Folding Forum

Yes, let's inject some new information.

Dr. Kasson posted:

kasson wrote:The conversation about what the role of BA is in the project is a good one to have. The BA program has been of particular scientific benefit to my research group, but the FAH project as a whole has needed to position BA within a broad range of scientific needs.

Data that helped inform where to place the new thresholds:
~5% of active FAH machines with SMP>2 are at least 24 cores
~4% of active FAH machines with SMP>2 are at least 32 cores

Adjusting deadlines to match new hardware requirements will be a necessity...

However, those numbers must include all Windows SMP and OSX SMP systems in addition to all SMP Linux systems.

If you look at the OS Stats page, there are typically about 5000 active Linux clients. Incorrectly assuming ALL of those systems are BA systems, because we know they are NOT all BA systems, that makes the number of active Linux systems at most 2% of all the active Windows, OSX and Linux SMP clients combined (5000 out of 225,000).

Clearly the numbers from Kasson either contain all OS types with those core counts, or his numbers are wrong, or the OS Stats page is wrong. Make your own assumptions here, as expected.


Grandpa_01 posted:

Bigadv = Greatest amount of science done much larger strings and quick returns are valued
GPU = A large amount of science done and much shorter time frame than smp may do smp type work in future
SMP = slowest form of folding lesser value but still needed

I hope you aren't basing suggestions on these faulty assumptions. The suggestions would then also be faulty.

First, SMP and BA work units, when processed on the identical BA system do the same amount of science. Fahcore_a5 for BA work is based on the SMP Fahcore_a4. There is no speed difference on an identical system, simply a points difference. The QRB and BA bonus points formula also bears this out. BA points are simply the SMP points value, multiplied by a speed factor. And the speed factor difference between the two is not the fahcore speed, but the assumed faster speeds of BA systems with much higher core counts than a typical SMP system.

And if BA systems are only 1% of the total folding masses, then they certainly do not do the most science, they simply do the quickest science, and only because of their increased core counts. And the 1% does not set policy for the other 99%.

As for GPUs, it has been proven to be able to fold SMP work, hence the SMP points and QRB given to Fahcore_17. Those new projects are weeks if not days away from being released. There is no MAY about it. Fahcore_17 has done and WILL be doing SMP work going forward. (Hint, P7810 and P7811 WUs were GPU WUs on Core_17, the follow-on P7812 was released as SMP WUs on Core_a4.)


I also have a suggestion along the lines of equal pay for equal work. Folding@home has always tried to be hardware and software agnostic, however various operating systems have been more difficult on which to develop software than others. For example, they currently only have BA work for the Linux OS. But because the SMP fahcore_a4 completes scientific work at the same speed as the BA fahcore_a5 on identical hardware, they should also add a BA style bonus to ALL SMP work units processed on systems with 24 cores or more starting with the February 17th deadline. There is no reason that any donor with BA level hardware should get less points for the same amount of work they do just because of the choice of their operating system. This would also help bring some non-Linux big iron back to Folding, and help with the backlog of SMP work units. And as a result, the actual BA program needs to be adjusted less often.

Sounds reasonable.

Bill1024 wrote:...Is it the up coming release of the new 8 core 16 thread core Intel desktop CPU in the 1st Q of 1014?...

From what I know, the 8 Cores with 16 Threads are planned for 2014 Q3 (http://www.guru3d.com/news_story/intel_ ... _2014.html). While I understand moving from 16 CPUs to 24 CPUs, I can't comprehend the reason for changing 24 CPUs to 32 CPUs in a span of 2 months. Hope that we will have an explanation for this sooner then later.

Sounds ok, very similar what was proposed earlier .

One question: why keeping an artificial core limit. Just open up in the proposed way and OS agnostics for all SMP and let the donor choose the environment to make it. It really sounds as easy as k-factors tweaking ?

7im wrote:
Grandpa_01 posted:

Bigadv = Greatest amount of science done much larger strings and quick returns are valued
GPU = A large amount of science done and much shorter time frame than smp may do smp type work in future
SMP = slowest form of folding lesser value but still needed

I hope you aren't basing suggestions on these faulty assumptions. The suggestions would then also be faulty.

