Did FAH ever consider to move to BOINC?

Moderators: Site Moderators, FAHC Science Team

Did FAH ever consider to move to BOINC?

Postby fangfufu » Thu Mar 19, 2020 6:57 am

Obviously FAH predates BOINC, did Pande group ever consider moving abandon FAH and run everything on BOINC? What is the reason behind maintaining separate FAH codebase? I can think of many myself, but it would be great to hear from people who are more closely associated with the project. Bonus question, does Pande group still exist? Does Pande group still run their experiments on FAH?
Folder:
- Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4900MQ (running on two thread to prevent thermal throttling...)
- Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-4200M

I first started folding back in the Google Compute days!
fangfufu
 
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 4:26 am
Location: Norwich, United Kingdom

Re: Did FAH ever consider to move to BOINC?

Postby Joe_H » Thu Mar 19, 2020 7:47 am

Yes, there are some much older topics here on that. Basically they found too many incompatibilities in the way they were doing things and the way BOINC was doing things for it to be a good match.

As for the actual Pande Lab, there may be some people still handling things there, others with closer contacts can comment on that. But the various grad students finished up their degrees and Dr. Pande is working for a private company. What is behind F@h at this point is referred to as the F@h Consortium - https://foldingathome.org/about/the-fol ... onsortium/. A number of the researchers at these labs are former grad students or post-docs at Pande Lab. Dr. Bowman at WUSTL is the Director.
Image

iMac 2.8 i7 12 GB smp8, Mac Pro 2.8 quad 12 GB smp6
MacBook Pro 2.9 i7 8 GB smp3
Joe_H
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6345
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 5:41 pm
Location: W. MA

Re: Did FAH ever consider to move to BOINC?

Postby bruce » Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:34 am

BOINC was originally designed based on the needs of seti@home. (Yes, iI has come a long way since then.) If you intend to analyze the radio signals within a specific part of the spectrum from a small patch of sky. It makes no difference which analysis is completed first or last as long as they all get analyzed. Each one has a rather loose deadline, of course but finishing your assignment early earns zero bonus. FAH, on the other hand cares very much how quickly you finish your assignment and which assignments must be completed first. Those facts lead FAH to grant generous bonuses for rapid returns and penaleies for exceeding the deadline.

That difference in philosophies has led to a rather extreme differences in goals an methodologies that are essentially incompatible.
bruce
 
Posts: 19429
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: So. Cal.

Re: Did FAH ever consider to move to BOINC?

Postby NBR » Tue Jun 30, 2020 12:36 pm

bruce wrote:BOINC was originally designed based on the needs of seti@home. (Yes, iI has come a long way since then.) If you intend to analyze the radio signals within a specific part of the spectrum from a small patch of sky. It makes no difference which analysis is completed first or last as long as they all get analyzed. Each one has a rather loose deadline, of course but finishing your assignment early earns zero bonus. FAH, on the other hand cares very much how quickly you finish your assignment and which assignments must be completed first. Those facts lead FAH to grant generous bonuses for rapid returns and penaleies for exceeding the deadline.

That difference in philosophies has led to a rather extreme differences in goals an methodologies that are essentially incompatible.

Great explanation. :)
NBR
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed May 20, 2020 12:11 am
Location: Brasília, DF, Brazil

Re: Did FAH ever consider to move to BOINC?

Postby Endgame124 » Tue Jun 30, 2020 2:41 pm

bruce wrote:BOINC was originally designed based on the needs of seti@home. (Yes, iI has come a long way since then.) If you intend to analyze the radio signals within a specific part of the spectrum from a small patch of sky. It makes no difference which analysis is completed first or last as long as they all get analyzed. Each one has a rather loose deadline, of course but finishing your assignment early earns zero bonus. FAH, on the other hand cares very much how quickly you finish your assignment and which assignments must be completed first. Those facts lead FAH to grant generous bonuses for rapid returns and penaleies for exceeding the deadline.

That difference in philosophies has led to a rather extreme differences in goals an methodologies that are essentially incompatible.

Boinc can be used for protein folding with quick turn around times - check Rosetta@Home - so it’s not just focused on the seti use case. That said, I’m pretty sure Rosetta is fairly different than F@H in end folding goal as well.
Endgame124
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2020 2:22 am

Re: Did FAH ever consider to move to BOINC?

Postby Jonazz » Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:11 pm

Rosetta does not/barely simulate the protein folding process. They predict the 3D structure of proteins computationally and design new proteins.
Jonazz
 
Posts: 249
Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 3:08 pm


Return to Discussions of General-FAH topics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Demmers and 2 guests

cron