So, do we have a decision to make?

What should we do?

  • UD was great. Let's rock the heck out of the Roos!

    Votes: 36 50.0%
  • I would like to select another project.

    Votes: 34 47.2%
  • I will no longer participate.

    Votes: 2 2.8%

  • Total voters
    72

AtomicMoose

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 26, 2001
Messages
11,803
With UD going by the wayside, I wanted to get the teams pulse. Please vote in the poll and leave comments here.

edit: If you would like to pick another project, please post the project and why you like it.

What should we do?
 
i dont know how to vote. I just run F@H and only F@H.

but im always for kicking ass in as many of ways as possible :)
 
We should make sure that whatever project we add to our team is compatible with all of the older farm equipment, I know I was planning on adding to the UD stuff as soon as the proposed Linux client came out. Some of my farm boxen are getting a little slow for the new protiens and switching them to UD as soon as the Linux client came out was where they were going to run.

So whatever project we add should be as Multi-OS friendly as possible.

Just my 7.6 cents worth, ( inflation don't you know :D )

http://www.hardfolding.com/index.php?go=1029&tnum=33&id=102&type=223
 
We should make sure that whatever project we add to our team is compatible with all of the older farm equipment, I know I was planning on adding to the UD stuff as soon as the proposed Linux client came out. Some of my farm boxen are getting a little slow for the new protiens and switching them to UD as soon as the Linux client came out was where they were going to run.

So whatever project we add should be as Multi-OS friendly as possible.

Just my 7.6 cents worth, ( inflation don't you know :D )
 
We should make sure that whatever project we add to our team is compatible with all of the older farm equipment, I know I was planning on adding to the UD stuff as soon as the proposed Linux client came out. Some of my farm boxen are getting a little slow for the new protiens and switching them to UD as soon as the Linux client came out was where they were going to run.

So whatever project we add should be as Multi-OS friendly as possible.

Just my 7.6 cents worth, ( inflation don't you know :D )

I agree, I would like to participate to a project who are made toward older and slower hardware

 
I say throw all the UD power into folding@home and make Stanford cry at the number of WUs we complete.

:D

 
problem is, my UD boxen complete a wu in 24 hours, they would take 7 days to crunch a 186 point gromacs :( not even worth turning them on for that slow an output, my XT1900XTX outproduces 20 boxen like that. I can't even think about a C2D rig now. Maybe if I fleabay all the stuff from the UD boxen I could afford a d805 or something similarly low end smp. Lets try to find a project that can make use of all the crappers we all seem to own.
 
I am all for adding a replacement project, but I need someone to do some footwork for us.

Also, I would prefer to stay with the humanitarian theme. Cancer research, drug research...something along those lines.
 
I too would like to contribute to a project that could utilize my older gear. It's not really worth selling, alot of stuff from P2-400 through AMD 2600+ Was great on UD, not so for FaH. I too was waiting for the new linux stuff to come out for UD and then was going to unleash about 18 PC's on it.

I like the idea of FaH being the place for newer gear and then rolling stuff off to a secondary project that does well with it.


 
That's not a bad way to look at it, Charp.

We could encourage F@H to our members with newer machines and project xyz to members with older hardware.
 
That's not a bad way to look at it, Charp.

We could encourage F@H to our members with newer machines and project xyz to members with older hardware.

I agree, it's a good plan. I'm ready to do some footwork but we need to share what projects to check since it's a bit too much to check everything alone. This will obviously include some work reading their own forums and gathering the software offerings for each project.

Here is a small list of things we would like to have :

-Multi-platform client (Linux, Windows and others.).
-Can be used on old hardware with reasonable turnaround for WU (less than 2-3 days per WU).
-Provide research for anything related to health (Aids, Cancer, diseases).
-Offer a interesting points system and being able to update stats on [H]Folding.
-The project need to be around for at least 1 year since it would suck to hop on a new project just to get face to closed doors in little time and is backed by a well known organization or university.

