Change in BA requirements

[Grandpa_01]

Adak

I'm not looking for any job position, paid or otherwise. My agenda is to try and keep FAH running at flank speed or better.

Good luck, in reality you will have 0 affect as an individual, so far what I have seen you do is alienate yourself from a large portion of the donors with your attacking post you do not like. That is not a good thing and it needs to cease behavior like that is what has gotten some of the FF staff turned into a joke with no respect in the donor comunity. Airing frustration is a normal human action most people can see when a person is frustrated but you seem to like to attack those that are frustrated. Many of the folders have put up with things for a very long time and are frustrated. A little friendly advice Back off your chasing people is not helping that is a 7im type tactic and is not liked at all by many.

There are several things about the BA change in threshold thread, that really bother me. See what you think:

1) Several of the most active complainers, don't even HAVE a BA folder.

2) Several more of the most active complainers, won't even be affected by the change in threshold, should it be implemented.

There has always been a communication problem with Vijay, made worse because he changes FAH around with lots of new project types, etc. It's a problem, and it's a long-standing irritant, but it's NOT THIS PROBLEM, and should be dealt with on it's own, not lumped into the BA change problem. When you put the problems together, it becomes almost hopeless to solve either one of them.

#1) The entire thread is about several things not just one
1) Bigadv changes
2) Communication
3) Treatment of donors
4) smp points
5) Road Map
I see more than enough cause and reason for their post you agenda may be different in the thread but most are looking at the big picture.

#2) The change should be implemented and most likely will be, it may be adjusted a little if they implement a road mapping system but it should happen, Bigadv is and always has been designed for the top end of the computing equipment. The machines that are being pushed out are not at the top If they can meet the deadlines. All machines running today will be affected at some point in time, that is the nature of bigadv and the core count will not matter with the core hack in place.

 

[KMac]

More from Vijay...

Sure, here are some more details. I think we've discussed this in the past but donors clearly aren't familiar with it, which I think has been at the root of a lot of the misunderstandings here. It seems we really need to make a bigadv FAQ so this information is in one place and easy for people to find. From the very beginning, our plan with BA was to change the BA requirements as time moves on. We have changed it in the past already. From the donor reaction, I think we have waited too long since this most recent change. It seems that many donors either have forgotten or just never knew about this history (and this also shows us just how much popular the BA experiment was and how passionate the donors are). Something that we weren't expecting.

BA has always been intended to be used for a few calculations/Projects in FAH that requires the most processing power; larger RAM, more cores, and more bandwidth than typical FAH calculations. However, as time goes on, the BA requirements are met by more and more donor machines due to technological advancements. If we wait too long, a large fraction of donor machines will become BA capable (and in terms of the computing power of FAH, a very large fraction of FAH would be in the BA class in that case). In that situation, in order to get any useful work done in FAH, we'd have to make all WUs in the same category as BA WUs (since most donor would not want to run any other type of WU given the point difference as many choose to optimize for highest PPD/Watt ratio). However, that change would just lead to a big inflation of FAH points and also wouldn't give donors with the most powerful machines any benefit for being part of BA. Something that we wanted to avoid.

So, the plan has been (as publicly discussed) to frequently increase the BA requirements. I should make it clear that I don't think it is a mistake to change the BA requirements (that has always been the advertised plan). However, I think we have made mistakes in terms of making sure donors knew this. We tried to give heads up in terms of a few months notice. Unfortunately, it's clear that donors were expecting more like 6 to 12 months notice and ideally a roadmap.

Regarding the increasing of core count from 24 to 32 over a two months gap, this was done to ensure a smoother transition (we felt that the jump from 16 cores to 32 cores was too drastic) and to reach our goal of limiting BA to only the top 5% of donor systems. Given the increase of BA system which exceeded our 5% criteria (which is already a significant expansion of BA beyond our original 1% threshold), this approached seemed to be one way of doing it. It's amazing to see the enthusiasm to build and maintain such powerful systems, the issue was we only had a small amount of BA work and a lot of non-BA work. We chose a simple method of increasing the core count to achieve our target (top 5% of donor systems).

