Folding Forum

orion wrote:

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

They ignore you too huh ?


Sad story of the last 19 pages here...

bruce wrote:Nobody likes their contribution to earn less that it once did, but considering all of the factors, that seems to be the best way to put the system back in balance.

I realise that this was one way to handle it but surely not the best way.

The ramifications continue to sink in. I've just picked up a 2684 on a dedicated Linux folder - a 980X at 4.2GHz now earning a ppd of 45K. There doesn't seem to be enough 6903/6904s to go around and the Project now doesn't think this configuration is particularly effective for completing regular bigadv science, so considering the purchase and running costs, this rig will likely be the first up for decommissioning and sale. I could believe that this machine was cost effective and still making a valuable contribution if it was a multi-purpose PC but it's not.

I can't see how a plan of action and a form/speed of introduction that makes someone want to sell existing rigs and cease any upgrades is the best way. With more changes potentially on the way I really have no idea which direction they want us to go in.

I know the chaps at Stanford have a really difficult job but what an incredible mess. There had to be a better way.

phoenicis. wrote:

bruce wrote:Nobody likes their contribution to earn less that it once did, but considering all of the factors, that seems to be the best way to put the system back in balance.

I realise that this was one way to handle it but surely not the best way.

The ramifications continue to sink in. I've just picked up a 2684 on a dedicated Linux folder - a 980X at 4.2GHz now earning a ppd of 45K. There doesn't seem to be enough 6903/6904s to go around and the Project now doesn't think this configuration is particularly effective for completing regular bigadv science, so considering the purchase and running costs, this rig will likely be the first up for decommissioning and sale. I could believe that this machine was cost effective and still making a valuable contribution if it was a multi-purpose PC but it's not.

I can't see how a plan of action and a form/speed of introduction that makes someone want to sell existing rigs and cease any upgrades is the best way. With more changes potentially on the way I really have no idea which direction they want us to go in.

I know the chaps at Stanford have a really difficult job but what an incredible mess. There had to be a better way.

How can we have any real idea of direction when it seems the whole project is reactive instead of proactive.......

Just whine about those already doing that and more.

That's a superficial understanding of the concerns that have been expressed in this thread. Yes, I realize it's a long thread and perhaps difficult to digest. Although it would be easy to call your (apparent) attitude smug and arrogant, that too would be superficial. I realize you are a dedicated contributor, and for that, you have my respect.

The whole point of reevaluating the points awarding system and making changes, if any, is for the long term benefit of the project. Pande Group should, and I am confident they will, do:
a. what is necessary to motivate users to work on what's most important
b. cultivate current members into more productive members
c. encourage members with lower production to stay with the project and perhaps improve their production in the future

Nathan_P wrote:

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.

A bit of a misstatement- I meant to convey the introduction of lesser-valued projects like 670x several months ago.

This moving of the goal posts has left me something of a dilemma, I am currently in the process of building several multi socket systems to run the bigadv projects with the goal of hitting 1mil ppd which will now no longer be possible short of buying more kit which I'm not willing to do even more so now.

Whilst the science is the main reason I fold the points are what our contribution is measured by and the competion is what makes it more fun, without which I wouldn't be folding with anywhere near as much kit or have spent as much on it, everyone folding bigadv has spent a lot of time and money on the kit why shouldn't the points be higher?

road-runner wrote: Rather selfish the way they treat the folks that support them

Ultimately it's human nature that's responsible for this.

Since Donors aren't compensated with a reward that's truly worth anything (what is the value of a "point" anyways?), they must eventually be regarded as slave labor, and all the stigmas associated with slave or cheap labor start to come into play.

I used to be passionate about this project too, but once u step back and stop chasing the (point) dragon then you can clearly see what's going on.

For all the non-Alpha's it's just a microcosm of the world - Ur busy busting ur hump for a system that doesn't give 2 (cents) about you... Funny how that works, huh?

Dave_Goodchild wrote:This moving of the goal posts has left me something of a dilemma, I am currently in the process of building several multi socket systems to run the bigadv projects with the goal of hitting 1mil ppd which will now no longer be possible short of buying more kit which I'm not willing to do even more so now.

Whilst the science is the main reason I fold the points are what our contribution is measured by and the competion is what makes it more fun, without which I wouldn't be folding with anywhere near as much kit or have spent as much on it, everyone folding bigadv has spent a lot of time and money on the kit why shouldn't the points be higher?

Because there are lots out there who have no idea of the time, effort and dollars needed to run good Bigadv capable systems,
I feel truly sorry for guys like you who are caught in the middle of an expensive upgrade only to see a downgrade of the targetted project
for no other reason than the chorus of "the points are too high, the points are too high"

orion wrote:

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

Hence the (12c/24t). Also try tellling the F@H cores that its only a thread

phoenicis. wrote:

bruce wrote:Nobody likes their contribution to earn less that it once did, but considering all of the factors, that seems to be the best way to put the system back in balance.

I realise that this was one way to handle it but surely not the best way.

The ramifications continue to sink in. I've just picked up a 2684 on a dedicated Linux folder - a 980X at 4.2GHz now earning a ppd of 45K. There doesn't seem to be enough 6903/6904s to go around and the Project now doesn't think this configuration is particularly effective for completing regular bigadv science, so considering the purchase and running costs, this rig will likely be the first up for decommissioning and sale. I could believe that this machine was cost effective and still making a valuable contribution if it was a multi-purpose PC but it's not.

I can't see how a plan of action and a form/speed of introduction that makes someone want to sell existing rigs and cease any upgrades is the best way. With more changes potentially on the way I really have no idea which direction they want us to go in.

