Folding Forum

troy8d wrote:It appears that most everybody can agree that the decrease in points of 50% to 75% when switching from bigadv to smp is both disheartening and unpalatable to those affected by it. Further, it appears this far exceeds the design parameters of the bigadv program Dr. Kasson outlines, more than three times the intended 16.7% decline in points when switching from bigadv to smp WUs.

My initial hunch was that, due to the exponentially decreasing QRB, the large decrease in points was a failure of points system to properly account for the speed of a bigadv machine folding smp WUs much faster than bigadv WUs. A few quick back of the envelope calculations show that a bigadv machine getting 200,000 PPD on a smp WU is completing WUs 4.7 times faster than an "average" smp machine that gets 20,000 PPD on the same WU is only receives a QRB that is 2.2 times higher. The comparison between a 10,000 PPD and a 20,000 PPD machine is quite different. The faster machine is completing WUs 1.6 times faster and receives a QRB multiplier that is 1.3 times greater. It is readily apparent that additional speed increases on slow machines are rewarded much more than equal increases on fast machines. Return speed of WUs is initially highly valued, but adding additional return speed is subject to exponentially diminishing marginal returns..

Comparing bigadv vs smp on the same machine, however, provides an interesting result. The extremely large k-factor for bigadv WUs creates a roughly equal QRB multiplier for bigadv and smp WUs on the same machine across a wide range of WUs. If the k-factor is intentionally calculated to achieve this result (and consistency across a range of WUs leads me to believe it is intentional), the reason for the large decline in points when transitioning from bigadv to smp would not lie in the QRB. This leaves the assigned point as the most probable cause for the large deviation for the anticipated 17% decline in points. This is further supported by what Dr. Kasson indicates above, there are scaling issues both ways on bigadv vs smp (bigadv WUs fold much faster on a bigadv machine relative to the benchmark machine while the opposite is true for smp).

A potentially novel solution to the benchmark scaling issue may be to simply change the benchmark machine to a bigadv class machine. This would minimize the scaling issues (both up and down) for big advantage machines and provide stability through the bigadv to smp WU transition. Additionally, as a result of this change we can expect a bit of a point boost on non-bigadv machines running smp WUs that do not scale well to a large number of cores. Most people have argued that these lower smp WUs are under-valued and under-appreciated in regard to the points they receive, potentially making the point boost an ancillary benefit rather than a detriment. Regardless, at a minimum it would simplify the scaling issues by reducing them to one direction.

If this does not resolve the benchmarking issues, I fear the solution becomes a bit more complicated. The long-term solution may require that benchmarking procedures be changed and the golden standard of a single benchmark machine for all WUs be abandoned as the real world results indicate that it is not rewarding "equal pay for equal work." (I use the term work as a measurement of science). For bigadv class machines, the aforementioned scaling issues and observed data points suggest that, on a bigadv machine the bigadv points are over-inflated and the smp points are under-inflated relative to the theoretical construct of the points system. It would be extremely disheartening if PG chose to sacrifice the integrity of the observed results of the points system to maintain its underlying theoretical integrity.

In attempting to break away from the strict adherence to "equal pay for equal work" it is important to note that it appears bigadv was never based purely upon the premise. It is clear both from Dr. Kasson's description of bigadv and the observed comparison between bigadv and smp that the bigadv points premium rewards factors other than pure work/science, negating the direct application of equal pay for equal work to big adv WUs.

Given that actual results of bigadv vs smp PPD manifest large deviations from the intended behavior, the aforementioned difficulty in benchmarking bigadv WUs using current procedures and that equal pay for equal work only loosely applies to bigadv WUs; it may be time to consider revising benchmarking procedures to produce more consistent results. Several years ago, GPU WUs were benchmarked separately from smp WUs because it was not a valid comparison (and infeasible at the time). The description of how bigadv WUs are benchmarked makes it very much appear as if the integrity of the points system is being compromised for the sake of a maintaining its theoretical purity.

Other potential approaches to addressing the large decline in points transitioning from bigadv to smp can be achieved by modifying the points system. If benchmarking is at the heart of the problem, however, this approach will be a second-best solution. One possible approach is to alter the points formula to punish increased return speed less harshly than the square root function does (outlined above). I've briefly played around with a few functional forms that do so without drastically altering the points landscape. This approach would, however, reward increased points to all smp folders as well as QRB GPU folders. An alternate approach would be to create a smalladv WU type with a more appropriate decline in points relative to the bigadv level. Smalladv could be similar to bigadv but targeted at some of the larger SMP WUs that scale well with more cores and would benefit from the increased folding horsepower that no longer qualifies for bigadv.

