Change in BA requirements

Moderators: Site Moderators, FAHC Science Team

Locked
craigyas
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:08 am

Re: Change in BA requirements

Post by craigyas »

Any word from pg so far?
Folding Crew:
#1 "Hyperion" Supermicro h8qme2+ | 4x hexa-core opteron 8431 @ 2.4ghz | ~ Dedicated Folding Rig
#2 "Athena" Phenom ii x4 970BE @ 4ghz | MSI gtx 760 @ 1300mhz | MSI gtx 460 @ 850 mhz |
PantherX
Site Moderator
Posts: 6986
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:33 am
Hardware configuration: V7.6.21 -> Multi-purpose 24/7
Windows 10 64-bit
CPU:2/3/4/6 -> Intel i7-6700K
GPU:1 -> Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti
§
Retired:
2x Nvidia GTX 1070
Nvidia GTX 675M
Nvidia GTX 660 Ti
Nvidia GTX 650 SC
Nvidia GTX 260 896 MB SOC
Nvidia 9600GT 1 GB OC
Nvidia 9500M GS
Nvidia 8800GTS 320 MB

Intel Core i7-860
Intel Core i7-3840QM
Intel i3-3240
Intel Core 2 Duo E8200
Intel Core 2 Duo E6550
Intel Core 2 Duo T8300
Intel Pentium E5500
Intel Pentium E5400
Location: Land Of The Long White Cloud
Contact:

Re: Change in BA requirements

Post by PantherX »

Other than the previously stated posts by Dr, Vijay (viewtopic.php?p=253960#p253960) and Dr. Kasson (viewtopic.php?p=253980#p253980), no new information related to the bigadv change has been announced.
ETA:
Now ↞ Very Soon ↔ Soon ↔ Soon-ish ↔ Not Soon ↠ End Of Time

Welcome To The F@H Support Forum Ӂ Troubleshooting Bad WUs Ӂ Troubleshooting Server Connectivity Issues
7im
Posts: 10179
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:30 pm
Hardware configuration: Intel i7-4770K @ 4.5 GHz, 16 GB DDR3-2133 Corsair Vengence (black/red), EVGA GTX 760 @ 1200 MHz, on an Asus Maximus VI Hero MB (black/red), in a blacked out Antec P280 Tower, with a Xigmatek Night Hawk (black) HSF, Seasonic 760w Platinum (black case, sleeves, wires), 4 SilenX 120mm Case fans with silicon fan gaskets and silicon mounts (all black), a 512GB Samsung SSD (black), and a 2TB Black Western Digital HD (silver/black).
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: Change in BA requirements

Post by 7im »

craigyas wrote:Any word from pg so far?
Word about what specifically?
How to provide enough information to get helpful support
Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.
Viper97
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 8:17 pm

Re: Change in BA requirements

Post by Viper97 »

I would expect NO word in addition to the already promulgated news. Silence here is considered golden and a way to marginalize the masses of angry folders. Eventually we will forget and move on. They hope.
craigyas
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Nov 04, 2013 2:08 am

Re: Change in BA requirements

Post by craigyas »

7im wrote:
craigyas wrote:Any word from pg so far?




Viper97 wrote:I would expect NO word in addition to the already promulgated news. Silence here is considered golden and a way to marginalize the masses of angry folders. Eventually we will forget and move on. They hope.
7im....
A more detailed roadmap... extending the date of these raises.... the deadlines that will be used.... stuff like that
specifically actual implementations...


Viper97...
Hopefully they will break the cycle..... so many company's and groups use this tactic, and it's a shame.
Folding Crew:
#1 "Hyperion" Supermicro h8qme2+ | 4x hexa-core opteron 8431 @ 2.4ghz | ~ Dedicated Folding Rig
#2 "Athena" Phenom ii x4 970BE @ 4ghz | MSI gtx 760 @ 1300mhz | MSI gtx 460 @ 850 mhz |
k1wi
Posts: 909
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2009 10:48 pm

Re: Change in BA requirements

Post by k1wi »

I wouldn't expect much in the way of corespondence until after the Christmas/NY break. My university for one shuts down completely for two weeks (they have to shut down in order to force academics to take some of their leave).

