New extra large -bigadv on Beta

musky said:
The 4ps dropped to ~455K ppd. The SR-2s are all over the place - from 218K to 243K ppd. It stings quite a bit actually - 120K ppd or so for me. Stil, it is better than the regular bigadv, so i am not going to complain that much...
Click to expand...

quite a few of the testers noted that it was too bountiful unless they meant for it to be like this... they answered with a maybe a mite less...

and oh we didn't expect bigadv folders to switch to bigbeta... :rolleyes:
 
If I have calculated it right the change on both SR2#2 and 3 will be:

350k ppd => 319k ppd
339k ppd => 305k ppd

Points per unit will be 487,000, so not quite possible to do a million point update again on two machines.

Looks to me like they are gunning for a 50% premium over bigadv, just like the intent was bigadv = 50% more than smp.
 
Patriot said:
and oh we didn't expect bigadv folders to switch to bigbeta... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
really?

in other news, I installed Ubuntu (thanks musky) just to fold these delicious units, breaking my perfectly fine home server setup in the process. and yet I am running a 6901. Stop stealing the fun :mad:

Now I gotta work on getting this thing set back up as a file server under Ubuntu......
 
Patriot said:
and oh we didn't expect bigadv folders to switch to bigbeta... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

How many people other than beta team members actually realize that running bigbeta is against both the best practices guide and the beta team rules? Due to Stanford's gross overuse of the word "beta" to describe both public clients (after all, the good old SMP client is still beta) and the beta team, it's very confusing what beta actually means any more. People that run across a thread like this see the switches and use them.
 
Punchy said:
How many people other than beta team members actually realize that running bigbeta is against both the best practices guide and the beta team rules? Due to Stanford's gross overuse of the word "beta" to describe both public clients (after all, the good old SMP client is still beta) and the beta team, it's very confusing what beta actually means any more. People that run across a thread like this see the switches and use them.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that all beta units are now a free for all.
 
jebo_4jc said:
My understanding is that all beta units are now a free for all.
Click to expand...

My understanding is the same - albeit with the no support if it crashes, it is BETA etc

I found it when they released the client V7 beta and published the -bigbeta flag in the online docs. If they wanted it private then that would be a strange move...

Thinking of joining the beta team anyway...
 
so i read somewhere that if we use sabayon we get better tpf/ppd than ubuntu.

any truth in this?anybody here tried it?
 
jebo_4jc said:
My understanding is that all beta units are now a free for all.
Click to expand...

Like I said, it's all very confusing.

http://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=18031
"To request Beta Project and FahCores, you will need a special configuration that SHOULD NOT BE used by Non-Beta Testers. Non-Beta Testers do so at their own risk"

What does that mean? Don't do it, but we expect you will anyway?
The "SHOULD NOT BE used" seems pretty strong, but then the next sentence weakens it.
 
Punchy said:
Like I said, it's all very confusing.

http://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=18031
"To request Beta Project and FahCores, you will need a special configuration that SHOULD NOT BE used by Non-Beta Testers. Non-Beta Testers do so at their own risk"

What does that mean? Don't do it, but we expect you will anyway?
The "SHOULD NOT BE used" seems pretty strong, but then the next sentence weakens it.
Click to expand...

If they wanted it restricted they would do it by passkey.

/shrugg

So I guess I'm on the sudo beta team now :p
 
Punchy said:
Like I said, it's all very confusing.

http://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=18031
"To request Beta Project and FahCores, you will need a special configuration that SHOULD NOT BE used by Non-Beta Testers. Non-Beta Testers do so at their own risk"

What does that mean? Don't do it, but we expect you will anyway?
The "SHOULD NOT BE used" seems pretty strong, but then the next sentence weakens it.
Click to expand...

From the same link:
"To test Beta FahCores and Beta Projects, full access to this Forum is strongly recommended. Everyone can read this forum section, but to be able to post here or discuss any of the issues encountered, you must join the Beta Team."

It sounds to me like if you do it, you are on your own if problems arise.
 
Punchy said:
Like I said, it's all very confusing.

http://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=66&t=18031
"To request Beta Project and FahCores, you will need a special configuration that SHOULD NOT BE used by Non-Beta Testers. Non-Beta Testers do so at their own risk"

What does that mean? Don't do it, but we expect you will anyway?
The "SHOULD NOT BE used" seems pretty strong, but then the next sentence weakens it.
Click to expand...

