Folding Forum

I've been folding the bigadv since they came out but just switched to the windows version. Seem like the deadline is very tight. I never had issues with wmware but I'm just barely going to make it with my i-7 OC'd at 3.8 -smp 7.
I do like to game so I leave the one core for that.
How about an extra day??

Please

My system i7-860 @ 3.8 with -smp 7 finishes a bigadv WU with ~8 hours before the Preferred Deadline and I get roughly 5800 Points for the WU which takes ~3.5 days to complete. You may want to give more details like do you use your system for other purposes then folding? Have you tried -smp 8?
I highly doubt that PG will extend the deadline as bigadv WUs are specifically meant for quick returns.

I do use my PC for gaming thats why I didn't use all 8 cores. I'm also running 3-275's, but didn't think that would slow anyting down. I know they want a quick turn around but what's an extra day. A lot of guys over at EVGA are also concerned about the deadline, some have given up on them becase of it.

I guess it's time to remind that these project are originally designed to work on dedicated machines with 8 or more physical cores ... the i7 is an exception that allow you to fold bigadv WUs, but since it's not a real 8 core CPU, this situation might evolve to the point that you'll have to switch back to regular SMP.

I understand that but some of us are folding cause family members have taken ill, we fold with what we can and as much as we can. I know I'm not a "big dog" with almost 20,000 WU completed but I do what I can. I spend a lot of extra $$ on electric each month, I'm just asking for one extra day. Not Stanfords first born.

You have that one extra day if you run -advmethods -smp.

I'm not going to debate hardware configs, but I will suggest that asking for a deadline extension is a slippery slope.

If Stanford was to extend the deadline so that your -smp 7 config could make the deadline, maybe the next guy running more GPUs and fewer SMP cores (-smp 5) would then ask for another day. Then the quad core guy would ask for another day. Eventually even dual core people would want to run -bigadv work units, and the deadline would be 2 weeks instead of 2 days.

That just slows everything down instead of keeping everything running faster.

Dropping down to running regular SMP WUs is only a small step down in points, and not really a step down in contribution, assuming contribution is your primary concern.

Some hardware configs are always going to be on the edge of a deadline, and people need to make choices based on that line in the sand. Spend a little more to stay on the top side of it. Or overclock just a little more to stay on top of it. Or save a little money and stay under it, while pooling that savings for the next upgrade to get back on top.


EDIT: I stand corrected. Kasson just posted a very rarechange to the benchmark deadlines for regular SMP WUs. Must be a blue moon or something. http://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=15237

For bigadvanced units I think the answer should be no, they are big and advanced after all and supposed to be for dedicated machines with 8 cores or more. Anyway if you are marginal for the big adv you are probably better off running the normal smps as a failure to meet the deadline loses you 4 whole days effort which could have been spent doing 10 normal smps or 6 big ones..
I do think that a little more leeway should be added for the normal smps where the large size units are concerned (6701 for example) as this is where people are genuinely struggling with the non dedicated systems, either that or recommend SMPs for dedicated systems only and broadcast this more clearly to donors.

We've been listening to donor feedback, please see the very recent announcement on this topic.

kasson wrote:We've been listening to donor feedback, please see the very recent announcement on this topic.

Very good, thank you I think this is fair and reasonable.
Here's the post referred to:
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=15237

kasson wrote:We've been listening to donor feedback, please see the very recent announcement on this topic.

I am going tomorrow to get some life insurance, lightning must be fixing to strike or the world is coming to an end or something...

road-runner wrote:

kasson wrote:We've been listening to donor feedback, please see the very recent announcement on this topic.

I am going tomorrow to get some life insurance, lightning must be fixing to strike or the world is coming to an end or something...

I'm really sorry to hear that you feel that way, especially since we are constantly listening and reacting to donor feedback. There are numerous examples in the forum. It's too bad many people don't notice it or remember it (perhaps they just see it's "fixed" and move on without inquiring regarding the backstory -- that sounds like normal human nature). If you have any doubts, click on the links for the posts of key PG members (eg myself or Dr. Kasson), who have each posted ~2000 posts in the forum to date. You'll see lots of examples.

On the other hand, we do have to some times make unpopular choices if we think it's the right thing to do. That doesn't mean we don't listen, it just means we do what we think is best for the project, even when it's a difficult/unpopular choice (those choices are often long run vs short run benefits).

Just remember, people only notice if its broke.

7im wrote:I'm not going to debate hardware configs, but I will suggest that asking for a deadline extension is a slippery slope.

If Stanford was to extend the deadline so that your -smp 7 config could make the deadline, maybe the next guy running more GPUs and fewer SMP cores (-smp 5) would then ask for another day. Then the quad core guy would ask for another day. Eventually even dual core people would want to run -bigadv work units, and the deadline would be 2 weeks instead of 2 days.

That just slows everything down instead of keeping everything running faster.

Dropping down to running regular SMP WUs is only a small step down in points, and not really a step down in contribution, assuming contribution is your primary concern.

Some hardware configs are always going to be on the edge of a deadline, and people need to make choices based on that line in the sand. Spend a little more to stay on the top side of it. Or overclock just a little more to stay on top of it. Or save a little money and stay under it, while pooling that savings for the next upgrade to get back on top.


EDIT: I stand corrected. Kasson just posted a very rarechange to the benchmark deadlines for regular SMP WUs. Must be a blue moon or something. http://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=15237

You make some good points here.

I did finish my bigadv with 8 hrs to spare even when playing COD MW over the weekend (double xp weekend). Guess the -smp 7 works well on the 920.