What do you think of this ?

 
I would love to see a project that would run well on older equipment.. all of my boxen are old, and F@H is almost a futile effort on my part.

I would absolutely dedicate my older machines to a new humanitarian cause.


 
I agree, it's a good plan. I'm ready to do some footwork but we need to share what projects to check since it's a bit too much to check everything alone. This will obviously include some work reading their own forums and gathering the software offerings for each project.

Here is a small list of things we would like to have :

-Multi-platform client (Linux, Windows and others.).
-Can be used on old hardware with reasonable turnaround for WU (less than 2-3 days per WU).
-Provide research for anything related to health (Aids, Cancer, diseases).
-Offer a interesting points system and being able to update stats on [H]Folding.
-The project need to be around for at least 1 year since it would suck to hop on a new project just to get face to closed doors in little time and is backed by a well known organization or university.

What do you think of this ?

Sounds like a good place to start.
 
I like F@H

no aliens or decryption for me

and nothing for profit
 
Sounds like a good place to start.

So tossing out particle acclerators, aliens and decryption... and going from the list from another post, the options aren't huge.

Quick and dirty:

Compute against Cancer (http://www.computeagainstcancer.org/index.jsp ) supports Windows/Linux/OSX but I can’t find any good stats.


World Community Grid (http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/index.jsp )seems to be the non ‘proof of concept’ version of UD. Supported by IBM and using the BOINC client for windows/Linux/OSX as well as the UD client for windows. Stats seem to be very much like UD’s: http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/stat/viewGlobal.do

Fight AIDS@Home (http://fightaidsathome.scripps.edu/faq.html ) uses the world community grid software just restricted to only AIDS project research
 
For a start, here is a list :

> World Community Grid ( http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/ ), operated by IBM
> Distributed.net ( http://www.distributed.net/ ), operated by distributed.net
> Compute Against Cancer ( http://www.computeagainstcancer.org/ ), operated by National Cancer Institute
> fightAIDS@Home ( http://fightaidsathome.scripps.edu/ ), operated by Olson Lab at Scripps Research Institute
> LHC@home ( http://athome.web.cern.ch/athome/ ), operated by CERN
> Distributed Folding ( http://www.distributedfolding.org/ ), operated by a group of partners including Hogue Bioinformatics Research Lab, Mount Sinai Hospital, and University of Toronto
> SETI@home ( http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ), operated by University of California at Berkeley


For now, we can delete SETI and distributed.net for non-health goals. We could also delete World Community Grid since it's funded by IBM, thereby unclear if it is for non-profit or not. Remain this :

> Compute Against Cancer ( http://www.computeagainstcancer.org/ ), operated by National Cancer Institute
> fightAIDS@Home ( http://fightaidsathome.scripps.edu/ ), operated by Olson Lab at Scripps Research Institute
> LHC@home ( http://athome.web.cern.ch/athome/ ), operated by CERN
> Distributed Folding ( http://www.distributedfolding.org/ ), operated by a group of partners including Hogue Bioinformatics Research Lab, Mount Sinai Hospital, and University of Toronto

LHC@home has a unclear goal but if we look further in it, particle accelerators could have some findings in the medical applications but it's geared more toward physics science, so not very useful.

The rest look nice, remain to check everything in each of the projects to find answers to our list of questions.




EDIT : Posted at the same time as charpman :p However, with the WCG, I found a HardOCP team in there : http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/team/viewTeamInfo.do?teamId=BP5XNJBR9N1 so we should look from there since I don't know the captain's name... Also, on the forum, there is a interesting topic : http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/forums/wcg/viewthread?thread=12899
 
Well, if you rule out profit and WCG as possibily profitable, that leaves only Compute For Cancer. The FightAids@Home is just WCG "advertised" differently. It uses thier client just project restricted.

Compute for Cancer doesn't meet the stats requirement, unless someone else can find them.

