D
Deleted member 12106
Guest
7im and Bruce do not represent this team, nor to they speak for this team. Quite frankly, who follows them?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
To all folders "Folding Forum" needs your help
- Thread starter Bill1024
- Start date
Adak wants to be a rep for all teams. He is going to get a list together to present to PG.
Who approved that?
No one "approved" it. I am trying to help resolve a problem.
Do you believe we should NOT make a list of suggestions, and give it to PG? Just gripe about it, and do nothing?
Because I can show you posts in the FF of our same problem, from years ago. They made no difference whatsoever. Without taking some action, there will be no change from PG. Sad to say it, but it's historically been accurate.
If we want to talk directly to PG, we need to be working together, and do it through a spokesman. As individuals, we have not been able to communicate directly with PG, ever. Please correct me if that is not the case. Either we work together - united - or we shut up and forget about it.
What would you propose we do to improve the situation?
Last edited:
Did you ever hear from PG?
It's been 2 weeks since I PM Dr. Kasson without it being opened and it will probably be another 2 years before I delete the unopened PM to him.
I'm trying to figure out how Adak is going to get it into the right hands.
Only after going via VJ publicly. The response was: https://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=25411&p=253980#p253980
So then...
So then...
I will sleep on it and write it up in the morning.
How do you know if someone has not already been in contact with Kasson and VJ?
We are waiting to hear from them directly, People have already been in contact with them.
Unless you know them personally, why will they answer you first?
Going via FF administration is not the way to solve problems with FAH. I've been there.
It's a waste of time and mental health.
First objective should be getting direct communications channel with the project and
starting some regular discussions with the decision makers.
First, I'm keeping Bruce in the loop, and requesting he deliver the list to Vijay/PG, shortly after it's finished, on January 7th. On Jan. 10th, I will post the list on the thread in FF.
Without a united group of folders supporting it, that won't work. I'm going to have the list delivered to Vijay. He may refuse to open it, or not respond to an email. In that case, it will be delivered to him, personally. He may still ignore it.
In which case I'll know it's time to consider switching to WCG and/or other projects.(certainly not Rosetta!). This increase doesn't affect me, my 4P has 64 cores (4 x 6272), but the lack of meaningful communication, will show me that FAH is probably not the project I want to support further. I've made no final decision on this yet.
sbinh
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2008
- Messages
- 3,220
I will sleep on it and write it up in the morning.
How do you know if someone has not already been in contact with Kasson and VJ?
We are waiting to hear from them directly, People have already been in contact with them.
Unless you know them personally, why will they answer you first?
I'm not trying to be answered first. I'm trying to work something out so the problem is fixed for both PG members, and BA folders. I want to support Dr. Kasson's work, and FAH moving into larger projects, but making THREE changes to the BA threshold in a single year is simply no good, when the folders who are affected, are reduced to the very low points in current SMP folding.
Antagonizing so many good folders like Nathan_P, is just wrong! If we work with FAH, I know we can do better!
That's all I'm interested in.
sbinh said:
I believe it's time we worked with PG and etc, and solve the problem.
D
Deleted member 12106
Guest
Think of beavis and butthead as that kid in school who was eager to report to the teacher everything he saw, who was too afraid to leave after school w/o an adult.
The FF "staff" are not going to get you the results that are needed.
Be the rep we need and bypass the middle men.
The FF "staff" are not going to get you the results that are needed.
Be the rep we need and bypass the middle men.
I offered to work with them by showing them that if they ask, we would point our 4P server at SMP WUs I am going on 100 SMPs and 0 BA in the last 5 or 6 days.
Many others are doing it too just to show we will work with them.
Some want to hear from PG that in fact they do need help.
Yet some other will not help at all unless they raise the SMP points.
No matter what people do it's all good. Everyone has their reasons, that's fine with me.
My point is if we have a rep, that rep should be voted on. Not just some one say I will rep every folder. Does every folder want you to rep them? Have you asked or are you appointing yourself?
Maybe they are waiting to hire a go between the folders and PG before they answer us.
Bill, how will we all vote on a rep? How will all the teams running BA's be represented? Adak is doing the next best thing.
tear has offered to help PG but they haven't responded to his offer.
As far as PG hiring a PR person that's great but I'm afraid that they may invoke the "soon" protocol and for all that knows what "soon" means to PG on the FF...don't hold your breath.
Like I said if they haven't answered by now............
I think Tear or Grandpa are good choices.
Then Adak has to go the EVGA forum (2nd largest team)and let them know he is their rep to PG. And that he wants their input too. He has not done so as of yet.
I think they will respond to one of two things.
1: We show them we are willing to help them if they have a special need. (fold smp backlog) When asked the folders will be willing to help. The 'Honey" method
2: Their response has been "No one asked you to buy hardware to use for FAH only"
ok then everyone shuts down all the hardware they bought for FAH only and see how much folding really gets done. Only fold on your gaming system when it is on and not gaming. The "united workers" (donors) work slowdown/strike.