Moreover, a lot of attention was given to BA work which we appreciate but unfortunately, the same amount of attention wasn't given to non-BA work. This created a somewhat unfair representation of non-BA work for some donors. While increasing the points for non-BA work (especially SMP) would seem an "easy fix", unfortunately, it isn't since we take any changes to the point system very seriously. Any changes to it, if not implemented properly, would upset donors across the board.

We've gone over this thread and we hear your concerns regarding the points difference so we are actively discussing it and are looking into methods to improve this to get a better representation of science and points. Unfortunately, it is too early to discuss this now but rest assured, we aren't ignoring those concerns and once we have come up with a plan, will disclose it publicly before it will be implemented. This will allow us to listen to your feedback regarding any proposed changes to the points system.

Once again, I really appreciate everyone who has donated their time and efforts into this F@H Project and I hope that they will continue to do so in the future.

 

[Zink]

That sounds very positive. The main remaining issue is that because the "# of cores" metric is so weakly tied to performance there is still no indication at all about how fast systems will need to complete WUs to make deadlines and stay in the ppd inflated "top 5%" category. When Standford works it out and puts together a road map they must also switch to a concrete measurement of how much tighter deadlines get at each change. Hopefully they now know not to make announcements of pending changes if they don't have the specifics figured out.

One interesting solution to the problem of deciding WU deadlines would be to implement a well defined algorithm based on publicly available data similar to that which increases bitcoin mining difficulty based on current network computing power. The distribution of WU completion times for SMP and bigadv systems could be measured on a F@H stats page and then it would be very obvious to all donors how close their system is to falling out of the top 5%. Based on past network growth it could be estimated what factor the the deadlines will be shortened by at the next regular deadline adjustment every 8-12 months. Eg. The stats page would show you that to be in the top 5% right now you need to "complete these WU at least this fast" and that based on current network growth at the next change deadlines for all bigadv WU will to be tightened by 20%.

 

[Bill1024]

VJP "Moreover, a lot of attention was given to BA work which we appreciate but unfortunately, the same amount of attention wasn't given to non-BA work. This created a somewhat unfair representation of non-BA work for some donors. While increasing the points for non-BA work (especially SMP) would seem an "easy fix", unfortunately, it isn't since we take any changes to the point system very seriously. Any changes to it, if not implemented properly, would upset donors across the board.
We've gone over this thread and we hear your concerns regarding the points difference so we are actively discussing it and are looking into methods to improve this to get a better representation of science and points. Unfortunately, it is too early to discuss this now but rest assured, we aren't ignoring those concerns and once we have come up with a plan, will disclose it publicly before it will be implemented. This will allow us to listen to your feedback regarding any proposed changes to the points system."


Looks to me the core count increases will go forth. They may cut the points for BA and make a small increase in SMP, just to make it more even. It is just a guess but by going over VJP and Kessons last couple of posts.
Still so many unanswered questions.
He still did not mention a SMP backlog nor did he ask fold help folding any such backlog.
But clearly wants to nudge folders off BA on to SMP.
At lest we know they are talking it over.
Reminds me of big government when the people do not like the policies.
They think we just do not understand, and if they explain it better, we will like it.
I myself prefer to use a CPU over a GPU. The ware and tear on the GPU and hard to find life time warranties any more. I have burnt up a few folding.
Still all in all a 50% reduction is just not right.
I guess I will still be crunching until I get more clarity.

 

[Adak]

GrandPa_01

If I see a post that blatantly lies, and also slimes someone's reputation or character, you can expect a response from me, defending the person being smeared. This is predicated on knowing the person being attacked, of course.

I'm much too old to care whether I'm popular or not. My ethics and ideas of common decency were not created by a popularity contest, and they are not guided by one, now.

I am not too familiar with Bruce on FF, and my communication with 7im, has mainly consisted of arguing our divergent views.

If you have several problems you want to solve, it's a good idea to take the most pressing one, and solve it alone. Then go to the next most pressing problem, and repeat. It's very unlikely that anything can be done to solve all the issues raised in the FF thread (or here), all at once.

 

[Bill1024]

Adak, how many 16 core and how many 24 core servers do you have running BA WUs?