On the plus side, WCG using the BOINC client it does seem possible to set up "headless" PXE boot farms. Something I at least am very interested in doing since I have so many older PC's to set up.

Oh ya, Distributed Folding says "The project is currently out of operation" - that doesn't sound good.

So....I'm at a loss. :mad:
 
Well, if you rule out profit and WCG as possibily profitable, that leaves only Compute For Cancer. The FightAids@Home is just WCG "advertised" differently. It uses thier client just project restricted.

Compute for Cancer doesn't meet the stats requirement, unless someone else can find them.

On the plus side, WCG using the BOINC client it does seem possible to set up "headless" PXE boot farms. Something I at least am very interested in doing since I have so many older PC's to set up.

Oh ya, Distributed Folding says "The project is currently out of operation" - that doesn't sound good.

So....I'm at a loss. :mad:


After checking WCG a bit, I'm inclined to change my opinion and say it's close to UD in terms of participation, system and such. They even had a tidbit about UD so they are somewhat related. Yes, you are right about the BOINC client and WCG have a list of projects to participate so unless someone find a better one, I'm inclinded to say that this would be our best candidate for the alternative DC project.




EDIT : Another wrench in the mix : http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/

EDITAGAIN : http://distributedcomputing.info/projects.html list all the known distributed computing projects, classified by type o_O
 
Systems reqs seem to meet the requirements.
systemreqs.png
 
Okay, added Rosetta.

Here is what I have so far:

1.)World Community Grid ( http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/ ), operated by IBM
CLIENT SUPPORT:
Windows/Linux/OSX (min. varies by project 160mhz Pentium lowest)
UD Client
"headless" PXE boot
PROS
Multi-Client, lower end PC requirements
UD like Stats
CONS
Possibtly for profit.

2.)Distributed.net ( http://www.distributed.net/ ), operated by distributed.net
RULED OUT: non-health related

3.)Compute Against Cancer ( http://www.computeagainstcancer.org/ ), operated by National Cancer Institute
CLIENT SUPPORT:
Windows/Linux/OSX (min. 600MHz, 128megs ram, Kernal 2.4)
PROS:
Multi-client, lower end PC requirements
CONS:
Can't find good stats

4.)fightAIDS@Home ( http://fightaidsathome.scripps.edu/ ), operated by Olson Lab at Scripps Research Institute
Is World Community Grid software project restrcited to AIDS only.
RULED OUT: if WCG is ruled out. If not, makes more sense to just use WCG and support multiple projects.

5.)LHC@home ( http://athome.web.cern.ch/athome/ ), operated by CERN
RULED OUT: non-health related

6.)Distributed Folding ( http://www.distributedfolding.org/ ), operated by a group of partners including Hogue Bioinformatics Research Lab, Mount Sinai Hospital, and University of Toronto
Currently states: The project is currently out of operation

7.)SETI@home ( http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/ ), operated by University of California at Berkeley
RULE OUT: non-health related

8.) Rosetta@Home ( http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/ )
CLIENT SUPPORT: uses BOINC so same as WCG - slightly higher min. hardware reqs than WCG but WCG has low reqs only for some projects.
PROS: same as WCG
CONS:

Big List of all DC projects: http://distributedcomputing.info/projects.html

I have to take off and run some errands now so I can't put any more effort on this right now.
 
I just downloaded and installed the BIONIC client and attached to the R@H project. The client is proxy aware and installs easily...with one exception. It needs to download a .exe file to run. This may prove problematic for corp farmers....I am working with this now to see if there is a way around it.
 
10 reasons by feet1st


10) Runs on Mac and Linux too. Everyone can help.

9) Winning CASP team, I like being a part of a winning team.

8) If your in to credits and on a team, the project is new enough it's not as hard to climb to the top spots.

7) Work always ready for download from top notch servers, no lost crunch time waiting for work.

