Folding Forum

When 37726 applied the bigadv flag on 8 core/threads, we normally were assigned these projects with a few 6900/6901's mixed in rarely from time to time. However, the projects don't seem to be as consistently assigned now. Have these projects ran out?

Priorities change without notice. There still are a number of WUs on that server and some are still being assigned, though I can't tell whether they're p6095-6099.

...bigadv flag on 8 core/threads...

FYI

All bigadv now require a minimum of 16 cores:

viewtopic.php?p=221082#p221082

In addtion to the 16 core BA minimum, server 128.143.231.202 has been light on available work units (P609x) in the last week, according the server log, so even in you had 16 cores, there were few work units there.

However, 128.143.231.201 has lots of P810x BA work units.

Rreports suggest that 8c/16t won't make the new deadlines. In fact, my 12c/24t @ 2.66 Ghz won't make the Preferred deadline consistently on project 8101 so it has been switched to regular SMP.

bollix47 wrote: In fact, my 12c/24t @ 2.66 Ghz won't make the Preferred deadline consistently on project 8101 so it has been switched to regular SMP.

Yes, as previously mentioned; 16 core seems to be some random number to appease the masses but has nothing to do with actual work.

Some Intel dual zeons 12 core / 24 ht cores O.C.'d will do the work in time.

AMD 16 core will not do the work in time. AMD 32 core will do the work with about 6 hours to spare on the 8101.

Welcome to the new world!

Well, not nothing. You still need 16 c/t to get assignments, and it does represent a general performance target.

7im wrote:and it does represent a general performance target.

I agree 7im!

Problem is that it doesn't meet the minimum required to meet the prefered deadline. And a stock clocked 16 true core / ht core does not exist yet that will meet the deadlines for BigAdv.

And that's all I got to say about that! credit --- Forrest Gump.

How appropriate.

Like I said, a general target, a core minimum, so the answer to questions like this are more self evident. That's the whole point.

If you want to keep waiting for perfect, be my guest. But please make a little room to let the rest of us play through.

I'm well aware that bigadv for 8 and 12 cores/threads, mainly 6900, 6901, 6903, 6904 on 8 or 12 cores/threads, is no longer assigned to less than 16 cores/threads, but thank you for pointing that out. July 30th was a bad day for us all, especially the Team Competition I manage.

Our folders used to be assigned 6097-6099 almost constantly on 8 cores, and are no longer getting them. These work units were still being assigned consistently if we applied a -bigadv flag before and after the announcement. Even 4 core/thread folders were getting them by applying this flag. These units were far more steady and consistent in terms of PPD than folding on regular or advanced methods, especially for 4 cores/threads. So, that's the point of my question. We aren't seeing these units very often anymore at all. Have they ran out, or have they been shifted over to another folding method?

I was not aware that these projects were -bigadv, looking at the project summary it looks like a large, normal smp project using the a3 core

No these projects are not bigadv. The question was why using a no longer appropriate flag for their equipment was not getting them these Projects. As for reasons, this is probably due to adjustments in the settings for the work and assignment servers in connection with this announcement back in July, http://folding.typepad.com/news/2012/07 ... oject.html. They stated there was a backlog of high priority A4 work and added a 10% bonus for it.

Looking at the serverstat listing, the priority for servers with A3 WU's has generally been set lower than that for A4 servers. I would guess that would cause systems capable of doing A4 projects to be preferably assigned to work servers with A4 work. For those systems limited to A3 work, there are many more projects besides the listed 3 on other servers.

That's what I was guessing. Thank you for your answer.