I am sure Vijay will post something soon, I have spoken to him from time to time and know he actually does care about the program and the donors. He has already said he looks at the points system differently than allot of us do, he looks at it as a = pay for = science and in that aspect the points are correct there may be consequences that are not the best but that is up to PG.

Bigadv = Greatest amount of science done much larger strings and quick returns are valued
GPU = A large amount of science done and much shorter time frame than smp may do smp type work in future
SMP = slowest form of folding lesser value but still needed

No I based it upon how Vijay said he looks at the point system, not how I believe the point system should be, I myself believe it should be a = pay for = work system but it is not my project. The way it is currently set up there are allot better alternatives to smp and in reality there is not allot of incentive to run them. And no I do not believe bigadv should be lowered then you would remove the incentive to run them.

Viper97 wrote:...If in fact it happens and isn't just lip-sync.

I do believe that it will happen, after all, it is announced in the blog (http://folding.stanford.edu/home/happy- ... d-to-2014/). However, what I hope is that they find a suitable person with the right qualification to fit into the F@H system. I really hope that it is easier than finding a GPU Programmer so we can have a donor relation personal very soon instead of soon-ish

bruce wrote:About 5 pages ago, I made this post: Take a break or inject new ideas

bruce wrote:

ChristianVirtual wrote:....
And dear mods; please keep it open ... in general this discussion is not bad to have.

I support that idea. For those of you who have posted several times and done an adequate job of expressing your point of view, repeating yourself again won't be useful, so take a break. I'll leave it open for new ideas from folks who have not posted.

Now I have to ask myself how much of those 5 pages consists of people repeating themselves and how much is actual new ideas from folks who had not posted. Yes, it has been a mixture, of course, but it seems to be migrating more and more toward repetition. Apparently some folks believe that by filling up 5 more pages with comments that have already been made actually accomplishes something that will change the eventual outcome. The "broken record" approach just frustrates me and is more likely to alienate me than to convert me to your way of thinking (no matter which side you're supporting). I doubt that's a unique reaction.

I called for a time-out and for a while, I got one. Then what happened?

bruce wrote:

kerryd wrote:Bruce do what you got to do.

The only thing I feel I've got to do is ask for a more Peaceful forum.

I'm doing the same thing you're doing. I'm simply pointing out that I'm not being listened to (suprise, suprise) and that dialogue is a two way street. No matter what I ACTUALLY say, folks will pop up on the forum and call me derogatory names -- never mind that I'm actually being polite to everyone, no matter what point of view they express.

... Just watch it happen again.

Dude, relax. People want to talk, let them talk. This is not congressional hearing, there is no time limit
or fixed agenda here.

Don't take away their right to talk even if YOU believe everything that could be said, has been said.
Who knows, maybe it has, maybe it hasn't.

You certainly won't earn any respect points by squelching folks.


P.S.
This post has been preemptively recorded so evidence of tampering, if any, can be provided.

Please note that regarding the thread deletion, there are few different situations which might give an appearance of a thread being deleted but it isn't:

1) Moving Threads
Sometimes, we may move threads from Forum A to Forum B (not talking about Anything goes (almost) Forum) and in the process, we leave a shadow thread (a shortcut to the new location) in Forum A. Sometimes, we may delete some of those shadow threads so if a user goes back to Forum A, the thread would appear to be "deleted". However, that thread is very much present in Forum B. We may mention that the thread is moved by either posting in it or Mod editing the first post.

2) Merging Threads
If there was a Link 1 to Thread A and a Link 2 to Thread B, if Thread B is merged into Thread A, then Link 2 would become an invalid one which gives an appearance of the thread being deleted. However, the contents are still present. Not sure if it is a Forum issue or not. If we do merge threads, we generally make a post stating that the thread has been merged with another.

3) Displaying of Post
If you to go to User Control Panel -> Board preferences -> Edit display options:
Display topics from previous days:
Display posts from previous days:
Changing the above from the default of "All time" may give an appearance that you aren't allowed to access those threads/posts. Thus, if you have issues, please ensure that those settings are properly configured.


