was huge, ATI was the only gpu to use.

PEOPLE NEED TO REMEMBER THAT ITS everyone BEING SCALED BACK, not just them.

If people are so tied up with points, why not juack the smp ppd to 30k, change the bigadv to 120k ppd ahnd 16 core.

That way point people don`t lose their imaginary numbers, and 2pé4p get the reward they deserve.

I'll say it since no one else has. Do you think that FAH would exist today without the point system in place?
If you said yes you are kidding yourself. The Pande group knows this very well, that why it's there. We are competitive people who tweak our system to the max wether it be oc'ing, benchmarking or folding. Many people started folding for personal reasons ie...sick family members (my case) but have stuck around for many years because of the team spirit and trying to move up the points ladder.
If you don't think my statement above is incorrect, get rid of the point system and see how many people continue to fold. Furthermore, get rid of the points and see how many people will spend thousands of dollars on multiple socket systems.

IMO, all of you who want to chime in about folding for the cure should understand that without points this project doesn't exist.

VijayPande wrote:Sorry for not being more clear in the post. It's 16 physical cores in terms of speed (to make the deadlines), but since the client just looks for logical cores (and can't tell the difference between logical and physical cores), the client hard minimum will be 16 logical cores (if we made the client minimum 32 cores, then there would be cases of people with 16 physical cores not working). Since this is a bit confusing to say, I tried to stress the speed needed (16 physical cores), but as before, the key determining issue will be making the deadlines (especially since some people often spoof the number of cores the client detects anyway).

We very much understand how upsetting any change is, especially since donors work hard to optimize their setups. That is why we tried to give advance notice, especially since people might buy new equipment over the holidays. Please keep in mind that BA is very much experimental and that future changes not just could happen but most likely will. We are making this change since as time marches on, pretty soon all new machines will be BA-capable, which defeats the purpose of the whole BA project.

Moreover, we understand that change is upsetting for donors, so we are trying to be much more conservative with changes to other parts of FAH.

Thanks for clarifying this and I do wish to point out 1 thing here so people will hopefully not try to split hairs in the future you have stated that it is the time that matters not the core count apparently you are using the only measurement that you have at this time that will return a WU in the amount of time you want it returned in. Which is a stock clocked 16 core / threaded rig, If a person’s rig is capable of meeting those times then in Stanford’s eyes it is meeting the requirements to fold them. If this is not correct please clarify as this has been a point of contention for a while and has caused several flame's between members both here and on other forums.

Thank you VJ for your post.

Grandpa_01