Folding Forum

Jester wrote: Looking at it another way, as an employee of a company you are paid "$ X" per hour for say 40hrs a week, if one day you stay and work overtime you may get "$ X" x 1.5, if you stay back even longer the same day that may go up to "$ X" x 2, that's normally done because of the time factor in getting a certain job done, that doesn't mean that the work done by others in their normal 40hr week is somehow of less value.

Then again, I was ranked as "non-exempt" or management. Where I worked, I became non-eligible for overtime (either straight time or with OT bonuses) years before I retired after 45 years in the trenches. Did that mean that I stuck to 40 hour work-weeks? Not at all. Even in the last couple of years before retirement, I STILL put in 60 hour or more weeks, including most Saturdays, because I passionately believed in the projects we were working on, the team I worked with, and the customers we provided our systems to.

That experience has influenced my own attitude here at F@H. Once the compensation is "enough", not getting paid for more than 40 hours didn't deter me from doing what was needed, and encouraging other team members to think of the goal, the customers, the end results.

One of the project leaders I worked with often quoted Wayne Gretzky, likening the game to hockey, "Skate where the puck's going, not where it's been." Keep your focus on the goals ahead.

I've often wondered how many Folders there would have been if the sole measurement of progress was completed WUs. I think it was genius on the part of Pande to have created the whole points system. The main thing is to keep our eyes on the cures if points is not the main thing...

texinga wrote:I've often wondered how many Folders there would have been if the sole measurement of progress was completed WUs. I think it was genius on the part of Pande to have created the whole points system. The main thing is to keep our eyes on the cures if points is not the main thing...

I believe we would have the same amount or close to it of folders.

We, as folders, would have gotten use to WU count being how we gauged what we have done over time and against other folders. People would still migrate to the client types that finish WU's faster than another so they would have a higher wupd (work unit per day) count, hence more WU's completed.

orion wrote:

texinga wrote:I've often wondered how many Folders there would have been if the sole measurement of progress was completed WUs. I think it was genius on the part of Pande to have created the whole points system. The main thing is to keep our eyes on the cures if points is not the main thing...

I believe we would have the same amount or close to it of folders.

We, as folders, would have gotten use to WU count being how we gauged what we have done over time and against other folders. People would still migrate to the client types that finish WU's faster than another so they would have a higher wupd (work unit per day) count, hence more WU's completed.

I am going to have to disagree with you on this I really do not think you would have any bigadv folders if they on got 1 credit for 1 WU folded. What would be the incentive to fold a WU that takes 4 days to fold when you could fold 20 GPU WU's a day. ? Stanford new what they were doing when the created the point system. And it has worked very well as Kasson has said perhaps a little to well.

+1 Grandpa

Grandpa_01 wrote:

orion wrote:

texinga wrote:I've often wondered how many Folders there would have been if the sole measurement of progress was completed WUs. I think it was genius on the part of Pande to have created the whole points system. The main thing is to keep our eyes on the cures if points is not the main thing...

I believe we would have the same amount or close to it of folders.

We, as folders, would have gotten use to WU count being how we gauged what we have done over time and against other folders. People would still migrate to the client types that finish WU's faster than another so they would have a higher wupd (work unit per day) count, hence more WU's completed.

I am going to have to disagree with you on this I really do not think you would have any bigadv folders if they on got 1 credit for 1 WU folded. What would be the incentive to fold a WU that takes 4 days to fold when you could fold 20 GPU WU's a day. ? Stanford new what they were doing when the created the point system. And it has worked very well as Kasson has said perhaps a little to well.

With all things being equal, yes you are correct about bigadv, and as I had said "People would still migrate to the client types that finish WU's faster than another so they would have a higher wupd (work unit per day) count"

PG would still have had to come up with some type of QRB for bigadv to get people to fold them. They dangle that old carrot out in front of us and we go where they want us to.

Allot of points makes a mighty tasty looking carrot.

I've often wondered how many Folders there would have been if the sole measurement of progress was completed WUs.

We would definitely have many folders devising ways to run as many uniprocessor clients as possible on their systems. The badge of honor and sense of accomplishment would be derived from from, well, as you put it - "the sole measurement of progress...completed work units." The term "points" would be synonymous with 'work units.'



and I'd be a modern folk hero

Grandpa_01 wrote:

Jester wrote:

Renix wrote:I never said give the same reward. Re-read it. I said that the most recent very large SMP QRB was not in proportion to actual increase in system performance. Same basic argument that ChasR is stating about the very large SMP QRB. Try reading verbatim what is written. As for the vocal minority, that is on both sides of the fence in this issue.

so that would be a vocal minority of a small minority ? (just kidding),
As the thread I originally started was merged with the larger thread about the points system, looks like we are of the same opinion,
the issue was that lots of donors considered the new big Wu's were earning too many points, but instead of just adjusting those before they left "beta",
the whole Bigadv project was revalued (read devalued) in the process, if indeed the whole Bigadv project's goals of big Wu's returned quickly has lessened in
importance to the science than when it was first released then indeed revalue them when needed.