Regarding the closing of the threads, we generally don't close them unless it has turned into an exchange of personal attacks. If a thread has gone off-topic, we prefer to split it and ensure that both threads are linked, usually the first thread contains a post and the second contains the link to the previous one (by Mod edit or a new post). As long as everyone is being respectful of others and not violating the Forum Policies, exchanging ideas are welcomed and in some cases, even encouraged


Furthermore, in case anyone was wondering what happened to the previous Beta Team Forum, the threads were sorted and placed in this public archive (viewforum.php?f=45).

7im wrote: I also have a suggestion along the lines of equal pay for equal work. Folding@home has always tried to be hardware and software agnostic, however various operating systems have been more difficult on which to develop software than others. For example, they currently only have BA work for the Linux OS. But because the SMP fahcore_a4 completes scientific work at the same speed as the BA fahcore_a5 on identical hardware, they should also add a BA style bonus to ALL SMP work units processed on systems with 24 cores or more starting with the February 17th deadline. There is no reason that any donor with BA level hardware should get less points for the same amount of work they do just because of the choice of their operating system. This would also help bring some non-Linux big iron back to Folding, and help with the backlog of SMP work units. And as a result, the actual BA program needs to be adjusted less often.

This is a start at a good idea - primarily because the only ideas that have a possibility of success at PG are those that increase points. Let me edit your suggestion to make it hardware and software agnostic:

But because the SMP fahcore_a4 completes scientific work at the same speed as the BA fahcore_a5 on identical hardware, they should also add a BA style bonus to ALL SMP work units. There is no reason that any donor should get less points for the same amount of work they do. This would also help bring some iron back to Folding, and help with the backlog of SMP work units.

Note that I have only deleted words from your suggestion.

Apologizing to Bruce in advance, the following concept has already been repeated several times, but there is no need to introduce an arbitrary core count boundary anywhere in the points system. If the hardware can do the work in time, it should receive the same reward.

PantherX wrote:Please note that regarding the thread deletion, there are few different situations which might give an appearance of a thread being deleted but it isn't:

1) Moving Threads
Sometimes, we may move threads from Forum A to Forum B (not talking about Anything goes (almost) Forum) and in the process, we leave a shadow thread (a shortcut to the new location) in Forum A. Sometimes, we may delete some of those shadow threads so if a user goes back to Forum A, the thread would appear to be "deleted". However, that thread is very much present in Forum B. We may mention that the thread is moved by either posting in it or Mod editing the first post.

2) Merging Threads
If there was a Link 1 to Thread A and a Link 2 to Thread B, if Thread B is merged into Thread A, then Link 2 would become an invalid one which gives an appearance of the thread being deleted. However, the contents are still present. Not sure if it is a Forum issue or not. If we do merge threads, we generally make a post stating that the thread has been merged with another.

3) Displaying of Post
If you to go to User Control Panel -> Board preferences -> Edit display options:
Display topics from previous days:
Display posts from previous days:
Changing the above from the default of "All time" may give an appearance that you aren't allowed to access those threads/posts. Thus, if you have issues, please ensure that those settings are properly configured.


Regarding the closing of the threads, we generally don't close them unless it has turned into an exchange of personal attacks. If a thread has gone off-topic, we prefer to split it and ensure that both threads are linked, usually the first thread contains a post and the second contains the link to the previous one (by Mod edit or a new post). As long as everyone is being respectful of others and not violating the Forum Policies, exchanging ideas are welcomed and in some cases, even encouraged


Furthermore, in case anyone was wondering what happened to the previous Beta Team Forum, the threads were sorted and placed in this public archive (viewforum.php?f=45).

If you are going to defend what has happened in the past you also need to acknowledge there have been some of the above mentioned reasons / tactics used for less than optimal reasons. Do you or any other mod believe there would be such a large public outcry if all things were done justifiably. There have been many let’s call them Gray area mods done over time.

Grandpa_01 wrote:...If you are going to defend what has happened in the past you also need to acknowledge there have been some of the above mentioned reasons / tactics used for less than optimal reasons. Do you or any other mod believe there would be such a large public outcry if all things were done justifiably. There have been many let’s call them Gray area mods done over time.