 

[Grandpa_01]

Adak
I was just giving you some friendly advice, if you continue doing as you are that is up to you, but sooner or latter many will just tell you to stick it or whatever, that is up to you, respect and reputation is lost just as it is gained by our actions.

 

[Adak]

Adak, how many 16 core and how many 24 core servers do you have running BA WUs?

You're barking up the wrong tree, Bill. I did not get into this BA thread, because I was affected by it. I got into it to support Nathan_P, who has raced with us on Overclockers.com, during the Chimp Challenge, for two or more years.

I know you believe I'm a big PG fanboy, but you're quite wrong. I especially don't like PG's point system -- HOWEVER -- I AM a big fan of the work that FAH is doing. Points are great, but fade into a dim second place, compared to the research, imo.

Beyond that, smear personal attacks, created from blatant lies, really motivate me to defend people, against them. Even liberals. So in the BA threads, I found I didn't need to support Nathan, as much as I needed to support Kasson (especially). Kasson has been a helpful PG'er, for us, right from the start.

What is your personal value system, that you don't feel a need to treat people fairly, and defend those who are unjustly smeared? That is the important question.

@GrandPa_01:

I was just giving you some friendly advice, if you continue doing as you are that is up to you, but sooner or latter many will just tell you to stick it or whatever, that is up to you, respect and reputation is lost just as it is gained by our actions.

Possibly you were. Did you also notice that you're "advising" me, but have said nothing negative about the defaming smear of Dr. Kasson in sbinh's post? That doesn't bother you - water off a duck's back, is it? Negative personal attacks that are completely unjustified, are A-OK, with you?

Because they're not OK with me, and I will rail against that abuse. And I won't need to take a popularity poll first. If you like unjustified ad hominem attacks on others, you won't like me. I wasn't raised that way.

 

[Bill1024]

Adak:
1) Several of the most active complainers, don't even HAVE a BA folder.

2) Several more of the most active complainers, won't even be affected by the change in threshold, should it be implemented.


I just find it funny you wrote that, being you made a couple dozen posts in that thread.

NathanP and Kasson are big boys now, I believe they can speak for them selves.
I believe you mean well and do really like FAH, let them fight their own battles.

Kassons post about "thanks to those of you for folding in the past" can be taken a couple ways. Does he really give a rats as about you or me. I don't really know.
That post, the timing, and past actions from PG give me some doubt.
Adak:
What is your personal value system, that you don't feel a need to treat people fairly, and defend those who are unjustly smeared? That is the important question.


I try to treat people with respect and fairly. I also let people speak for them selves.
But I also like to get right to the point. Talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words.
I expect answers from people when they are asked a question. I was just one of many asking questions. Some they STILL haven't answered. Is there a backlog or not?
Why won't PG ask for help? And what good is pointing 24 core servers at a backlog of units they can not even fold?
Kasson and VJP and PG made this mess, now they have to fix it.

 

[Adak]

I have two servers. One folds BA, the other is retired from folding, because it draws too much power.

Character assassination isn't done by "battles", it's usually done by sheer weight of numbers. You can defend yourself all you want, but if 10x as many people are testifying against you, you will not be successful in defending yourself.

1) Kasson doesn't lead PG, or set PG's policies.
2) Kasson has always treated the donors with respect and thanks.

You and I both know that Kasson was slimed for no justifiable reason whatsoever. It was simply a cheap shot to demean him. If you can't admit that, you're not being honest.

I try to treat people with respect and fairly.

Maybe, Don't appear to mind too much though if somebody takes a really cheap shot. No one can "speak for themselves", and somehow speak over a group. You simply get drowned out.

But I also like to get right to the point. Talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words.
I expect answers from people when they are asked a question. I was just one of many asking questions. Some they STILL haven't answered. Is there a backlog or not?
Why won't PG ask for help? And what good is pointing 24 core servers at a backlog of units they can not even fold?
Kasson and VJP and PG made this mess, now they have to fix it.