Just curious but who said they had lessend in Value. To my knoledgs that is not what was said.

Nobody said they had lessened in value, it was a query, if they are exactly the same Wu's that have been running since the beginning of the Bigadv project with the same points value
why devalue that now if they are of the same importance as on release ?

GreyWhiskers wrote:

Jester wrote: Looking at it another way, as an employee of a company you are paid "$ X" per hour for say 40hrs a week, if one day you stay and work overtime you may get "$ X" x 1.5, if you stay back even longer the same day that may go up to "$ X" x 2, that's normally done because of the time factor in getting a certain job done, that doesn't mean that the work done by others in their normal 40hr week is somehow of less value.

Then again, I was ranked as "non-exempt" or management. Where I worked, I became non-eligible for overtime (either straight time or with OT bonuses) years before I retired after 45 years in the trenches. Did that mean that I stuck to 40 hour work-weeks? Not at all. Even in the last couple of years before retirement, I STILL put in 60 hour or more weeks, including most Saturdays, because I passionately believed in the projects we were working on, the team I worked with, and the customers we provided our systems to.

That experience has influenced my own attitude here at F@H. Once the compensation is "enough", not getting paid for more than 40 hours didn't deter me from doing what was needed, and encouraging other team members to think of the goal, the customers, the end results.

One of the project leaders I worked with often quoted Wayne Gretzky, likening the game to hockey, "Skate where the puck's going, not where it's been." Keep your focus on the goals ahead.

So when you moved to "management status" there was no performance based and reviewed salary package, or maybe a performance based bonus scheme, or possibly a company vehicle, not just the same as the previous flat 40 hr rate ?
If that is so and you were more than happy with the "compensation" because of your passion for what you were doing that's wonderful, money isn't everything, and you found one definition of happiness, doing something you love every single day and being paid to do it.

Jester wrote:

Grandpa_01 wrote:

Jester wrote:
so that would be a vocal minority of a small minority ? (just kidding),
As the thread I originally started was merged with the larger thread about the points system, looks like we are of the same opinion,
the issue was that lots of donors considered the new big Wu's were earning too many points, but instead of just adjusting those before they left "beta",
the whole Bigadv project was revalued (read devalued) in the process, if indeed the whole Bigadv project's goals of big Wu's returned quickly has lessened in
importance to the science than when it was first released then indeed revalue them when needed.

Just curious but who said they had lessend in Value. To my knoledgs that is not what was said.

Nobody said they had lessened in value, it was a query, if they are exactly the same Wu's that have been running since the beginning of the Bigadv project with the same points value
why devalue that now if they are of the same importance as on release ?

Just a guess but I would say due to perceived public pressure.

Importance does not equal points. Importance is adjusted on the assignement servers were some projects are giving a higher priority, i.e. WUs from one or more specific projects are assigned before other projects.

This was an adjustment to better align the scientific value of the work being done, in the amount of time taken to do the work, with the points awarded for that work.

Public pressure (among other things) may have been the cause for Pande Group to have reviewed the bonus system again (this wasn't the first time), but PG would not have changed the bonus unless their findings warranted the change. PG even said to expect additional changes, and that indicates to me they found room for improvement in one or more areas. That's what they do with a "trial bonus system." They review and adjust. This was just another of several adjustments they've already made.

If you go back and read Kassons post when they lowered the points on bigadv, the reason given was not because they were out of line for the science value it was because too many folders were choosing to do them. If it was not because they were out of line which was not the reason given then it has to be because of the people running them on hardware that Stanford did not intend for them to be run on i.e. hacking the system. The thing that does not make sense though is that lowering the points for the bigadv will not stop that problem. It will take a shorter deadline or code change to fix that problem.

And I do not believe science should be sacrificed due to public pressure. Scientist pretty much deal in black and white (show me the facts) and think in black and white which can be frustrating to the general public. I am not too sure at all that bending to public pressure is a good thing for the science.

Personally if I had my choice I would not run the new 6904 WU's they just are not worth it to me they have a low point value and are hard to run and 2684's just plain suck. I can run 6903's and all of the rest of the bigadv WU's with no problem at higher OC but I have lost 3 - 6904's at 75% or greater which is 3 to 4 days folding. And yes the losses are OC problems but I have no problem with other bigadv WU's. I am actually thinking about shutting them down for the first time electricty, summer heat, hard to run maybe unstable WU's and too many bigadv folders. Hell if I remove 5 hex cores that should allow the big boys a few more of the big bigadv and help alleviate the problem of the hackers. It is boating season anyway.

And if you can not tell I am frustrated and discouraged with the way things are going right now.

IMO, you are singling out one line of Kasson's post and using only that to support your frustrations.

Read the whole thing. Also read Vijay's News Post on the points change. Read Vijay's forum posts about it. They both speak of rebalancing the whole points system, and of making more changes.

Ask yourself, "What are they balancing?" "Scienctific value of the work vs. the points awarded" is the answer that comes to mind. And that's always been what points system adjustments are about. Better alignment of work to points.

