Folding Forum

dricks wrote:

bapriebe wrote:

dricks wrote:This project is like if there was 300 000 TV screens turned on, but only 3000 people actually watching TV.
That's my point.

Some people would consider 297,000 fewer idiots parked in front of the boob tube to be a great leap for civilization.

Others would consider that you could turn off 297 000 TV while still entertaining 3000 peoples. That's what i mean.
Using real designed mainframe to do this calculation would be 100 times more efficient, but actually it's just a mess.
A nice proof of concept about clusters but that's all. And having more and more people involved in it using F@H client is just more and more a waste. Can't you realize it?
Will you have to wait having 1 000 000 TV on for 10 000 spectators? duh.

I dont say that this project should stop, but that it should evolve to a more efficient one. GPGPU is a path to it? OK, but then there should be a limit to the number of CPU allowed to folding based on the number of GPU working to keep efficiency up.
Is there any decision on this way?

You have false assumption that there are optimal number of computers for the task at hand - there is not such thing. You just throw in more CPUs/GPUs/SPEs/... and project scientists will slowly add more complex tasks into the calculation pool.
With your preference for mainframes you dismiss the important factor of money to operate the project. The Distributed Computing is largely based on little thing called voluntary participation. Mainframe operation will require real money from the project to run the calculations and analysis, but DC will need money mainly for analysis. Thus DC systems are more cost effective per FLOPS to operate with. Calculation costs will be put on voluntary participants and they contribute or not solely based on their own needs and wishes. You can not define their participation as a waste - everyone is free to do what they like with their resources (being it computer time or electricity or what not). Participants will vote with their feet and there is little the project can do to stop them.

@ dricks,

You are making statements based on assumptions about false premises.
Your logic is flawed and your argument is weaker than weak.

Could we have a global ernery consumption World Map just to know how much this project does waste in term of energy?

What makes you think that our use of electrical power is a waste?
Which use of electrical power would you define as not wasteful?

Something like :
'USA : 3.2GW'
'Europe : 4.1GW'
...
And translate those into, for exemple, nuclear wastes by year?
CO2 emittings?
Just a thought.

Put more "thought" into it...

i would say 280MW/PFLOP

Your estimate is ridiculously high.

There are ~ 310,000 F@h CPUs (machines) at present.
If each machine used 100watts solely for F@h (and we know that number is too high), then total power consumption would be around 30 Megawatts for 1.8+PFLOPS production.
The 300+ (and growing) Megawatts of wind generation in Oklahoma more than compensate for our use. Notice I said "use" and not "waste".


But suppose all of our energy usage could be traced to coal- fired generators?
So what? What difference would that make to anything or anyone?
Do you realize that the sum- total of all of mankind's "Greenhouse emissions" (not just CO2) is less than 1/3 of 1% of the total? Do you have any idea what a meaningless and insignificantly tiny little part of that .28% total is a result of the Folding@home project?

Because the way this project works, each time a CPU is added to fold it's in fact a full computer that is running behind.

The average F@h CPU is a business class machine in use about 8 Hrs a day, 5 days a week. Do you know that the amount of energy F@h adds to an already- on PC is at most around 45 watts?

So, how many indirect desease because of this?

WTH are you talking about?

dricks wrote:

bapriebe wrote: Based on the above numbers, it would appear the whole project consumes something like 60MW absolute max. Consider the general utility of this project compared with another use for 60MW such as, for example, 300,000 TV screens tuned to Sex and the City.

Perfect, you're right.
I'll throw away my lithuim-ion batteries in rivers, and garbages in forests. After all, there already are companies doing this, so little more is no hurt.

Kind way of thinking.

So, you mock us and try to draw a moral equivalence between actual polluters and F@h?

Instead, you could see this way :
This project is like if there was 300 000 TV screens turned on, but only 3000 people actually watching TV.
That's my point.

That makes no sense. None.
By the way, TV sets around the world which are turned off use more power than F@h by virtue of the fact that their circuitry draws current while plugged in, even if they are turned off.
The little LEDs in everyone's microwave ovens draw more current worldwide than F@h.

You've made exactly one statement that is true... that a current- gen IBM mainframe supercomputer is energy efficient.

So what?
Do you have a point?
Are you just another "propagandized" young person who's let a bunch of other people do your thinking for you?

I've got a couple of problems with this discussion.

1) What is the cost of wasted power consumed by the computer in the office next to mine that is left running all day without FAH being run? (The boss thinks it's inefficient to shut down and restart our computers during the work-day.) That computer could be running FAH to REDUCE the wasted power.

2) The purpose of this thread was to suggest ways to counter arguments against using F@H, not to debate the issues. If you believe that running FAH on your computer is wastful, then don't do it. We don't need to argue with you about your decision and you don't need to argue with us about our decision to run it.

The carbon footprint of travelling by airplane or by ship is huge. Does that mean that there are never valid reasons to travel across an ocean, or does it somehow depend on some other factors? If you choose to never travel anywhere except by walking, I'll respect your decision, but please don't expect me to always do the same.

bruce wrote:I've got a couple of problems with this discussion.

1) What is the cost of wasted power consumed by the computer in the office next to mine that is left running all day without FAH being run? (The boss thinks it's inefficient to shut down and restart our computers during the work-day.) That computer could be running FAH to REDUCE the wasted power.