Yes, thanks for that link- it is pretty ambiguous - that to me says that are steering less technical users away from it to avoid the complaints noise, but are ok with hardcore users.

Personally I can't see a downside to more people testing beta units if they do it discreetly and don't add to the developers workload.
 
may i be worthy said:
Personally I can't see a downside to more people testing beta units if they do it discreetly and don't add to the developers workload.
Click to expand...

The issue I brought up on ff.org is that the intent of the beta team was to have a group of somewhat-qualified testers that could help isolate and diagnose any misbehaviors. The policies clearly state that discussion of beta projects is not allowed in the open forums. Thus, if a non-beta-team-member has a problem with the project, there is no way to report it, besides which the official response will be to remove the beta flag.

I think this needs clarification by the DAB, as I and EVGA's DAB rep are interpreting this differently than what I read here.
 
Punchy said:
How many people other than beta team members actually realize that running bigbeta is against both the best practices guide and the beta team rules? Due to Stanford's gross overuse of the word "beta" to describe both public clients (after all, the good old SMP client is still beta) and the beta team, it's very confusing what beta actually means any more. People that run across a thread like this see the switches and use them.
Click to expand...
As others have said, the current understanding is that beta's are fair game at your own risk.

Funny, I never saw complaints with other beta's until they started rewarding multi proc folders with higher ppd. :rolleyes:
 
R-Type said:
As others have said, the current understanding is that beta's are fair game at your own risk.

Funny, I never saw complaints with other beta's until they started rewarding multi proc folders with higher ppd. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I see that's the understanding on your team.

And you didn't look hard enough if you don't think there were complaints about beta leaks before the beta forum became read only.

Regardless, you missed the point. As I said on ff.org, the eventual points when the project becomes public are an entirely different issue. The issue now is that beta projects should not have higher points, so people qualified to and interested in doing real testing and debugging, not in getting more points, are motivated to actually join the beta team.

Part of the beta rules of engagement states that beta testers should not be getting higher points - so they are violating their own rules.
 
Punchy said:
Part of the beta rules of engagement states that beta testers should not be getting higher points - so they are violating their own rules.
Click to expand...

the rules of engagement says that:

1) Beta testers MAY get lower PPD, not that they're required to.
2) Non beta team members use the beta flags at their own risk, no support will be provided.

Any reasonable reading of those rules says that non beta team members can use the beta flags, albeit - unsupported and at your own risk.

H.
 
Punchy said:
so they are violating their own rules.
Click to expand...
If they are their rules, they are free to change them.

I've never understood the rationale behind these pedantic viewpoints, this isn't about the future of your country or your city or even your job. This is about Stanford modifying their own point system and while you may not agree with it, it doesn't make it wrong in any way. To argue that it is wrong because it is a break from past ways of doing things is to completely turn your back on continuous improvement and the advancement of the platform. I read your arguments like a baby boomer telling me modern cars have nothing on muscle cars from the 60's because 'they just don't build them like they used to'. Those damn overhead cams and direct injection must really burn your chaps eh?

In actual on topic news, my single special dodeca is churning 119k ppd with the revised lower base points. Think I may have the single proc record?
 
Punchy said:
...And you didn't look hard enough if you don't think there were complaints about beta leaks before the beta forum became read only...
Click to expand...

Do you mean before the beta program moved towards transparency where regular members can learn and contribute without being bound by an arbitrarily enforced code of silence?
Emphasis was added in the original post, but the last sentence is what clearly confirms acceptance of occasional beta testing to me.

Beta Forum's Visibility
Please note that as a registered forum member, you can only view the Beta Forum and can't make any posts in that Forum. You can track any Beta Project's progress since it entered Beta Stage until it reaches public. If you see an issue and want to offer any help/advice, please PM an Administrator/Moderator rather than making a new thread in the Public Forum since it might so unnoticed. Do note that while you are free to join the Beta Team, we prefer Donors who are regular. If you are a seasonal or an occasional tester, we prefer that you observe the Forum and offer help/advice via PM with an Administrator/Moderator.
Click to expand...
 
Haitch said:
1) Beta testers MAY get lower PPD, not that they're required to.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think making them get lower would be harsh... I am glad beta testers in the past have been able to run units that gave higher than average PPD - eg 2689 was so generous it stood out in stats, but has since been graded down to below average.

Beta testers give up a lot of time and lose a ton of points on crashed units, so deserve a boost.

