Can't Decide Folding or UD?

H

havalon

Weaksauce
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
109
I am tyring to decide on running Folding@Home or United Devices. I have quite a few units to throw at this and want to put them all to one task.

I am curious which one is easier to install on a large quanity of machines and will be able to run without the end user messing with it. I have not been in the DC since my days back at Anandtech and Seti@home. (I am placing it on my work network. Around 30 computers in total.)
 
Both are great projects, but my vote is for FAH. Especially if you are putting it on a local network. That gives you option to make it as simple or complex as you want to make it (more time spent on configuration, better long term results). If monitoring from a Windows machine use L. Perry's Electron Microscope III to monitor your installation & you will love it. I don't know best monitor for unix/linux. My experience is on a smaller number of machines, you may want to contact Marty9876 for more network info.

Fold ON !

RPhArrow --\\\------------------->

 
You really can't go wrong with either project, as both can be setup to run with almost no user interaction. F@H can be a service install right out of the box, but UD can be setup to run as a service as well (Moose and Anderu know more about that). It's more a matter of personal preference, I'd maybe suggest running running an instance of each on different boxen and see what you develop a taste for. :D

 
It's 'easier' to set up FAH in a sort of "throw it on and forget about it" fashion (espescially as a service), and personally I've found FAH to be more reliable, as it were.

That said, UD isn't exactly complicated, and we're still 10th in that ;) :p

 
p[H]ant0m said:
UD can be setup to run as a service as well (Moose and Anderu know more about that).
Click to expand...
Hey hey I know something too. :p I have a box running headless for 4+ years and still running (box upgraded but it is still the same).

p[H]ant0m said:
It's more a matter of personal preference, I'd maybe suggest running running an instance of each on different boxen and see what you develop a taste for. :D
Click to expand...
Yup, you should do that. :)

UD does not have an automatic mass installer available publicly, and UD still has that annoying "register again" problem in case something goes wrong. That said, FAH still has its issues sometimes as well. If you choose FAH, definitely install the console client.

Like others have said. Both are pretty good despite minor issues.

 
AtomicMoose said:
As long as you run something, we are happy.

Welcome! :)
Click to expand...

I am in total agreement! Any cycles you can throw at either or both projects means we are hopefully that much closer to solving these great mysteries, and saving some lives.

They both have their advantages and drawbacks, and they also each have their add-in products and tweaks that allow them to be somewhat more hands off.

Try them both, and see what you think. You have already made the most important choice, which was to participate. Everything else should be a cake walk! :cool:

 
F@H sounds good to me. I am all about as little muss and fuss as you can get away with.
 
Flying Fox said:
Hey hey I know something too. :p I have a box running headless for 4+ years and still running (box upgraded but it is still the same).
Click to expand...

But some of you don't come visit enough! :p


 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top