Maybe after the break they can consider all the posts that have been left and formulate a comprehensive response. Given the range of criticism/opinions I would prefer a patient response and they can't after all give the off the hip comments we're free to make.
ChristianVirtual
Posts: 1576
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 12:14 pm
Location: Tokyo

Re: Change in BA requirements

Post by ChristianVirtual »

craigyas wrote:Any word from pg so far?
They do what we should do too: enjoy the holidays ...
ImageImage
Please contribute your logs to http://ppd.fahmm.net
mdk777
Posts: 480
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 4:12 am

Re: Change in BA requirements

Post by mdk777 »

It's clear that that expectation hasn't been communicated well and without that, I can see how donors would be upset, and that makes me worried that the bigadv experiment has been handled poorly on our part. Moreover, from these posts, I am also worried that it is just intrinsically difficult for us to have such an experiment running and still maintain fairness to all donors (those running bigadv and those not). Considering that the requirements for bigadv will be increasing in time, maybe what would be best is for us to try to lay out further in advance the schedule for changes?
I have spent some time reading threads from 2008-2011.
I find it disturbing that I find very similar statements in these threads.

If donors raised a huge hue and cry when the previous adjustment was implemented with little or no notice...how can this be news several years later.
this "experiment" has been running for how many years?
Has not the intrinsic difficulty of maintaining fairness between the two levels of points been continuously debated the entire time?

6 years is a very, very long time to have these issues constantly raised, and then have the "worry" that it may have been handled poorly.

sorry, but reading some of those past threads really has me questioning. Amazing how much they do cover the exact same topics, and amazing how little has changed.
Transparency and Accountability, the necessary foundation of any great endeavor!
Bill1024
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:45 am

Re: Change in BA requirements

Post by Bill1024 »

Trouble is now the changes are costing the donors a ton of money.
A hex core AMD CPU costs 700$ Some buy use for less than that. 12 core 16 core AMD CPUs cost 1000-1300 each, some buy used some buy new.
Mother boards run 400-700$ or more a few used mostly new. UP to 16 sticks of EEC memory ect..... Intel chips most often cost more than AMD CPUs. We are not talking about 150$ video cards becoming obsolete.
I guess depending on how this all works out, many donors will have to decide how much more they are willing to pay to play for a set amount of time.
Thing is we need to know what that time frame is. And is it worth the price any more.

I keep seeing "Well they do not recommend buying hardware just to fold on"
Well I wonder how much folding would really get done if everyone turned off ALL their computers when they are not using them for e-mail and games and normal everyday use.
Grandpa_01
Posts: 1122
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:36 am
Hardware configuration: 3 - Supermicro H8QGi-F AMD MC 6174=144 cores 2.5Ghz, 96GB G.Skill DDR3 1333Mhz Ubuntu 10.10
2 - Asus P6X58D-E i7 980X 4.4Ghz 6GB DDR3 2000 A-Data 64GB SSD Ubuntu 10.10
1 - Asus Rampage Gene III 17 970 4.3Ghz DDR3 2000 2-500GB Segate 7200.11 0-Raid Ubuntu 10.10
1 - Asus G73JH Laptop i7 740QM 1.86Ghz ATI 5870M

Re: Change in BA requirements

Post by Grandpa_01 »

mdk777 wrote:
It's clear that that expectation hasn't been communicated well and without that, I can see how donors would be upset, and that makes me worried that the bigadv experiment has been handled poorly on our part. Moreover, from these posts, I am also worried that it is just intrinsically difficult for us to have such an experiment running and still maintain fairness to all donors (those running bigadv and those not). Considering that the requirements for bigadv will be increasing in time, maybe what would be best is for us to try to lay out further in advance the schedule for changes?
I have spent some time reading threads from 2008-2011.
I find it disturbing that I find very similar statements in these threads.

If donors raised a huge hue and cry when the previous adjustment was implemented with little or no notice...how can this be news several years later.
this "experiment" has been running for how many years?
Has not the intrinsic difficulty of maintaining fairness between the two levels of points been continuously debated the entire time?

6 years is a very, very long time to have these issues constantly raised, and then have the "worry" that it may have been handled poorly.

sorry, but reading some of those past threads really has me questioning. Amazing how much they do cover the exact same topics, and amazing how little has changed.
Maybe This time :wink:
Image
2 - SM H8QGi-F AMD 6xxx=112 cores @ 3.2 & 3.9Ghz
5 - SM X9QRI-f+ Intel 4650 = 320 cores @ 3.15Ghz
2 - I7 980X 4.4Ghz 2-GTX680
1 - 2700k 4.4Ghz GTX680
Total = 464 cores folding
Bill1024
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:45 am

Re: Change in BA requirements

Post by Bill1024 »

Grandpa_01 wrote:
mdk777 wrote:
It's clear that that expectation hasn't been communicated well and without that, I can see how donors would be upset, and that makes me worried that the bigadv experiment has been handled poorly on our part. Moreover, from these posts, I am also worried that it is just intrinsically difficult for us to have such an experiment running and still maintain fairness to all donors (those running bigadv and those not). Considering that the requirements for bigadv will be increasing in time, maybe what would be best is for us to try to lay out further in advance the schedule for changes?
I have spent some time reading threads from 2008-2011.
I find it disturbing that I find very similar statements in these threads.