Kasson did NOT create the SMP mess. Or the points system, or any FAH policies. That was done by Vijay Pande. I have no idea what Vijay will do. It appears there is a backlog of SMP wu's, but Vijay prefers not to explicitly state it, or the size of it. That's Vijay's decision, not Kasson's.

Last year, after the Chimp Challenge, I folded a few hundred SMP wu's, on my BA folder (with 64 cores), and I had no trouble getting work, or folding those wu's - they ran through the server like shit through a goose. I'm not saying Bruce is incorrect. But I had NO trouble folding lots of SMP wu's, on my BA folder, last year.

 

[tear]

It appears there is a backlog of SMP wu's,

The only thing that he said is that threshold of BA machines (number-wise? point wise? who knows)
was exceeded. No "amount of work" argument was brought up. Thus, the 5% number is as good as
any,

Basically, he said he didn't expect that many BA systems to be brought to folding. Now he's just trying
to close the valve (to get back to his <5% of.. whatever it is).

He created an arbitrary cap that works as follows: the more BA donors contribute the more likely
the project is to raise the performance requirement. It has nothing to do with roadmap or planning!

So yeah, he is telling part of BA folders to stick it. That is, no longer fold BA. I'm sure they will happily
jump into the fire.

 

[Adak]

Yes, that's unfortunately my understanding of Vijay's announcement, as well, tear. I wasn't defending Vijay.

What stinks to me is that 5% figure he mentioned as desirable for the percent of BA folders in FAH. I NEVER heard any such percent mentioned before, and after all these people have bought and run BA class rigs, NOW he says "just 5%". Has anyone heard of this desired percent limit to BA, before?

<< THAT IS @!#$%^&^*(@ NEWS TO ME! >>

I always thought more and faster folding rigs were what he wanted for BA (and FAH in general). That's true for FAH, but NOT for BA. Now we know.

Now I understand why he wants all these threshold increases. It has nothing to do with the speed of the systems in BA, not being enough, it's to meet his 5% goal.

That is very unexpected and very disappointing news.

 

[runs2far]

The only thing that he said is that threshold of BA machines (number-wise? point wise? who knows)
was exceeded. No "amount of work" argument was brought up. Thus, the 5% number is as good as
any,

Basically, he said he didn't expect that many BA systems to be brought to folding. Now he's just trying
to close the valve (to get back to his <5% of.. whatever it is).

He created an arbitrary cap that works as follows: the more BA donors contribute the more likely
the project is to raise the performance requirement. It has nothing to do with roadmap or planning!

So yeah, he is telling part of BA folders to stick it. That is, no longer fold BA. I'm sure they will happily
jump into the fire.

Feel free to read my post about the BA concept being flawed since the beginning.

Every now and then PG will increase the requirements for BA because of a floaty metric.
The top 5% is one of the best "requirements" I've seen so far. It doesn't help us in any way shape or form, but it's better than "the most powerful machines".
Kinda like "Want to fold bigadv? then you better show up with a machine that's in the top 5% of all folders!"

EDIT:

Yes, that's unfortunately my understanding of Vijay's announcement, as well, tear. I wasn't defending Vijay.

What stinks to me is that 5% figure he mentioned as desirable for the percent of BA folders in FAH. I NEVER heard any such percent mentioned before, and after all these people have bought and run BA class rigs, NOW he says "just 5%". Has anyone heard of this desired percent limit to BA, before?

<< THAT IS @!#$%^&^*(@ NEWS TO ME! >>

They have always stated BA is for the most dedicated folders with the biggest machines and the requirement for BA is a moving target.
I don't know how good the different communities have been at communicating the risk of requirement change to it's members, but PG has always warned BA will change over time.

 

[Adak]

I understood that very well - the threshold would be changing. I never read about a stated percentage of BA systems being the goal, however. To me, that gives BA a completely different design goal.

 

[Spazturtle]

They never said it was the top 5%.

The lack of compuication is a big issue.

They need to give us CLEAR and absolute informaton about what can run BA and what can't.

 

[tear]

The fact of the change not being dictated by actual simulation needs but an arbitrary
threshold is pretty saddening. An example of simulation need would be: the desire to run
bigadv WUs faster (supported by credible statistical data).