I do not want to see PG hurt, we are volunteer donors spending real money and are not bottomless pits full of cash to spend on hardware as PG sees fit..
I am almost to the point I do not care any more. Drama Drama Drama.
No Drama crunching.
Let's work through this, one time:
1) Your idea of showing PG we were willing to work with them was doomed from the start. Good try, but doomed.
Why?
Because we know from years of experience, that PG doesn't give a rat's patootie, about working with individual folders - and if they won't communicate with the likes of tear or GrandPa, then they surely won't work with you or me - as individuals. We also know that trying to work through the FF mods, as a channel to get to PG, is a waste of time.
I am keeping Bruce (and possibly more mods later), in the loop, and giving them the list first, as a courtesy, out of respect for their position.
Either we donors work as a group, or we don't work at all - it's that simple. And if that is important, why not try to include the mods?
2) I am not trying to become a BA team rep for the folders. I am trying to do my best to solve what I see, as a big problem.
I avoid posting on the EVGA forum. I have PM'd several of the BA posters, including several EVGA teammates, in the threshold change thread, including:
If you can think of others that should be included in the PM requests, let me know.
This is something we need to either work together with, or forget about. Working as an individual folder, will get you NOTHING but ignored.
If you or anyone else wants to campaign for a team rep on this matter, go right ahead.
Last edited:
They will do what they want, when they want always have and always will.
They could give two shits as to what you or I think.
From raising the core count, to sending out WUs that were burning up video cards, to making a whole line of video cards obsolete to raising the core count again...........................
And they will listen to you why?
Hey good luck with that.
I'll tell you what to tell them for me.
I am not a bottomless pit filled with cash and at least give us some ******* more warning that two ******* months.
Tim just made a reasonable post. Kinda makes sense.
https://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=25411&p=254937#p254932
https://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=25411&p=254937#p254932
I'll give your suggestions a bit of thought, Bill.;-)
If enough BA folders support the suggestions for PG, and we can show we're serious, then they'll listen. If not, then no, they won't listen. That's freedom for you, but we have that same freedom.
Tim's last section matches up with the #1 suggestions I've received so far. The top part of Tim's post is interesting, but irrelevant for our BA problem. What core is being used for SMP or BA, makes no difference to the BA folder. Do you care what color the bricks you are carrying up the hill, are painted? Of course not. We care about cores required, deadlines to fold, and points earned. We have to trust that the scientists are handling the rest of it.
If enough BA folders support the suggestions for PG, and we can show we're serious, then they'll listen. If not, then no, they won't listen. That's freedom for you, but we have that same freedom.
Tim's last section matches up with the #1 suggestions I've received so far. The top part of Tim's post is interesting, but irrelevant for our BA problem. What core is being used for SMP or BA, makes no difference to the BA folder. Do you care what color the bricks you are carrying up the hill, are painted? Of course not. We care about cores required, deadlines to fold, and points earned. We have to trust that the scientists are handling the rest of it.
Now something new and quite negative with regards to PPD for my part is taken place! As WU of the type 810x is being finished on my servers they are now replaced by the A3 Core WU of 856x, where the first that finished the 810x now folds its third SMP. This is on my 4650 servers, where PPD now is down to about 300 - 350K, which is approx 1/3 of normal for these machines. To me it seems that PG has now made ​​changes in what kind of WUs that is available, ie they have throttled access to WUer of bigadv kind. Possible this only applies to me since I've been a little agressive against PG and being "punished" this way, but I can not really believe that could be the case. Whatever the reason could be I think this is foul of PG since they only a short time ago announced that they wished BA-folders switched to standard SMP as volunteer. On various forums, most donors that fold BA have been against it if no bonus for SMP is first adjusted up. It will be interesting to see what happens next in this matter if this also is going happend to my 3 x G34 servers.
For my self I see this as disastrous for my PPD/Watt stat when I look the investment I have made for this task. My budget for 5 x 4P servers is about $30000, and they are now doing the same job as 5 GPU-card to a cost of $4 - $5000, and my power-draw could have been reduce to 1/3 of what it is. If this is to be continued I have no other choice then shut down my folding on those servers, and let them do something other then working for free to folding@home. Pardon me, but I'm reasonably pissed at the moment, and I hope this is not what I think it is. In the five years I've folded this has never happened before! Experiencing someone else the same as me?
For my self I see this as disastrous for my PPD/Watt stat when I look the investment I have made for this task. My budget for 5 x 4P servers is about $30000, and they are now doing the same job as 5 GPU-card to a cost of $4 - $5000, and my power-draw could have been reduce to 1/3 of what it is. If this is to be continued I have no other choice then shut down my folding on those servers, and let them do something other then working for free to folding@home. Pardon me, but I'm reasonably pissed at the moment, and I hope this is not what I think it is. In the five years I've folded this has never happened before! Experiencing someone else the same as me?