6) Helpful message board community

5) Dr. Baker gives science updates personally.

4) Active and responsive project team.

3) Graphics help you understand how it works.

2) *I* control how long I want each work unit to run.

1) Compelling mission, technology that could basically wipe out disease as we know it!


10 reasons by tralala

10. You get credits even for failed Work Units!

9. Scientifically renowned project leader!

8. No outages - work always available!

7. Nice and active community!

6. User setable length of Work units!

5. Nice and responsive project team!

4. Detailed science updates and transparency what's done!

3. Competition in CASP7 with the winning team!

2. Potential live saving long-term-goals and concrete short-term-goals!

1. Cutting edge research!


.
.
.


This is not an endorsement of Rosetta

I like F@H

just an FYI
 
Wasnt there a weather project that was working on examining storm cells and helping to predict them better? LPerry was doing soem work with it for awhile just not sure what ever happen to it.
 
Wasnt there a weather project that was working on examining storm cells and helping to predict them better? LPerry was doing soem work with it for awhile just not sure what ever happen to it.

http://climateprediction.net/

it's also in the BONIC program I think, under BONIC there are atleast a dozen different DC programs.
 
In my opinion, we should pick one from WCG or R@H as both has their own advantages and disadvantages. My beloved moose, can you make a poll with those choices if everyone agree ?
 
I don't see any other projects that have been listed that I think we as a team should support. I say stick with folding for the time being until something good comes along to replace UD.
 
I don't see any other projects that have been listed that I think we as a team should support. I say stick with folding for the time being until something good comes along to replace UD.

Agreed. We are already very strong under F@H, might as well unite under one flag and call it day.
 
As much as I would love to see Team 33 for F@H get a huge infusion of people and dominate even more than we already do, another project needs to be selected. This has one caveat. It must be worthy of the [H]orde and that's not an easy thing to be.

I'm not going to get into what project should be done or why; at least not right now I won't.

I feel it needs to be said that many people ran UD for a reason. That reason was Stanford and problems that were "caused" by them. I'm not going to get into the history and it does not need to be repeated. DO NOT ASK. You will not receive an answer.

This just means we need another project. There should be no reason to lose UD folders because we refuse to support another project that's worthy of our efforts. Some, maybe many, UD folders could come over to F@H. However, not all will and we don't want anyone to grudgingly come over. They have their reasons for wanting to stay away and they should not be "forced" to join.

As far as I'm concerned, this poll should be closed. If anything, there should only be discussion about finding another worthy project.

 
aye, and some of us just have old hardware that doesn't do well with FaH but would like to contribute to one of the projects where it can make a difference.

I found this intersting: http://boinc.berkeley.edu/dev/forum_thread.php?id=328&nowrap=true#9167 rumored possibility of BOINC and Rosetta on the Xbox 360....

Any of the BOINC projects would be great I think. Lots of stuff out there to run diskless farms. A modified version of BartPE - called BOINCpe: http://blog.schreiter.info/index.php/boincpe-livecd-for-boinc/ and for Linux K12 LTSP: http://forums.teamphoenixrising.net/archive/index.php?t-32394.html
 
As much as I would love to see Team 33 for F@H get a huge infusion of people and dominate even more than we already do, another project needs to be selected. This has one caveat. It must be worthy of the [H]orde and that's not an easy thing to be.

I'm not going to get into what project should be done or why; at least not right now I won't.

I feel it needs to be said that many people ran UD for a reason. That reason was Stanford and problems that were "caused" by them. I'm not going to get into the history and it does not need to be repeated. DO NOT ASK. You will not receive an answer.

This just means we need another project. There should be no reason to lose UD folders because we refuse to support another project that's worthy of our efforts. Some, maybe many, UD folders could come over to F@H. However, not all will and we don't want anyone to grudgingly come over. They have their reasons for wanting to stay away and they should not be "forced" to join.

As far as I'm concerned, this poll should be closed. If anything, there should only be discussion about finding another worthy project.