And I am fine with that benefit extending to anyone who runs beta units - it is a higher risk option. 6903 looks like it is less forgiving on overclocks than any other bigadv.
 
Proabaly a moot point anyway. I have not gotten a 6903 in the last 4 units I have downloaded.

As far as I knew, the bigbeta flag was fine to use. I didn't until recently when it became worth doing.
 
Well the ones you got made a splash - you got the new record for one update:

06.07, 12am 1,084,205 2

Beating the KMac mark by about 30k and with lower scoring 6903s. Nice.
 
musky said:
Proabaly a moot point anyway. I have not gotten a 6903 in the last 4 units I have downloaded.

As far as I knew, the bigbeta flag was fine to use. I didn't until recently when it became worth doing.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I have picked up 2 6901s after I finished my first 6903. The dual e5530 still isn't done with the first 6903, has something like 4 day completion time.
 
cactus said:
Yeah, I have picked up 2 6901s after I finished my first 6903. The dual e5530 still isn't done with the first 6903, has something like 4 day completion time.
Click to expand...
What's the tpf with those dual quads?
 
may i be worthy said:
Well the ones you got made a splash - you got the new record for one update:

06.07, 12am 1,084,205 2

Beating the KMac mark by about 30k and with lower scoring 6903s. Nice.
Click to expand...

The sad thing is, this was with the points adjustment. It would have been very close to a 1.2M point update if it happened the day before.

As I suspected, everything is running 6901s now - no more 6903s to be found.
 
musky said:
The sad thing is, this was with the points adjustment. It would have been very close to a 1.2M point update if it happened the day before.

As I suspected, everything is running 6901s now - no more 6903s to be found.
Click to expand...

Thats too bad if its true across the board, our team output is SURGING right now.
 
I think we might have caught them off guard with how fast we are cranking these out. Not only the number of people with capable rigs, but aso the speed and power we have.

I think they were not expecting to have to refill the severs for a week :D
 
Kendrak said:
I think we might have caught them off guard with how fast we are cranking these out. Not only the number of people with capable rigs, but aso the speed and power we have.

I think they were not expecting to have to refill the severs for a week :D
Click to expand...

Bring on the 24 thread units... :D
 
R-Type said:
Bring on the 24 thread units... :D
Click to expand...

:)

I would still have a handful to run those....

need it to be split up....

new flags ;)
big, bigger, giant, omgwtfisthis
8, 12, 24, 48
 
Patriot said:
:)

I would still have a handful to run those....

need it to be split up....

new flags ;)
big, bigger, giant, omgwtfisthis
8, 12, 24, 48
Click to expand...

I would love nothing more than to have an -omgwtfisthis flag. Even these bigger units took barely over a day on the 4ps and barely over 2 on the SR-2s.
 
the deadline is a bit weird for those bigger WUs, 10 days and 4h+? I'll be finishing with 8 days+ to spare, and some of you guys with way more than that.

If the WUs are very time-sensitive (which is what that bonus is telling..) 10 days is a lot of wasted time if a WU doesn't get completed and no report is sent. :-/
 
404 - File not found said:
the deadline is a bit weird for those bigger WUs, 10 days and 4h+? I'll be finishing with 8 days+ to spare, and some of you guys with way more than that.

If the WUs are very time-sensitive (which is what that bonus is telling..) 10 days is a lot of wasted time if a WU doesn't get completed and no report is sent. :-/
Click to expand...

It is because of how they calculate the bonuses...
I think it should have a normal time.... and higher K or something...

Something for DAB ;)
 
do we know yet where the breaking point is in TPF where -bigbeta isn't worth running vs -bigadv??
 
1440:20

no... you can go make yourself a excel chart if you want though...

btw... -bigbeta gets the beta wu before public consumption... its a non-supported config for non-beta testers... general reminder...

these wu will go public at some time... after deemed stable and pts adjusted to where they should be (or wherever stanford feels like leaving them at)

there seems to be mixed vibes about non-beta team folders using the flags...
idc to be honest... don't support it and move on... those who are capable can do it... those that can't will fall back.

Give such terms as should and unsupported to a group of enthusiast overclockers and I am hardly surprised that so many people are using it...
 
So maybe my head math is off, but it would seem to me that a fast 8 thread machine (i.e. a 2600K) could complete these with plenty of time to spare before the preferred deadline. I could see the i7-920's of the world getting left in the dust, but the Sandies should in theory be able to finish.... Thoughts?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top