Folding Forum

On my Linux setup I currently have a BOINC-client managing several projects, using cpu-cycles that aren't used by other processes. So, when BOINC's on, my cpu-load is always (about) 100%
If I were to download the FAH-client and run it, how would it affect the BOINC-client?

The one with lower priority will get less CPU time.

FAH and BOINC would compete with each other. Both are designed to use 100% of your CPU cycles and one would lose out, depending on priority settings and other factors. We don't recommend running both at the same time.

If you wish to donate to both projects, the best alternative is to run one half of the time and the other half of the time. You'll have to be aware of the deadlines. FAH has strict deadlines (The WU is discarded and you get zero points if it expires). I believe BOINC adjusts priorities to do whatever they can to meet the deadlines and generally still accepts results after their deadline.

Ivoshiee wrote:The one with lower priority will get less CPU time.

Depending on which OS you run, that may mean one gets 99% and the other gets 1%.

bruce wrote:FAH and BOINC would compete with each other. Both are designed to use 100% of your CPU cycles and one would lose out, depending on priority settings and other factors. We don't recommend running both at the same time.

If you wish to donate to both projects, the best alternative is to run one half of the time and the other half of the time. You'll have to be aware of the deadlines. FAH has strict deadlines (The WU is discarded and you get zero points if it expires). I believe BOINC adjusts priorities to do whatever they can to meet the deadlines and generally still accepts results after their deadline.

In that case, I won't be using FAH. I won' be able to keep track of how time much each 'application' has run, and with the number of projects BOINC is currently managing already some deadlines have just been met. Whilst I don't know how strict they are, I'd rather not pass deadlines. I know CPDN doesn't care, because BOINC can't set deadlines that are longer than 1 year, but I have no idea about my other projects.

How about running the GPU-client parallel to BOINC?
How much CPU does it need?

And anyway, it should be possible to run both parallel on multi-core computers, if you restrict both to only a certain amount of cores.

Don't ask me how any of this will work out, but it should both be possible imho.

Saenger wrote:How about running the GPU-client parallel to BOINC?
How much CPU does it need?

And anyway, it should be possible to run both parallel on multi-core computers, if you restrict both to only a certain amount of cores.

Don't ask me how any of this will work out, but it should both be possible imho.

The GPU client needs a dedicated core at the moment (whether the next incarnation will or not remains to be seen), however as you say a multicore machine can be set up to allow parallel processing, with or without affinity masking.

copycat wrote:[
In that case, I won't be using FAH. I won' be able to keep track of how time much each 'application' has run, and with the number of projects BOINC is currently managing already some deadlines have just been met. Whilst I don't know how strict they are, I'd rather not pass deadlines. I know CPDN doesn't care, because BOINC can't set deadlines that are longer than 1 year, but I have no idea about my other projects.

I first started distributed computing with SETI Classic. When the use of BOINC became optional, I tried it and ran into nothing but trouble. It was just another step in the uploading/downloading process, just another thing that could go wrong, just another set of computers that could go down at any time. Needless to say, when SETI Classic was ended and it became mandatory to go through BOINC, I found F@H and have been folding here ever since. Should, at any time in the future, F@H require BOINC, I'll leave. I dislike it that much.

SETI Classic was ended because, according to the mavens there, they were having issues with that software. IMHO, if they had worked on SETI Classic with the same amount of enthusiasm and devoted the same number of hours to it, SETI would never have gone the BOINC route. But, because both are based at Cal Berkeley, SETI became obligated to support BOINC.

I think the question has been asked and answered. No need to have everyone chime in for or against.

Copycat, I am going to close this thread before it gets out of hand again. If all of your questions haven't been answered yet, feel free to send me a PM. I will either answer, or re-open this thread at your request. Fold on.

P.S. Title edit. The two project are not at odds with each other, so removed the vs.

johnph77 wrote:Should, at any time in the future, F@H require BOINC, I'll leave. I dislike it that much.

That will never happen. If FAH ever decides to support the BOINC structure, it will be seperate from the stand alone clients.

So to make it clear. FAH will NEVER "require" BOINC. BOINC may be able to use FAH someday, but I don't really see that happening anytime soon.