Regardless of the cause, it is readily apparent that the bigadv point system is not functioning within the design parameters Dr. Kasson described, and this has understandably upset a large number of donors that will be negatively affected by the upcoming changes. Any changes to benchmarking procedures or points system will have to be carefully considered and probably will not be in place by the announced deadline for upcoming bigadv changes. As a show of good faith, it would be a nice gesture if PG delayed the impending changes until a solution is worked out or a temporary stop-gap measure can be put in place. This would prevent affected donors from experiencing a massive decline in points that it appears they were never intended to face if bigadv points functioned as originally outlined. While it is important that the folding community embraces change and continues to move forward, it is equally important to fix the issues at hand before doing so. The biennial cycle of bigadv crises has quickly grown wearisome.

The real question is whether PG will ever step up to the plate and issue reliable uniform and predictable clients/bonus systems from which donors can make informed decisions. If a donor wants to build a 4 socket machine to run -bigadv, he should be able to do so with the assurance that WU will be available and appropriately rated...

What Everyone cares about is having their donation of considerable time, investment and ongoing electricity donation recognized.

In my opinion, this attitude that "support" ranks a dead last on the list of priorities is the reason that participation retention is so abysmal

mdk777 wrote: So far Dr. Kasson has not answered any of the substantive questions asked in this this thread.

I don't think anyone, not a single person...cares about the absolute value of BA WU.

What Everyone cares about is having their donation of considerable time, investment and ongoing electricity donation recognized.

To date I see no recognition on the part of PG that this has again been horribly handled.


Not a single question asked by a dozen donors has been seriously answered.

mdk777 wrote: Instead of answering what is the logic of the timing, instead of answering the why?; Dr. Kasson merely states that he thinks it will happen sooner than later.

Again, my conclusion from 2010 has not been changed by Dr. Kassson's recent dismissive and condescending responses:

mdk777 wrote: Bruce has PM me several times...saying that we should hold judgement until PG can respond in more detail.

mdk777 wrote: Well, I will not hold my breath. I think my humor is entirely too accurate.

Bill1024 wrote:I only have a 9th grade education, I am not the sharpest knife in the chandelier. After 30 pages, I still can not figure out what the problem is in the first place.
Why are they changing anything at all? 8/16 core Intel desktops will not be out until Q3 or Q4 I have learned.

Bill1024 wrote: But why, is there a backlog of SMP or not?

Bill1024 wrote: What exactly does move 16 and 24 core server to "enhance SMP" mean? Enhance as to make better? To fold more of?
Looks like -smp 24 or -smp 48 is not even folding the WUs that there is 180,000 of. Breaking it down to 4+8+12+24 made it so too many cores were left idle and the PPD or TPF was really out of line.

Bill1024 wrote: It's their project and they're going to do what they need to do, I understand that. But the posts are somewhat vague and not to the point.
Too much reading between the lines, guessing what PG is saying. Going to do exactly what "sooner rather than later".
I am not all that bright, I need clarity, say exactly what you mean in simple terms a simple man can understand.
With all due respect, say what you mean, mean what you say, say it so all of us understand exactly whats going on.
Please.

k1wi wrote: My take is that as the number of fast BA machines are increasing they are effectively dropping the 'slower' machines from the pool, in the only way they know how (by limiting core counts) and also tightening up the deadlines. This should have the effect of decreasing the average turn around time, therefore increasing the speed at which trajectories are completed, or allowing trajectories to get further advanced in the period with which they have to get results.

Limiting by core counts limits the number of WUs that might be dumped from people trying unsuccessfully to meet the new deadlines (but is imperfect because old 4p systems might fail to meet the deadlines, while some newer 2p systems might still meet them).

Adak wrote:1) There is NO BOINC project that will give you nearly as many points for your BA rigs, as FAH does. Check it out!

Adak wrote:1) There is NO BOINC project that will give you nearly as many points for your BA rigs, as FAH does. Check it out!

2) There is a HUGE disparity between SMP points and BA points. That gap needs to be closed, somewhat. Most of it should be closed by an increase in SMP points.

Grandpa_01 wrote:Adak

I was just running boinc last month and guess what I was #1 in Roseta and Poem on the same day for a 3 day period of time. I was #20 in WCG for the time I ran it. And guess what a GTX 680 makes more PPD over at boinc than 7 - 4P's make in a day. The point is more server class donor hardware runs here at FAH than at Boinc why do you think that is.

orion wrote:

kasson wrote:I should also point out that one could equally conclude that BA work units are overvalued rather than that SMP are undervalued. A number of people have made this point, and it is not clear (and not entirely in my hands) which direction the points scheme will move. I would personally be in favor of a larger realignment, but that is of course complicated.

Thank you for responding.

I would say that as far as the value of BA's go it is really up to you and the research that you are doing as to their real value, not other donors. Though the BA donors are not a large segment of F@H would you really want to alienate them more by cutting BA points. They have spent allot of money in hardware and electrical cost to help in your research.

mdk777 wrote:
...

What Everyone cares about is having their donation of considerable time, investment and ongoing electricity donation recognized.

To date I see no recognition on the part of PG that this has again been horribly handled.

...