Please note that I am not defending any action taken in the past, present or future. Merely suggesting that some deleted thread may not be in fact deleted. Were some threads intentionally deleted? I don't know since I didn't investigate it. While I try to be active and read every single post, unfortunately, there were plenty of posts from 2012 to early 2013 that I just couldn't read and simply moved on (over a 1000 threads). I prefer to focus my attention on active topics and if have too much time, read posts in reverse chronological order. Honestly, I did notice "disclaimers" on some post and wondered what that was about but never got a complete picture. If you or anyone thinks that moderation was "grey area", a polite PM to an Administrator/Moderator could potentially go a long way. I know that I occasionally may make mistakes but if politely pointed out, would try my best to rectify it.

A fresh start that coincides with the new year, sounds nice, doesn't it

This would be a good case for moderator intervention, in that the recent posts solely discussing what moderators might/might not have done are entirely unrelated to the original topic and should be split into a separate topic.

Punchy wrote:This would be a good case for moderator intervention, in that the recent posts solely discussing what moderators might/might not have done are entirely unrelated to the original topic and should be split into a separate topic.

Good point. So, why don't we keep the discussion about change in BA requirements from this point forward? Right now trying to sift out the wheat from the chaff in this thread would take some time (time that volunteer mods and admins have precious little right now, like everyone else) and will likely make the thread choppy and hard to follow. Any new post that DOES NOT directly involve discussion of the change in BA requirements, as the original post implies, will be put elsewhere and will reappear once all the sorting is complete. One would think that sounds reasonable as a first step. If that does not work then the thread will have to be locked until it can be cleaned up. Going forward, thank you for keeping the posts in this thread about this announcement;

by kasson » Tue Dec 17, 2013 9:43 am

We have a policy of periodically re-evaluating the bigadv program, including the threshold required to run bigadv projects.
It is the intent of bigadv to match large and resource-intensive work units with some of the most powerful machines used by FAH donors. This "most powerful" line naturally advances with computing power. To date, bigadv has been a CPU-based program, and with increasing numbers of CPU cores and power of those cores, we have decided to lay out a roadmap of bigadv threshold changes for the next several months.

Feb 17 (two months from today): bigadv threshold will become 24 cores
Apr 17 (four months from today): bigadv threshold will become 32 cores

We want to give advance notice of these changes, and we recognize that change is not always welcome or comfortable. We should also emphasize that the science performed by donor machines is valuable in all parts of the FAH project, and part of the change in bigadv threshold is because we would like to encourage moderately powerful machines to help boost the capabilities of non-bigadv SMP projects where we do a lot of this science.

We also recognize that core count is not the most robust metric of machine capability, but given our current infrastructure it is the most straightforward surrogate to evaluate.

Thank you once again for your generous participation in the Folding@Home project!

Macaholic, if you've been following this thread it is not just about kasson's post. The latest diversion into discussions about thread deletion and editing is off-topic but discussing what should happen with BA, SMP and GPU are all on-topic. The BA change is a symptom of the problems in this project - the exponential points on offer for BA, the double change in hardware requirements, a desire for a proper roadmap, the low reward for SMP, the apparent fall in donor numbers. All of these are on-topic.

well, I guess it all comes down to how you parse "topic"
The topic is indeed the announcement.
What science or project driven application does this announcement address?
What does it communicate or fail to communicate?
What is the timing of the announcement? Should it have been made 6 months ago, a year ago?
Since it states directly the intention to balance SMP and BA. It fails to do this. Hence, here are some suggestions on addressing the real underlying problems.
It states that it attempts to give a road-map. It fails completely to do that. Hence, here are some suggestions on how it might achieve its stated objective.

I have seen nothing that does not directly respond and address the topic of this announcement.
All of these topics are the direct result of this kind of absurd announcement:

"In two months you will not be able to use your rigs as you intended.
Change happens."

If the above statement is the limit of the topic(s) that you interpret will be allowed...well, then there is really absolutely nothing that ANYONE needs to comment on.
1.please count the number of folders in this thread and on other forums who read the announce as you seem to construe it.
Given the choice of "take it or leave it"; how many have already voiced an intention to leave it?
2. Two months is pointless. You might as well just post some boilerplate saying
"core requirements for BA will change at the discretion of the project administrators"
Then simply assign as you feel like that day.
Perhaps random reinforcement of getting BA work units will have a positive lottery affect.
Who knows?