Thanks Linden, and I have also experienced this once or twice a week, but never like this, and on several servers at the same time. More donors on my team experiencer the same as we speak, so it looks like it is coming to more, and maybe all BA-folders. BA-servers is accepting finished 81xx WUs, but does not emit any new for now as I see it.
Last edited:
My G34 4P is also getting more SMP wu's. I would speculate that they have a backlog of SMP work units, and were forced to give them to the BA rigs, in order to keep the SMP project, moving forward as it should.
The points for the SMP projects, are not attracting enough SMP folders, currently.
The points for the SMP projects, are not attracting enough SMP folders, currently.
I do not think that is the case.
They are having problems getting GPU core 17 WUs out.
Problems with stats and BA server problems.
Looks like it's just some issues with the servers.
They are working on it.
That was most likely problem with primary assignment server
For some reason, secondary AS (assign2.stanford.edu) doesn't have BA assignment
code/configuration plugged in.
What it means is that, when primary AS is down, you won't get BA WU even if BA servers
are working fine.
When you look at your logs, you should find SMP WUs assignments being initiated from
assign2 contact.
For some reason, secondary AS (assign2.stanford.edu) doesn't have BA assignment
code/configuration plugged in.
What it means is that, when primary AS is down, you won't get BA WU even if BA servers
are working fine.
When you look at your logs, you should find SMP WUs assignments being initiated from
assign2 contact.
sbinh
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2008
- Messages
- 3,220
PG is testing to check your reaction .... kakaka
Grandpa_01
[H]ard|DCer of the Year 2013
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2011
- Messages
- 1,175
Kasson responds with background, but no answers.
https://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=25411&start=399
by kasson » Fri Jan 03, 2014 2:06 pm
The idea of BA in the first place was indeed for these "extra-demanding" work units where 1) speed is important because the systems we simulate are larger/slower, so we need more computation to get useful results and 2) the larger nature of the simulation meant an increased use of system resources that we might not explicitly benchmark for (memory, upload/download bandwidth, etc.). The goal of having a separate bigadv flag was to let donors opt in to these more resource-intensive work units that could cause problems on slow links, etc. And the goal of the BA bonus was to have a ~20% boost to recognize the demand on resources that was not explicitly reflected in benchmarking.
The BA vs. SMP points yield comes down to a few things. 1) BA-eligible machines are usually fast-end, so they are getting higher QRB whatever they're running. 2) large, not just long, simulation systems tend to scale better (e.g. 4x the cores -> 4x the performance) than very small simulation systems. SMP work units are a mix of sizes--we have some regular SMP projects that should scale essentially the same as BA through at least 128 cores if not 256--but some won't scale quite as well. 3) because BA work units are more resource-intensive, the benchmarking has been harder: BA work units run more slowly than one would expect on our standard benchmark machines, and some of the SMP work units that don't scale as well would run more slowly than expected on good BA machines. That's why the points assignment has been less trivial than we'd like. It is possible (likely?) that this has caused a greater points discrepancy for BA vs. SMP than originally intended. There are a number of reasons (not just core count but NUMA configuration and more subtle things) why not all work units/projects will scale the same between different machines. We'd really like some more consistent way of assigning points, but we haven't come up with something that we like better, think is simple and easy to understand, and think is reasonably secure.
Hope this helps a bit with some of the technical questions.
https://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=25411&start=399
by kasson » Fri Jan 03, 2014 2:06 pm
The idea of BA in the first place was indeed for these "extra-demanding" work units where 1) speed is important because the systems we simulate are larger/slower, so we need more computation to get useful results and 2) the larger nature of the simulation meant an increased use of system resources that we might not explicitly benchmark for (memory, upload/download bandwidth, etc.). The goal of having a separate bigadv flag was to let donors opt in to these more resource-intensive work units that could cause problems on slow links, etc. And the goal of the BA bonus was to have a ~20% boost to recognize the demand on resources that was not explicitly reflected in benchmarking.
The BA vs. SMP points yield comes down to a few things. 1) BA-eligible machines are usually fast-end, so they are getting higher QRB whatever they're running. 2) large, not just long, simulation systems tend to scale better (e.g. 4x the cores -> 4x the performance) than very small simulation systems. SMP work units are a mix of sizes--we have some regular SMP projects that should scale essentially the same as BA through at least 128 cores if not 256--but some won't scale quite as well. 3) because BA work units are more resource-intensive, the benchmarking has been harder: BA work units run more slowly than one would expect on our standard benchmark machines, and some of the SMP work units that don't scale as well would run more slowly than expected on good BA machines. That's why the points assignment has been less trivial than we'd like. It is possible (likely?) that this has caused a greater points discrepancy for BA vs. SMP than originally intended. There are a number of reasons (not just core count but NUMA configuration and more subtle things) why not all work units/projects will scale the same between different machines. We'd really like some more consistent way of assigning points, but we haven't come up with something that we like better, think is simple and easy to understand, and think is reasonably secure.
Hope this helps a bit with some of the technical questions.