I know the chaps at Stanford have a really difficult job but what an incredible mess. There had to be a better way.

Very well put, there are grumblings on many of the team boards about this being the wrong way to handle it. I bet we will see a whole host of machines up for sale in the next few weeks.

PG won't have to worry about demand for -bigadv as the biggest rigs may well be offine, leaving the i7's to pick up the work (which is not what PG wants)

Leonardo wrote:

Just whine about those already doing that and more.

That's a superficial understanding of the concerns that have been expressed in this thread. Yes, I realize it's a long thread and perhaps difficult to digest. Although it would be easy to call your (apparent) attitude smug and arrogant, that too would be superficial. I realize you are a dedicated contributor, and for that, you have my respect.

The whole point of reevaluating the points awarding system and making changes, if any, is for the long term benefit of the project. Pande Group should, and I am confident they will, do:
a. what is necessary to motivate users to work on what's most important
b. cultivate current members into more productive members
c. encourage members with lower production to stay with the project and perhaps improve their production in the future

Not "difficult to digest" at all,
It too would be easy to call your apparent attitude both arrogant and condescending, so how about we leave out the "superficial" comments altogether and just have a mutual respect for dedicated folders,
all I've seen in this whole thread came about from a premature release of a certain series of bigger Bigadv work units without due thought of the consequences, even though they have far higher hardware
requirements and are "Linux only", if this were not the case then why did this thread not appear when the Bigadv project was first released,
Your faith and level of participation in the project is admirable, and showing it in the forums could well be better motivation than all of a,b and c, combined.

Leonardo wrote:

Just whine about those already doing that and more.

That's a superficial understanding of the concerns that have been expressed in this thread. Yes, I realize it's a long thread and perhaps difficult to digest. Although it would be easy to call your (apparent) attitude smug and arrogant, that too would be superficial. I realize you are a dedicated contributor, and for that, you have my respect.

The whole point of reevaluating the points awarding system and making changes, if any, is for the long term benefit of the project. Pande Group should, and I am confident they will, do:
a. what is necessary to motivate users to work on what's most important
b. cultivate current members into more productive members
c. encourage members with lower production to stay with the project and perhaps improve their production in the future

in answer to this:-

1st thought:- PG should have a benckmarking machine that reflects the hardware out there, We have people running -bigadv on machines with up to 128 threads, to benchmark on a 8thread lynnfield based xeon is just plain unrealistic, then this may not have happended

a: I thought thats why they came up with -bigadv and QRB in the 1st place
b: PG have just managed to annoy most of the -bigadv crowd in the space of a day, causing at least 2 project members to think of shutting down rigs. i know that there is currently 1 quad g34 that won't be started up, my 2nd dual cpu machine is now being delayed whilst i decide its future, and phoenicis is thinking of shutting down at least one of his machines
b: Its only a couple of thousand folders at most that are willing to put the time and money in to set up -bigadv rigs that run these projects the way that PG intended them to be run
c: They should have looked at points for the lower end of the scale firstn there are stil wu being released worth 69 points.

Nathan_P wrote:Hence the (12c/24t). Also try tellling the F@H cores that its only a thread

But you did say 24 core machine after all

It really doesn't matter...core...thread...smp 6...smp 7 it's what makes the F@H world go around.

Who knows what their agenda is,
if this is the start of an across the board update to points values and bringing the QRB into play for all projects then let us know
well beforehand, hopefully this was not just an opportune moment to revalue the Bigadv project and using that whole 18 page thread
with an obvious bias as some sort of mandate.

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

I won't comment on FAH's point-system, but I'll still give one or two ideas that can be useful:

A: Then doing changes to major parts of the point-system, announce them 1 week beforehand.
B: Don't immediately increase/decrease to the new value, but make it gradual over a 1-month period.

So, example this change of a 50% bonus to a 20%-bonus would be handled this way:
1: Initial announcement today, 02.07.2011.
2: Keep at 50% until 09.07.2011. (or better to Monday, meaning 11.07.20011, but I'll use 09.07.20011 for the rest).
3: Anything credited at 09.07.2011 gets 50% bonus.
4: Anything credited at 10.07.2011 gets 49% bonus.
5: Anything creditet at 11.07.2011 gets 48% bonus.
6: Anything creditet at 12.07.2011 gets 47% bonus.
...
32: Anything creditet at 07.08.2011 gets 21% bonus.
33: Anything creditet at 08.08.2011 and afterwards gets 20% bonus.


The most important in my opinion is A, giving a 1-week warning, since this way users has atleast the chance to see, and in most instances finish the current work, before any changes happens at all. Not like this time, there the rules suddenly changed in the middle of a wu...
B is so that everyone that has holidays and so on, and therefore can't immediately do any changes even if they did see the message, has longer time until the full effect of the changes is implemented.

Now, B can obviously easily be adopted to other things, like decreasing deadline from 5 days to 4 days over a month, or for that matter to add a QRB for all the Amber-wu's and similar...


BTW, there's been various messages along the lines of "project XYZ should have been kept in beta until PPD was fixed" or something similar, so assuming FAH's point-system is up to this, this problem can easily be solved with a small disclaimer:
"Project XYZ is released as is, it's possible the points for project-XYZ is set too high or too low, so within 1 month after release project-XYZ's points can be adjusted. This adjustment will include all wu's for project-XYZ, not only results returned after any adjustment" (*).


(*): I did say, "assuming FAH's point-system is up to this", meaning it can handle that all old wu's for a given project gets adjusted points later on.