Folding Forum

Stanford has dangled the carrot several times over the years to get folks to upgrade hardware for more points but this is the final straw for me. Its been fun at times, aggravating, and expensive. Oh well time to move on life's to short for this crap, I hope the work I done helps someone somewhere down the road...

soya_crack wrote:I just wanted to thank the whole F@H team. It proved that one can talk to pandegroup and they are listening to their community. Even though it was a only a small change, I hope it can motivate people to put their GPUs and their smaller CPUs back to work and help process science. Meanwhile I will put my sandy back to work on some bigadvs.

Thanks guys.

That'll be great,
if you overclock it hard enough it'll make up some of the shortfall on my rigs alone,
You really expect me to fire up several Gpu clients to try and do that ?
maybe we should now whine for the slower Bigadv rigs to be "eased out" to reduce the return times,
how about a 12 core minimum ?

Nathan_P wrote: It probably would have gone down better if the new points structure had been put in place for new projects ratehr than modifying existing ones. At the moment there are some mightly upset -bigadv folders who may end up pulling their hardware

Wouldn't that have introduced the aggravation of having projects running concurrently with wildly different PPD values? From past experience people don't like that, either, though the forewarning would probably have mitigated some of the snap judgments it seems people are making.

I just wanted to thank the whole F@H team. It proved that one can talk to pandegroup and they are listening to their community. Even though it was a only a small change, I hope it can motivate people to put their GPUs and their smaller CPUs back to work and help process science. Meanwhile I will put my sandy back to work on some bigadvs.

Time will certainly tell.

My guess is that production will fall. The number of people adverse to normalization will outpace those who embrace it.

Sure would be handy to have a continuous graph of TFOPS client statistics for just such occasions.

native 4376 And x86 6945 out of 459043 donors today.

Of course, this is down due to weather and holiday....had been pushing 9000 x86 TFLOPS for a while....

Jester wrote:how about a 12 core minimum ?

That can be worked around.

How about shorter deadlines?

orion wrote:

Jester wrote:how about a 12 core minimum ?

That can be worked around.

How about shorter deadlines?

That would certainly weed out the "pretend" Bigadv systems and reduce the demand for Bigadv,
are you sure they would all go back to the regular Wu's like good little Folders ?

Zagen30 wrote:

Nathan_P wrote: It probably would have gone down better if the new points structure had been put in place for new projects ratehr than modifying existing ones. At the moment there are some mightly upset -bigadv folders who may end up pulling their hardware

Wouldn't that have introduced the aggravation of having projects running concurrently with wildly different PPD values? From past experience people don't like that, either, though the forewarning would probably have mitigated some of the snap judgments it seems people are making.

We have already had that issue with 2684 and again when 6903/6904 came out. We also see it across regular SMP projects as well.

orion wrote:

Jester wrote:how about a 12 core minimum ?

That can be worked around.

How about shorter deadlines?

12 cores is not enough, i have a pair of 24 core machines (12c/24t) and a fair few on one of the teams i fold for have far more powerful machines than that.

12 cores should be for regular -bigadv, and 24 for the big -bigadv

road-runner wrote:Stanford has dangled the carrot several times over the years to get folks to upgrade hardware for more points but this is the final straw for me. Its been fun at times, aggravating, and expensive. Oh well time to move on life's to short for this crap, I hope the work I done helps someone somewhere down the road...

Man, that's selfish. Sure you might earn less points than before, but the science being done is 100% the same! I can understand all the fuss here, but come on, we're all folding for the science right? I have no problem running a unicore client because I know it's helping them fighting these horrible diseases.

Jester wrote:That would certainly weed out the "pretend" Bigadv systems and reduce the demand for Bigadv,
are you sure they would all go back to the regular Wu's like good little Folders ?

Who knows? It's up to the individual what he/she wants to do with their systems, if they are in it for the points or for the science.

As far as "pretend" bigadv systems go, if they make the preferred deadline they make the preferred deadline. If PG wanted to eliminate them fully they would have shortened the deadlines.

Nathan_P wrote:

orion wrote:

Jester wrote:how about a 12 core minimum ?

That can be worked around.

How about shorter deadlines?

12 cores is not enough, i have a pair of 24 core machines (12c/24t) and a fair few on one of the teams i fold for have far more powerful machines than that.

12 cores should be for regular -bigadv, and 24 for the big -bigadv

I could easily go along with that too....
All my rigs including the SR-2 are running Win7/64 anyway as they do on occasion other tasks from time to time,
Those new big-bigadv units are Linux only anyway....

JonazzDJ wrote:

road-runner wrote:Stanford has dangled the carrot several times over the years to get folks to upgrade hardware for more points but this is the final straw for me. Its been fun at times, aggravating, and expensive. Oh well time to move on life's to short for this crap, I hope the work I done helps someone somewhere down the road...

Man, that's selfish. Sure you might earn less points than before, but the science being done is 100% the same! I can understand all the fuss here, but come on, we're all folding for the science right? I have no problem running a unicore client because I know it's helping them fighting these horrible diseases.

Rather selfish the way they treat the folks that support them, I have been down to just one rig running anyway so its no big deal they wont even miss me. There will be new folks come along that will spend big money every time to upgrade for the things stanford wants done. Hey at least they didnt just drop it all together this time, people are still able to use the hardware and get something.

I a all for helping diseases just doing it with a different project...

Nathan_P wrote:12 cores is not enough, i have a pair of 24 core machines (12c/24t) and a fair few on one of the teams i fold for have far more powerful machines than that.

12 cores should be for regular -bigadv, and 24 for the big -bigadv

What you have is a pair of 12 core machines that run 24 threads each.

I bet Intel doesn't market them as 12 core cpu’s

orion wrote:

Jester wrote:That would certainly weed out the "pretend" Bigadv systems and reduce the demand for Bigadv,
are you sure they would all go back to the regular Wu's like good little Folders ?

Who knows? It's up to the individual what he/she wants to do with their systems, if they are in it for the points or for the science.

As far as "pretend" bigadv systems go, if they make the preferred deadline they make the preferred deadline. If PG wanted to eliminate them fully they would have shortened the deadlines.

don't give them any more "good idea's" right now though,
Ok....

Jester wrote:don't give them any more "good idea's" right now though,
Ok....

Don't worry, they ignore me anyway.

I'm the big bad AMD x6 bigadv guy