And this change is only in points. It has not changed the science. The scientific value of a p6903 work unit has not changed. No science is being sacrificed as you claim. But I agree this is black and white. As you read in Vijay's post, they did their own analysis, and made the changes based on the facts they found, not based on public opinion or pressure. Donor feedback prompted the review, it did not determine the amount of the adjustment. PG determined that.

2 things.

1st. they should have shortened the deadline - that would have sorted out the people who hack the system
2nd. People were only complaining about 6903/6904 - they were the propblem and they should have been sorted out, everything else should have been left. My dual hex core is now better off running smp than 2684 - that cannot be right for the project, its twin (on line in a couple of weeks) will not see a -bigadv unit ever as its clocks are slightly slower, making standard smp a better option. Pretty lame for 24 threads of processing power dont you think??

7im wrote:IMO, you are singling out one line of Kasson's post and using only that to support your frustrations.

Read the whole thing. Also read Vijay's News Post on the points change. Read Vijay's forum posts about it. They both speak of rebalancing the whole points system, and of making more changes.

Ask yourself, "What are they balancing?" "Scienctific value of the work vs. the points awarded" is the answer that comes to mind. And that's always been what points system adjustments are about. Better alignment of work to points.

And this change is only in points. It has not changed the science. The scientific value of a p6903 work unit has not changed. No science is being sacrificed as you claim. But I agree this is black and white. As you read in Vijay's post, they did their own analysis, and made the changes based on the facts they found, not based on public opinion or pressure. Donor feedback prompted the review, it did not determine the amount of the adjustment. PG determined that.

I really want you to highlight the part I missed. You and I both know that the point's for bigadv was readjusted because of people griping not scientific value. You can go back in this very thread and find a post by VJ saying the points were in line for the science done.

And yes science is being sacrificed I can tell that just by the amount of 2684's I am getting people are dumping them because they are now dogs worth less than smp. Go over to [H] and see how many they are getting now. The issue Kasson was speaking of was not addressed they just made it worse by encouraging the hackers to dump WU's they do not want for more favourable WU's. It is getting bad enough that I do not currently care about folding it is too big of a hassle for the return what is the incentive 7im. Let's see I spend $150 a month to power these puppy's after adding another 970 I am avg less than I was before the 6903's / 6904's came out and as far as I know that has never happened before. It may have happened with a certain WU but never with a whole class of folders Nothing is being done about the hackers but by god the points were dropped to even things out. Any way as was said by Stanford they are prepared for the drop in bigadv folders so who cares anyway. I missed that the last time I read the thread you pointed out. Anyway my boat needs some gas I think I will use the $$$ there until winter rolls around.

And if you can not tell I am even more discouraged now. I believe the 2684's should either be raised up or dumped the hacking issue need to be addressed either shorten the deadlines and change the k factor or come out and say they do not care if it is being hacked, so that people who do care about the rules and guidelines do not get ridiculed in the community.

Any way it is not about the points it is about the confusing messages and the way things are being done. I do not care if my measly contribution was devaluated and it was, that is nothing but a thing.

Folding Forum

bigadv points changes

Postby kasson » Fri Jul 01, 2011 5:11 pm
After much discussion, we are adjusting the points bonus for bigadv. Bigadv work units have been given a 50% base points bonus over standard SMP; the rationale for this was to compensate for the increased system load, increased memory requirements, and increased upload/download bandwidth requirements. As judged from the high demand for bigadv work units, this has been very much a success, perhaps a little too much so. We would like to continue to offer a bonus for bigadv to offset the above factors, but we don't want demand for bigadv to overwhelm the rest of the project or imbalance the points system.

We are therefore dropping the bigadv base points bonus from 50% to 20%, effective for all work units issued this time onwards.

We very much appreciate the donors who have volunteered to run bigadv work units; these projects add substantially to our scientific capabilities. We do important science with all classes of work units, however, and we want the points system to reflect that. Based on extensive feedback, we are considering renormalizing other parts of the system but have not finalized decisions in that regard.

Thanks again for folding!

New points values, old points values, and unadjusted base values are given in the table below. Deadlines and k-factors remain unchanged.

"Standard points" is what the project would receive for base points if standard SMP. "Old bigadv" is the old bigadv base points (50% bonus). "New bigadv" is the new bigadv base points (20% bonus).

Project Standard points Old bigadv New bigadv Preferred Final k-factor
2684 8529 12790 10235 4 6 26.4
2685 5970 8955 7164 4 6 26.4
2686 5970 8955 7164 4 6 26.4
2689 5970 8955 7164 4 6 26.4
2692 5970 8955 7164 4 6 26.4
6900 5970 8955 7164 4 6 26.4
6901 5970 8955 7164 4 6 26.4
6903 18923 28385 22708 7.2 12 38.05
6904 26284 39426 31541 10.2 17 37.31

User avatar
kasson
Pande Group Member

Posts: 2066
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 2:37 pm

.