I also agree with Spazturtle -- this is something that should've been shared from the get go.

What Folding@Home should generally be doing is attracting donors, not creating arbitrary
division of labor when it just isn't necessary (Folding@Home otherwise failed to provide
evidence of such division being necessary).
The way I see it, the division of labor shows that the project doesn't believe in or has given
up on the growth.

In any event, 5% threshold is a flawed approach as it's proven to be too dynamic for
donors to handle (assuming client distribution has been closely tracked by Folding@Home
-- something I personally doubt).

From donor's perspective -- I want to know my donation will be "worth" the investment for
a well defined minimum period of time. That's it. I don't care and I don't want to care if
number of BA machines doubles or triples through the course of a month (extreme case
just to illustrate the problem).

 

[JiniHammerer]

Hi guys, hope you don't mind here is the top 5% post people may not have seen.

Never mind see it above.

sorry

 

[Zink]

The threshold is not arbitrary, it helps Stanford control how much research is being done by projects that use bigadv WU vs standard SMP WU. Some WU benefit from the fastest machines but Stanford doesn't want a large fraction of their network power being donated to these projects because the standard SMP work is just as important.

5% also sin't too dynamic for donors to handle if the tightening of deadline is still every 12-18 months. In between deadline updates the fraction could grow to 10% but donors will always know that they could get kicked out next update. That is why it would be important to have a stats page that shows if you are in the top 5% or not.

The core issue it seems is that this 5% threshold is being used to control issues internal to the project (division of resources between work units) with something that affects donors ppd. No one want to have their $2000 rig's PPD cut just because they are at the 6% mark. Because of the inflated bigadv PPD this is implies your system is no longer valuable to the project. In reality it is still doing science that is just as important, it just isn't being rewarded for being in the top 5%.

TL;DR: the bigadv/SMP points discrepancy should be fixed otherwise 5% is a bad idea.

 

[tear]

The threshold is not arbitrary, it helps Stanford control how much research is being done by projects that use bigadv WU vs standard SMP WU. Some WU benefit from the fastest machines but Stanford doesn't want a large fraction of their network power being donated to these projects because the standard SMP work is just as important.

Picking up a number of of thin air seems pretty arbitrary to me.
Note that Folding@Home demonstrated neither a "backlog" of SMP units nor too low bigadv performance.

5% also sin't too dynamic for donors to handle if the tightening of deadline is still ever 12-18 months. In between deadline updates the fraction could grow to 10% but donors will always know that they could get kicked out next update. That is why it would be important to have a projected value for how tight deadlines will get at the next update.

Yes, I don't need to go inside the mechanics but I do need to know that deadlines will be unchanged
for a decent period of time. And what new deadlines will be once current period elapses.

The core issue it seems is that this 5% threshold is being used to control issues internal to the project (division of resources between work units) with something that affects donors ppd. No one want to have their $2000 rig's PPD cut just because they are at the 6% mark. Because of the inflated bigadv PPD this is implies your system is no longer valuable to the project. In reality it is still doing science that is just as important, it just isn't being rewarded for being in the top 5%.

That demonstrates the silliness of the threshold approach. Bigadv rewards should be given for
meeting bigadv simulation needs rather than being on specific side of the threshold line.

TL;DR: the bigadv/SMP points discrepancy should be fixed otherwise 5% is a bad idea.

Fixed? As in... ? What exactly? Closing the gap? You close the gap you remove the bigadv incentive.

That's the problem with Pande's explanation/approach -- you said yourself -- the threshold doesn't
promote fast machines, it promotes top 5% of the machines.

He had said he wanted fast machines, donors provided him with fast machines but now he says
it wasn't really his intent. No wonder people are pissed.

I think he really DOES want fast machines, he just picked up sucky mechanism to accomplish it.

 

[Spazturtle]

Note that he said it used to be top 1% but slipped to top 5%

Pretty much proves it is arbitrary.

 

[402blownstroker]

I think we are pissing in the wind guys. PG will do whatever they want regardless of what we say or anyone else for that matter.