For starters, most of the problems that existed with F@H do not exist anymore. No, it's not perfect, but IMHO it is the best out there.

However, your later argument does not really make much sense to me. You say you want to come up with a new project so that UDers aren't being forced over to F@H, but how is sending them to a different project any different? If the masses choose another project, they are still more or less being forced into one or the other. I don't want things to turn into a grudge match any more than the next guy, but I don't think it will be so easy and pick a new project and everyone is happy. My opinion, for what it is worth, is to make F@H our main concern. If there are UDers out there who don't want to fold, then let them find their own project to fold for... [H] cannot adopt every team, and I don't think all the UDers coming over will agree on a new project. Furthermore, those who did UD, what's to say there is another project out there better suited for them than F@H would be. F@H is tried and true, and the team seems to know the ins and outs to taking full advantage of it. With a new project, everyone starts from scratch. I just don't see it as going over well. If a new team was adopted, I think it would get far less support than UD did, and UD was pretty lacking in team members anyways.
 
For starters, most of the problems that existed with F@H do not exist anymore. No, it's not perfect, but IMHO it is the best out there.

However, your later argument does not really make much sense to me. You say you want to come up with a new project so that UDers aren't being forced over to F@H, but how is sending them to a different project any different? If the masses choose another project, they are still more or less being forced into one or the other. I don't want things to turn into a grudge match any more than the next guy, but I don't think it will be so easy and pick a new project and everyone is happy. My opinion, for what it is worth, is to make F@H our main concern. If there are UDers out there who don't want to fold, then let them find their own project to fold for... [H] cannot adopt every team, and I don't think all the UDers coming over will agree on a new project. Furthermore, those who did UD, what's to say there is another project out there better suited for them than F@H would be. F@H is tried and true, and the team seems to know the ins and outs to taking full advantage of it. With a new project, everyone starts from scratch. I just don't see it as going over well. If a new team was adopted, I think it would get far less support than UD did, and UD was pretty lacking in team members anyways.

I'm curious, if you don't have a stake in it, why you care so much about what others do? If you aren't going to join a new team with slower PC's then .... okay, I don't see your concern. Do you think it will detract from FaH? If so do you think that if [H] didn't adopt a new project those same people wouldn't leave anyway?

I just don't understand your negative attitued towards this. I see his as only a win win positive thing. If you have no stake in it, doubly don't grok it.

I for one will be joining a new project with the PC's I had on UD and the 18+ I have that were going to join UD. FaH simply isn't an option for them. I would perfer that the project I join is one that [H] is a part of, but it's not necessary.
 
For starters, most of the problems that existed with F@H do not exist anymore. No, it's not perfect, but IMHO it is the best out there.

However, your later argument does not really make much sense to me. You say you want to come up with a new project so that UDers aren't being forced over to F@H, but how is sending them to a different project any different? If the masses choose another project, they are still more or less being forced into one or the other. I don't want things to turn into a grudge match any more than the next guy, but I don't think it will be so easy and pick a new project and everyone is happy. My opinion, for what it is worth, is to make F@H our main concern. If there are UDers out there who don't want to fold, then let them find their own project to fold for... [H] cannot adopt every team, and I don't think all the UDers coming over will agree on a new project. Furthermore, those who did UD, what's to say there is another project out there better suited for them than F@H would be. F@H is tried and true, and the team seems to know the ins and outs to taking full advantage of it. With a new project, everyone starts from scratch. I just don't see it as going over well. If a new team was adopted, I think it would get far less support than UD did, and UD was pretty lacking in team members anyways.

Yes, our F@H team (of which I have been an exclusive member of for several years) is strong. It's probably stronger than it "needs" to be. Outside of default team and default PS3'ers, there's not one team that can come anywhere near us right now. I understand things can change but we can always recruit more people, build more boxen, upgrade more boxen and borg more boxen. It's not really a contest if there's no real competition.