2) The purpose of this thread was to suggest ways to counter arguments against using F@H, not to debate the issues. If you believe that running FAH on your computer is wastful, then don't do it. We don't need to argue with you about your decision and you don't need to argue with us about our decision to run it.

The carbon footprint of travelling by airplane or by ship is huge. Does that mean that there are never valid reasons to travel across an ocean, or does it somehow depend on some other factors? If you choose to never travel anywhere except by walking, I'll respect your decision, but please don't expect me to always do the same.

Bruce, after reading this entire thread, I do not think I can sum up my thoughts and feelings any better than you have, so I will quote and add my agreement.

And in the long term, without trying to find a cure to these disease, one wonders just how much massive the long term carbon footprint will be due to these diseases, let alone the personal and societal costs...

bapriebe wrote:I would be surprised if the entire project consumed much more than 50MW. For comparison purposes, that would be barely enough to run 300,000 TV screens tuned to Sex and the City. Which use of 50MW do you suppose is more beneficial to mankind?

Since 300,000 TV screens turned to SATC will result in 300,000 SUVs not driven to the Galleria for must-buy items, you'll probably be ahead with the TV watching.

bruce wrote:I've got a couple of problems with this discussion.

1) What is the cost of wasted power consumed by the computer in the office next to mine that is left running all day without FAH being run? (The boss thinks it's inefficient to shut down and restart our computers during the work-day.) That computer could be running FAH to REDUCE the wasted power.

2) The purpose of this thread was to suggest ways to counter arguments against using F@H, not to debate the issues. If you believe that running FAH on your computer is wastful, then don't do it. We don't need to argue with you about your decision and you don't need to argue with us about our decision to run it.

The carbon footprint of travelling by airplane or by ship is huge. Does that mean that there are never valid reasons to travel across an ocean, or does it somehow depend on some other factors? If you choose to never travel anywhere except by walking, I'll respect your decision, but please don't expect me to always do the same.

Hear, Hear..... nice job bruce, I agree.


Peace

Why should we not debate in this thread? Don't you want more reasonable arguments as a result of a healthy debate? I don't like this logic.

I think he means that we should be debating how to improve the OP rather than ignoring the original point of this thread and just discussing environmental impact when said discussion will not improve the answers. If anyone has better ways of phrasing the environment answer then please do share because I know that it isn't perfect

There are already two or three threads which have debated the environment impact of FAH. In those threads, you would be on-topic. In this thread, the debate part is off-topic, based on the title and the original intent of the thread.

If the debate thread comes up with a better Answers to Reasons for not using F@H feel free to bring the answer back here and post a reference to the discussion.

. . . or start your own thread: Reasons for not using F@H

In either case, be sure to keep the discussion within the bounds of the forum rules designed to keep the discussion orderly by respecting other people's points of view or you'll find the moderators will take action.

Where do you want me to place a counter argument then?

Ahavi wrote:Where do you want me to place a counter argument then?

Pick the post you want to argue with. Hit "Quote" and then copy the screen to your clipboard.
Start a new thread and paste from your clipboard into the new thread before writing your response.

Actually if you hit "PM" rather than "Quote", it will copy not only the original post, but it will also create a link back to the original thread. Copy/Paste that into your new thread -- but don't send the PM.

The purpose of this forum is to help people who are having trouble making FAH work correctly. It's not designed as a forum for debates. I suggest you start your new thread in "Today's discussion" so that after the discussion winds to a close it will eventually get pruned rather than staying around forever.

We posted (you edited) at the same time it sems. I didn't know that I should post it in today's discussion, so I guess it wasn't for nothing . Here's my thread anyway.

Wow so big a debate on the environmental impact.

My question is: At what CPU Usage % would it have to be in order not to be consuming additional power from idle mode? From what i know difference b/w idle and load is about 30-40W (at least in C2D). If we can have this CPU usage % for everyone (and let expert users up the value), then people can't whine about it anymore (though it's hard to convince them that FAH wouldn't be using extra power).

It's all intel's fault anyway, why did they invent power-saving xD


Anyway besides the environment, I think many people can actually overlook the $5 in the utility bills. I'd like to add more reasons:

1. I don't care
(the same bunch of people who don't donate to charity, basically, practically cannot be convinced)

2. It is so hard to set up!
What users want is something to install with a click and not have it bug them for the rest of their lives. For the PS3 client that is something that is highly possible (perhaps why we can see a large % of PS3 users having it). With the v5 GUI it's still rather easy. With the console version it's difficult for the newbie, especially stuff like setting it in service mode so it doesn't have to appear on ur desktop everytime you (need to) manually open it.

I think many people do want to help, but it's just troublesome for them.

3. It'd affect the performance of my computer!
Once again, it requires some digging for users to know that FAH affects their computer's performance <1%.

4. Last of all we need more publicity =)

Trivolve wrote:My question is: At what CPU Usage % would it have to be in order not to be consuming additional power from idle mode?

Zero, or very close to it. Not fast enough to make the deadlines, and not very helpful to the project.

Swap out two lights with a new CFL and then fold at full speed. Your power bill won't go up.