 

[Zink]

What if the fix is to get rid of SMP and move all WUs to a point scaling that matched bigadv? Fast machines would still be rewarded throughout an increased QRB and the current bigadv WU would only be assigned to machines that had enough RAM and were returning lighter WUs fast enough. That way the machines wouldn't loose ppd arbitrarily, only get obsoleted by newer more efficient machines.

I guess the problem with a system like this is there is no motivation to put in enough RAM but this at least could be delt with by a small incentive based on a very concrete need. It would also devalue past work but that is probably better than another 5 years of Standford messing with us and could me mitigated by carefully choosing the QRB scaling so that current SMP machines' PPD is minimally affected.

 

[-alias-]

It's about the way I also thought, but by increasing the PPD for SMP to something close to BA. I will let my rigs continue folding until June this year, and if things are not organized until then, I turn them all off. By then I also have passed 2,000,000,000 points, so it fits well in my book.

 

[Zagen30]

What if the fix is to get rid of SMP and move all WUs to a point scaling that matched bigadv? Fast machines would still be rewarded throughout an increased QRB and the current bigadv WU would only be assigned to machines that had enough RAM and were returning lighter WUs fast enough. That way the machines wouldn't loose ppd arbitrarily, only get obsoleted by newer more efficient machines.

I guess the problem with a system like this is there is no motivation to put in enough RAM but this at least could be delt with by a small incentive based on a very concrete need. It would also devalue past work but that is probably better than another 5 years of Standford messing with us and could me mitigated by carefully choosing the QRB scaling so that current SMP machines' PPD is minimally affected.

You're not the first one to suggest this, and I like the concept. I'm not sure how closely it aligns with PG's plans, but it would eliminate the massive point drop that comes with being booted out of bigadv. I would guess that most people folding bigadv aren't particularly interested in the work being done, but are chasing the very high points (I know that describes me). That's not to say that the research isn't interesting, just that viral infection of cells probably isn't a personal motivator to most people like Alzheimer's, cancer, etc. are. If the points were equal, and there was a need to clear a backlog of "regular" work, I don't think very many bigadv donors would care that much if they had a week or two with a higher proportion of "regular" work.

I don't think ram is really an issue. I know at the very start of bigadv they said half a GB of RAM per core, but on my Intel 4P bigadv WUs use only a little over 4 GB of the 64 GB of ram it has. If they went to the "bigadv and SMP get the same points" plan and had no ram requirement, I doubt there'd be very many, if any people building a bigadv-capable rig with only like 2 GB of ram. The fact that folding runs fastest on servers when all memory channels are populated would probably take care of the ram requirements on its own.

 

[Spazturtle]

I still don't why FAHControl doesn't run FAHBench on install and do a quick test how fast your machine is and how capable is. Then request WUs that are best for you machine.

 

[tear]

You can tamper with any benchmark that runs at client side == any performance assessment would need to be derived server-side from WU turnaround times.

 

[rhavern]

I still don't why FAHControl doesn't run FAHBench on install and do a quick test how fast your machine is and how capable is. Then request WUs that are best for you machine.

Perhaps wield the AS banhammer for machines that are configured to get BA but fail to return in time X number in Y attempts. Keeps the authority out of donor's hands and helps keeps misconfigurations from damaging the science long term.

 

[W.Feather]

Guys im going to leave an in thread warning. Knock off the personal attacks, and similar comments. Try and keep it on topic or the thread will need to be closed. Lets try and respect rule #1 here

(1) Absolutely NO FLAMING, NAME CALLING OR PERSONAL ATTACKS, NO TROLLING. Mutual respect and civilized conversation is the required norm.

 

[Spazturtle]

Perhaps wield the AS banhammer for machines that are configured to get BA but fail to return in time X number in Y attempts. Keeps the authority out of donor's hands and helps keeps misconfigurations from damaging the science long term.

If you fail to return X number of WUs it locks the slot automatilcy and requires you to reconfigure.

I got this when I had a GPU issue, after failing to return several WUs in a row the slot said FAILED and required me to re create it.

 

[bman212121]

The weird thing about these BA changes is that they are just arbitrary and not really tied to the work being done. I could understand if a new project came out and they increased the requirements for a specific project, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to all of the sudden limit you from accessing a project you already were able to run.