If donors raised a huge hue and cry when the previous adjustment was implemented with little or no notice...how can this be news several years later.
this "experiment" has been running for how many years?
Has not the intrinsic difficulty of maintaining fairness between the two levels of points been continuously debated the entire time?

6 years is a very, very long time to have these issues constantly raised, and then have the "worry" that it may have been handled poorly.

sorry, but reading some of those past threads really has me questioning. Amazing how much they do cover the exact same topics, and amazing how little has changed.
Maybe This time :wink:
I can not control what they do. But I can control what I do.
Well most of the time anyway. :wink:
kerryd
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:44 am

Re: Change in BA requirements

Post by kerryd »

Grandpa_01 wrote:
mdk777 wrote:
It's clear that that expectation hasn't been communicated well and without that, I can see how donors would be upset, and that makes me worried that the bigadv experiment has been handled poorly on our part. Moreover, from these posts, I am also worried that it is just intrinsically difficult for us to have such an experiment running and still maintain fairness to all donors (those running bigadv and those not). Considering that the requirements for bigadv will be increasing in time, maybe what would be best is for us to try to lay out further in advance the schedule for changes?
I have spent some time reading threads from 2008-2011.
I find it disturbing that I find very similar statements in these threads.

If donors raised a huge hue and cry when the previous adjustment was implemented with little or no notice...how can this be news several years later.
this "experiment" has been running for how many years?
Has not the intrinsic difficulty of maintaining fairness between the two levels of points been continuously debated the entire time?

6 years is a very, very long time to have these issues constantly raised, and then have the "worry" that it may have been handled poorly.

sorry, but reading some of those past threads really has me questioning. Amazing how much they do cover the exact same topics, and amazing how little has changed.
Maybe This time :wink:

Think Tampa bay will win the Superbowl first.
But right now I am just wondering what I can spend all the cash I am saving on my power bill.From not running folding on 4 computers .
But you never can tell they mite pop in say something .But my guess is they do not read these forums so good luck with that.
ChristianVirtual
Posts: 1576
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 12:14 pm
Location: Tokyo

Re: Change in BA requirements

Post by ChristianVirtual »

Bill1024 wrote: Well I wonder how much folding would really get done if everyone turned off ALL their computers when they are not using them for e-mail and games and normal everyday use.
That would < 10kPPD for me ... The rest is dedicated stuff; against the expectation. Guilty on that charge :mrgreen:
ImageImage
Please contribute your logs to http://ppd.fahmm.net
billford
Posts: 1003
Joined: Thu May 02, 2013 8:46 pm
Hardware configuration: Full Time:

2x NVidia GTX 980
1x NVidia GTX 780 Ti
2x 3GHz Core i5 PC (Linux)

Retired:

3.2GHz Core i5 PC (Linux)
3.2GHz Core i5 iMac
2.8GHz Core i5 iMac
2.16GHz Core 2 Duo iMac
2GHz Core 2 Duo MacBook
1.6GHz Core 2 Duo Acer laptop
Location: Near Oxford, United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: Change in BA requirements

Post by billford »

Bill1024 wrote: I keep seeing "Well they do not recommend buying hardware just to fold on"
Well I wonder how much folding would really get done if everyone turned off ALL their computers when they are not using them for e-mail and games and normal everyday use.
Something of a non sequitur there- buying kit purely to use for folding isn't the same as leaving equipment purchased for other reasons running 24/7.
Image
Adak
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:00 pm

Re: Change in BA requirements

Post by Adak »

I am inviting everyone who has concerns about the change in BA requirements, to PM me with their list of what steps to recommend to PG, to resolve the issue. In an ideal world, I'd prefer that PG ran the project, and worked points any way they wanted, any day they wanted, and we did the folding -- period! Sort of "The pilots fly the plane, and the passengers stay out of the cockpit", idea.

However, that analogy doesn't work here, clearly. It's too stressful on the BA donors, and likely too expensive to maintain, for many.

I'd like each list to be prioritized, so the #1 change you want, is #1 on your list, etc. I'll post up the result of the change requests, again, in a prioritized order.

Let's see if there might be room for a compromise effort on this matter. Like all compromises, it won't have everything either side wants, but it appears it would be good for us and for PG, to put some serious effort into making this a reality.

This is a problem that will be heating up right through February and/or April, so why not work on fixing it?

Your comments are welcome, of course.
Locked