Grandpa_01 wrote: A 2600K at 4.4Ghz takes 53 min. to do a frame of a 6903 guess what allot of the 2P 12 core server boards will not do that and if the drop the deadline which is the simple fix they are gong to have some 12 core machines incapable of folding them that are going to be assigned them.
If I might return, for the nonce, to the subject of the thread.
The interesting quote above gets to the heart of the issue, for me at least.
PG and its associates put the projects in place. Each project has its design - how the work units are going to be parceled out to runs/clones/gens. How "parallel" the WUs are going to be, and how quickly they are seeking answers to support conferences, academic schedules and publications. And, at the end of the day, getting the science to point to understanding how to manage or cure the terrible diseases related to protein folding (and misfolding).
So - why should it matter what kind of hardware is applied to the problem? If the issue is speed of return because of overall project schedules and serialization of individual projects, then greatly shorten the deadlines to reflect what the real project turn around needs to be. Maybe adjust points and k-factors accordingly. Reward those who bring the biggest iron to the parties that need fast return.
And, do it regardless of what kind of hardware, how many cores. If the deadlines accurately reflect the desired behavior to support project schedules - then those who try to fold on inadequate hardware will miss those deadlines. And the enforcement mechanism is that those who sign onto that category of WUs who can't meet the deadlines will be penalized by losing their QRB bonuses if they drop below the 80% success rate.
As grandpa's quote says, if older 12-core servers can't make the deadlines as well as souped up i7 2600ks, or whatever will come out in the next quarter or the quarter after that - then shouldn't the timelines decide?
So - some of the changes that might be needed:
a. More categories. We have adv, bigadv, bigbeta. Do there need to be more shredouts?
b. Assignment servers don't look for hardware characteristics [this is probably the weak part of the argument. ]
c. There has been discussion of the servers keeping stats for the individual user systems - what the average TPF by project for that user/passkey/slot by project. That might be the objective filter - whether a souped up 6 core AMD, or a 5 GHz 2600k, or a dual Xeon 16 core system. Can they meet the minimum TPF for the project? [this won't happen overnight]
d. enforcement of losing the QRB privileges for any cherry picking or dumping of WUs - or running on systems that can't make the minimum TPF. [this may be in fact happening, but I can't see how dumping assigned WUs doesn't count against your 80% success rate.]
Will this help motivate the folding community any more? For me, at least, it seems objective. If my system can meet the TPF deadlines that the project has set, then it can fold. If it can't, then there are lots of other opportunities out there. It should still incentivize bringing the big iron to the party - if a 6904 can be completed in under a day, it should be appropriately rewarded.
Not a complete, or maybe even a practical, solution, but my two cents to try to get the conversation back on some sort of track late on a Tuesday night.