As a donor I know most of the common project numbers, what kind of PPD certain systems will run, etc. But I really have no correlation to the actual science that my work is doing. Unless I go out of my way to click on the project description or search for it, there is nothing stating what that project is about. If it's about the science for the donors it would seem like more emphasis could be put on what you're actually accomplishing.

Maybe others see it differently, but I view F@H essentially as like playing one big MMO. The more XP you generate the higher your score is. Everyone decides how much time, effort, and money they want to put in so they can reach the highest levels. Going with that thought you could compare projects to "instances" in an MMO. You need to meet the requirements for that project in order to do it, whether it is hardware, software, or time limitations. In any grind fest type game, there is usually some type of incentive to keep people playing and steering them where you want. We all know this is the points.

In any MMO I've played they regularly hold double XP events to get people to jump on and participate. All of the high level people (4P users in this case) are already hooked to the game and are going to be playing no matter what. Giving extra bonus points for certain projects to help give incentives for people to do them seems like it would not only get more people to join back up, but we know very well those high end users are going to cash in on it as well. If it's just for a limited time, PG could potentially use a system like that to target those backlogs without causing too much grief because it really should entice all users to get in on the action. (Obviously not fool proof method but one possibility)

A lot of what I said was stated in one form or another, but I have to agree that it seems like they are going at it backward. If they have too many high level players in the game, they should come up with new ways to keep those people busy, rather than trying to limit what they can do.

 

[Jathanis]

The weird thing about these BA changes is that they are just arbitrary and not really tied to the work being done. I could understand if a new project came out and they increased the requirements for a specific project, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to all of the sudden limit you from accessing a project you already were able to run.

As a donor I know most of the common project numbers, what kind of PPD certain systems will run, etc. But I really have no correlation to the actual science that my work is doing. Unless I go out of my way to click on the project description or search for it, there is nothing stating what that project is about. If it's about the science for the donors it would seem like more emphasis could be put on what you're actually accomplishing.

Maybe others see it differently, but I view F@H essentially as like playing one big MMO. The more XP you generate the higher your score is. Everyone decides how much time, effort, and money they want to put in so they can reach the highest levels. Going with that thought you could compare projects to "instances" in an MMO. You need to meet the requirements for that project in order to do it, whether it is hardware, software, or time limitations. In any grind fest type game, there is usually some type of incentive to keep people playing and steering them where you want. We all know this is the points.

In any MMO I've played they regularly hold double XP events to get people to jump on and participate. All of the high level people (4P users in this case) are already hooked to the game and are going to be playing no matter what. Giving extra bonus points for certain projects to help give incentives for people to do them seems like it would not only get more people to join back up, but we know very well those high end users are going to cash in on it as well. If it's just for a limited time, PG could potentially use a system like that to target those backlogs without causing too much grief because it really should entice all users to get in on the action. (Obviously not fool proof method but one possibility)

A lot of what I said was stated in one form or another, but I have to agree that it seems like they are going at it backward. If they have too many high level players in the game, they should come up with new ways to keep those people busy, rather than trying to limit what they can do.

Not that I'm trying to argue here, as I absolutely agree with your final paragraph about keeping high level players busy, but to play devil's advocate here - you missed one key point with your whole MMO analogy that fits here, too. Every time I've been on an MMO and the developers decide to somehow majorly nerf the game, it's generally the high level players that complain about the reductions to their specific build. That's exactly what's happening here, so IMO, those high level players absolutely have a right to bitch about all the time they've put in. Add in the cost of F@H over MMO, and that right increases exponentially...

 

[Grandpa_01]

I do not know that I will have any right to bitch when the time comes for my boxen to take the beating. I went into bigadv folding this time with my eyes wide open, I got slapped pretty hard the last time they did the cuts, I was on the bottom end with 7 - 980x and 970 rigs. I had built them at a fairly high cost but I wanted that big bright orange carrot that Stanford dangled in front of me. When they cut them unexpectedly (No road map) it did piss me off pretty badly but they did it anyway. If I was being cut right now it would probably piss me off again because once again (No road map).