As for history, some of the problems have been fixed but not all of them by any means. A lot of people have a bad taste in their mouths caused by Stanford. Even if these people joined up or joined back up to F@H, do you think they would really give it the time and attention that they could if they do so grudgingly? Not likely. It's a lot better for everyone involved to have another project sanctioned by the [H]orde that they would be happy to join.

I stand by my reasons for finding a second project. Diversity is often a good thing. I would rather see [H]orde members sticking with us on another project than going to another project by themselves or with another team. This is about the [H]orde, not a single project.

 
I'm curious, if you don't have a stake in it, why you care so much about what others do? If you aren't going to join a new team with slower PC's then .... okay, I don't see your concern. Do you think it will detract from FaH? If so do you think that if [H] didn't adopt a new project those same people wouldn't leave anyway?

I just don't understand your negative attitued towards this. I see his as only a win win positive thing. If you have no stake in it, doubly don't grok it.

Sorry, I don't mean to be negative. I guess I am looking at it from the angle of if F@H is our only project, it stands to benefit more than if we adopt something else that just becomes another team underdog. If we could introduce a new team and actually get a good deal of support for it, that would be great, but I honestly do not see that happening.
 
Yes, our F@H team (of which I have been an exclusive member of for several years) is strong. It's probably stronger than it "needs" to be. Outside of default team and default PS3'ers, there's not one team that can come anywhere near us right now. I understand things can change but we can always recruit more people, build more boxen, upgrade more boxen and borg more boxen. It's not really a contest if there's no real competition.

As for history, some of the problems have been fixed but not all of them by any means. A lot of people have a bad taste in their mouths caused by Stanford. Even if these people joined up or joined back up to F@H, do you think they would really give it the time and attention that they could if they do so grudgingly? Not likely. It's a lot better for everyone involved to have another project sanctioned by the [H]orde that they would be happy to join.

I stand by my reasons for finding a second project. Diversity is often a good thing. I would rather see [H]orde members sticking with us on another project than going to another project by themselves or with another team. This is about the [H]orde, not a single project.


Trust me, I don't want people coming to F@H grudgingly. Rather, I would hope that those who had a grudge with the project several years ago would be over it by now, and at least give it a fair shake. I still have to wonder, to anyone who holds a grudge against F@H, what says there is a better DC project out there?
 
I for one will be joining a new project with the PC's I had on UD and the 18+ I have that were going to join UD. FaH simply isn't an option for them. I would perfer that the project I join is one that [H] is a part of, but it's not necessary.

My question for you then, as raised before, is what says there are any other projects out there to suit your needs? Why is F@H not an option, and how do you know a different project out there will work where F@H wont? What happens if a new project is adopted, and it is not one that will work in your situation?

I don't want to alienate anyone, I guess I really just have no run into any area's where F@H would not work well. Maybe for very old boxen, but at that point I have to wonder how much they are contributing anyways, and if it is not time to retire some old boxen and get something new? If some of you could perhaps provide examples where F@H is not a viable option where another project is, I would likely be more open to something new.
 
Trust me, I don't want people coming to F@H grudgingly. Rather, I would hope that those who had a grudge with the project several years ago would be over it by now, and at least give it a fair shake. I still have to wonder, to anyone who holds a grudge against F@H, what says there is a better DC project out there?

Trust me, if I had been screwed over by Stanford the way some of our guys were, I'd still be holding a grudge too. I was around when some of it happened, but much of it was before I even joined the forum. I folded for the [H]orde, but didn't announce my presence anywhere and because of that, I didn't follow a lot of what happened. I believe all the forum topics about it were lost long ago during a forum pruning.

Let's just say the problem is more complicated. Many of the problems were caused by Stanford but it didn't stop at just that. Let's just leave it at that. They have their reasons which are valid. If you trust my word on that, fine. If not, that's fine also.

 
Back
Top