• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Hyperthreading & Folding

N

Nate Finch

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
298
I looked through the FAQ and didn't see anything that directly addressed this issue - if you have a hyperthreaded P4, should you be running two instances of F@H? If so, how? (I'm on XP Pro running it as a service)

Sorry if this is a foolish question, but I don't really understand how Windows controls the whole hyperthreading thing. Am I wasting processor power by *not* having two occurances running? It kinda looks that way, since one of the "CPUs" is idle all the time.

 
Nate Finch said:
I looked through the FAQ and didn't see anything that directly addressed this issue - if you have a hyperthreaded P4, should you be running two instances of F@H? If so, how? (I'm on XP Pro running it as a service)

Sorry if this is a foolish question, but I don't really understand how Windows controls the whole hyperthreading thing. Am I wasting processor power by *not* having two occurances running? It kinda looks that way, since one of the "CPUs" is idle all the time.

Click to expand...


you will get about a 15% points increase by running 2 instances, although stanford would rather you run just one because it will make both of them take longer. but since thare are alot of slow machines that run folding and dont exactly burn thru work units i wouldnt feel too bad about running 2.
 
If I get 15% more work done, isn't that a good thing? Regardless of points, it's really a 15% time *savings*. Sure, both will take longer, but I'll get two done in less than twice the time.

Not sure why they'd tell someone not to be 15% more productive.

-Nate
 
Nate Finch said:
If I get 15% more work done, isn't that a good thing? Regardless of points, it's really a 15% time *savings*. Sure, both will take longer, but I'll get two done in less than twice the time.

Not sure why they'd tell someone not to be 15% more productive.

-Nate
Click to expand...

If they want the results right away, then it's better to get one wu done in say 12 hours than 2 done in 20 hours.
 
I don't think its the time thing stanford is worried about. Probably more about the stability of the machine. Regardless, if you chose to run two instances and want to turn on big packets for both make sure you have at least 1Gig of ram. If you would happen to get two QMD core protiens, they each could take nearly 400MB of ram.


 
[H]ugh_Freak said:
I don't think its the time thing stanford is worried about. Probably more about the stability of the machine. Regardless, if you chose to run two instances and want to turn on big packets for both make sure you have at least 1Gig of ram. If you would happen to get two QMD core protiens, they each could take nearly 400MB of ram.


Click to expand...
it really is time they're worried about. really. sounds dumb, but really.

 
Actually..

It is the quality of the WU turned in that they want...

They dont care about time.. or points... or 15% point increase.. etc.

They want quality... not quantity..
 
KodiakStar said:
Actually..

It is the quality of the WU turned in that they want...

They dont care about time.. or points... or 15% point increase.. etc.

They want quality... not quantity..
Click to expand...


no, you're wrong. really wrong.

speed > quantity.
Larry (yes the WeatherMan) said:
<snip>While running two instances of the F@H client will return two work units more quickly than doing one at a time, that is not what is important. Returning one work unit 70% faster and starting the next generation of tests on the work unit, is what Stanford wants. Speed in working through each protein generation is very, very important. Sometimes quality is better than quantity. Quality in this case is work being returned more quickly.</snip>
Click to expand...


though 2 instances = more points, 1 instance = better for science
Dr. Vijay Pande (yes the guy who started it all) said:
1) If you care primarily about points, running 2 procs on HT is still the best bet. We are grateful for all contributions and if people choose to run 2 procs on HT, our approach is that all contributions are welcome.

2) If you care about the science foremost and are interested in our recommendations, then do not run 2 procs on HT, but please just run one process. That won't be best for points, but is best for the science.
Click to expand...


here's the thread, K*

 
2) If you care about the science foremost and are interested in our recommendations, then do not run 2 procs on HT, but please just run one process. That won't be best for points, but is best for the science.

Quality.

Over Quantity.

(it just so happens, for the one WU speed is more important. But its still the Quality of the WU)
 
KodiakStar said:
<snip>

They dont care about time..</snip>
Click to expand...

and there's no difference in "quality" of the WU

yes, QMDs might be better than Gromacs might be better than Tinkers might be better than Timeless Tinkers, but HT vs. no HT makes no difference in the kind of protein you get.

you're wrong.

 
There is a difference of quality of WU

they want completed ones


not early ends :rolleyes:
 
Ok, maybe I've been looking at the whole DC thing the wrong way then. I assumed this was some sort of brute force attack (structured... but brute force). I guess I was wrong, because if it was brute force, they'd just want the highest efficiency possible, regardless of how long one particular attack took.

Sorry, I know a lot more about cryptography than medical research :)

 
Hey, I think this was a valuable discussion for newbies (of which there seem to be many). I think the long and short of it is that Stanford says they don't want you running two instances, and I think if anyone knows, they know. One instance it is.

 
Stanford alters each protien slightly durring it run.
So each generation starts with slightly different bond angles / lenghts.
They want the first results back quick so that they can tweak the next generation of the protien.
They then probably use the slower results to check that the first results where correct.
They also accept that if they tweak a new protien too far they will get an early end.
So as long as your only getting the very odd early end then your doing good science.

Thats my take on why they want the first results back quick.

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