Fortunately I learned the last time and decided to go to the top end this time after seeing what happened the last time around, which is amazing in itself (Grandpa actually learned something) The BA folding can be a school of hard knocks hopefully they will lay out a good road map for the future. And fix some of their communication and PR problems, I actually have a bigger issue with donor treatment at the FF, that I will bitch about. As long as they tell me or give me a good idea of when my boxen is going to EOL for BA I will really have no right to bitch.

Anyway we shall see what they do for the future of BA folding if they meet what I feel is needed there will be no problem. If they do not then I will have to make a choice, I kind of enjoy crunching them other fellas also.

 

[Bill1024]

They did it to me last time with the BA too, and before with the ATI GPUs before that.
Burn me once shame on you.
Burn me twice shame on me.
Burn me three times, I am a freaking Idiot.

 

[Bill1024]

They did it to me last time with the BA too, and before with the ATI GPUs before that.
Burn me once shame on you.
Burn me twice shame on me.
Burn me three times, I am a freaking Idiot.

 

[knopflerbruce]

In general I think us hardcore folders have to stick with high end rigs. 4P Magny Cours should still be fine My ES chips are approaching 5 years, and still kick some ass (though they're not folding at the moment, sucks being back in my mom's basement... with all these rigs collecting dust).

 

[bman212121]

Every time I've been on an MMO and the developers decide to somehow majorly nerf the game, it's generally the high level players that complain about the reductions to their specific build. That's exactly what's happening here, so IMO, those high level players absolutely have a right to bitch about all the time they've put in. Add in the cost of F@H over MMO, and that right increases exponentially...

I completely agree with what you said. In a BAD MMO they will nerf a class that is OP too much and make everyone mad. Then take something that was weak and make it completely OP. Changes are going to have to be made all of the time but if they can do them in smaller increments more frequently, it makes the impact less pronounced. That is kind of what it sounds like VJP wants to do but I'm not sure if the changes are fine grained enough.

I do not know that I will have any right to bitch when the time comes for my boxen to take the beating. I went into bigadv folding this time with my eyes wide open, I got slapped pretty hard the last time they did the cuts, I was on the bottom end with 7 - 980x and 970 rigs. I had built them at a fairly high cost but I wanted that big bright orange carrot that Stanford dangled in front of me. When they cut them unexpectedly (No road map) it did piss me off pretty badly but they did it anyway. If I was being cut right now it would probably piss me off again because once again (No road map).

That big bright orange carrot is exactly what they need to keep always just in front of you guys. If they would simply change the requirements on a per project basis you could clearly see that your current boxen can only finish what it's working on right now, but that big ol' carrot is going to show that in order to get these new fancy work units, you'll need to make some even bigger boxen. If they want to keep their 1% or 5% just release new BA projects that are slightly out of reach of your top three folders. They'll chase the carrot and as time goes on more people will be able to run it and help finish the project out, just in time for the next BA project to fall that's even harder.

You have all the right to be upset because they put something out there and are going to take it away. No one likes to be cut off one day and even with a roadmap I still wouldn't want to be cut off just because. That part seems to be shared by most even if it does or does not impact them. (doesn't impact me) Having a roadmap would definitely help because you would know when the changes will take place, but it would be far better if they stated a roadmap and maybe said that these BA projects are X% completed and if you want the latest and greatest projects you need these requirements to continue doing BA.

 

[FLECOM]

regardless lets not talk bad about people on other forums here please

Yeah, I'm talking about bruce and 7im. Eliminate those fools.

this is my last warning in this thread...

 

[tear]

These two individuals have caused a lot of damage to the project and should be relieved ASAP.
That better?

 

[texinga]

Flecom, I would just hope that the thread itself can be left open even if you feel the need to moderate an individual's comments. HardOCP is like my other home (next to EVGA) for Folding information and commentary. This whole Bigadv change thing is very much active and still unresolved. I very much appreciate reading what this team has to say about these changes and would like to continue doing so. Thank-you.

 

[Adak]

What IS 7im's position on the FF? I thought he might be an ex-moderator, perhaps?

I'm not sure what he is, but I know he's not a moderator.