Is Folding -bigadv on less than 8 threads cheating? [Yes]

The most demanding Projects are only available to a small percentage of very high-end servers.

Moderators: Site Moderators, PandeGroup

Is Folding -bigadv on less than 8 threads cheating? [Yes]

Postby zodac » Fri Sep 03, 2010 9:35 pm

I am not asking if this is possible. I am asking if it is allowed.

I'm looking for an official word on this. If we can get a -bigadv WU on an x6, and can complete it in time for bonuses, does Stanford have any problem with that?

I don't want to encourage and promote this if Stanford don't want it happening.

Thank you.

Edit:Sorry... this should be in the -bigadv section... not the [not Bigadv] section :oops:
Image
zodac
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 11:17 pm

Re: Is Folding -bigadv on less than 8 thread against the rules?

Postby patonb » Fri Sep 03, 2010 11:25 pm

No its not, but you won't get a big advc unit as your system neededs to report to the server it has 8 cores.
WooHoo = L5639 @ 3.3Ghz Evga SR-2 6x2gb Corsair XMS3 CM 212+ Corsair 1050hx Blackhawk Ultra EVGA 560ti

Foldie = i7 950@ 4.0Ghz x58a-ud3r 216-216 @ 850/2000 3x2gb OCZ Gold NH-u12 Heatsink Corsair hx520 Antec 900
patonb
 
Posts: 1072
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2008 2:42 am

Re: Is Folding -bigadv on less than 8 thread against the rules?

Postby P5-133XL » Sat Sep 04, 2010 1:27 am

There is no rule against it. That being said, the client/Work servers won't give you a -bigadv WU as they query the processor and only give out those WU's to CPU's with 8+ cores. So what you would have to do is get the WU from another machine that did qualify; sneakernet it to your non-qualifying machine to finish it but make sure that it does not return it when done (The servers check to make sure that the WU is being returned by the original machine that it was issued to); Then sneaker net it back to the original machine so it can return it. All-in-all a very big pain in the you know what.

I can't believe that it is worth all that hand manipulation and unless you are constantly on top of the process you are going to introduce delays that will harm your PPD significantly. So I would argue that it is just all around better just to stick with the A3's that the non-bigadv machine actually qualifies for.
Image
P5-133XL
 
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 4:36 am
Location: Salem. OR USA

Re: Is Folding -bigadv on less than 8 thread against the rules?

Postby zodac » Sat Sep 04, 2010 2:22 am

patonb wrote:No its not, but you won't get a big advc unit as your system neededs to report to the server it has 8 cores.


I'm not asking if it's possible; I'm asking if it is permissible.

P5-133XL wrote:There is no rule against it. That being said, the client/Work servers won't give you a -bigadv WU as they query the processor and only give out those WU's to CPU's with 8+ cores. So what you would have to do is get the WU from another machine that did qualify; sneakernet it to your non-qualifying machine to finish it but make sure that it does not return it when done (The servers check to make sure that the WU is being returned by the original machine that it was issued to); Then sneaker net it back to the original machine so it can return it. All-in-all a very big pain in the you know what.

I can't believe that it is worth all that hand manipulation and unless you are constantly on top of the process you are going to introduce delays that will harm your PPD significantly. So I would argue that it is just all around better just to stick with the A3's that the non-bigadv machine actually qualifies for.


Again, I'm not asking if it's possible, we've already cleared that issue up. I'm asking if Stanford have anything against it.
zodac
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 11:17 pm

Re: Is Folding -bigadv on less than 8 thread against the rules?

Postby lanbrown » Sat Sep 04, 2010 4:35 am

zodac wrote:Again, I'm not asking if it's possible, we've already cleared that issue up. I'm asking if Stanford have anything against it.


They must or they would allow it. If they were for it, then they would issue those WU's to machines with 6-cores. You can't get anymore official on their stance than that.
lanbrown
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 1:21 am

Re: Is Folding -bigadv on less than 8 thread against the rules?

Postby P5-133XL » Sat Sep 04, 2010 6:22 am

I'm not them, so I can't say if they care. All I can say definitively is that it is not their intention that X6's be used. But then it was not their original intention that i7's be able to run them either, but they do. As long as you follow the EULA and get the WU's in before their preferred deadline I doubt they will do anything about it more than start issuing WU's that you can't complete in time so that you are forced to go back to A3's.
P5-133XL
 
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 4:36 am
Location: Salem. OR USA

Re: Is Folding -bigadv on less than 8 thread against the rules?

Postby Nathan_P » Sat Sep 04, 2010 10:28 am

P5-133XL wrote:I'm not them, so I can't say if they care. All I can say definitively is that it is not their intention that X6's be used. But then it was not their original intention that i7's be able to run them either, but they do. As long as you follow the EULA and get the WU's in before their preferred deadline I doubt they will do anything about it more than start issuing WU's that you can't complete in time so that you are forced to go back to A3's.


And it has just been proved that an x6 can do a project in time
Image
Nathan_P
 
Posts: 1701
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 9:22 pm
Location: Jersey, Channel islands

Re: Is Folding -bigadv on less than 8 thread against the rules?

Postby zodac » Sat Sep 04, 2010 1:58 pm

lanbrown wrote:
zodac wrote:Again, I'm not asking if it's possible, we've already cleared that issue up. I'm asking if Stanford have anything against it.


They must or they would allow it. If they were for it, then they would issue those WU's to machines with 6-cores. You can't get anymore official on their stance than that.


The thing is, an x6 requires a high OC, and running almost completely 24/7 to complete a -bigadv WU. There's less room to manouvre than an i7, but it is possible. So while they don't give out -bigadv WUs to x6s (because it would just result in a load of unfinished WUs), they can be completed, and I want to know what Stanford think.
zodac
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 11:17 pm

Re: Is Folding -bigadv on less than 8 thread against the rules?

Postby P5-133XL » Sat Sep 04, 2010 4:40 pm

Nathan_P wrote:And it has just been proved that an x6 can do a project in time


As pointed out to me earlier, the question is not if they can, but is there a rule against it. As I said, as long as EULA is followed and get them in on time I doubt that Stanford cares enough to do anything about it.
P5-133XL
 
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 4:36 am
Location: Salem. OR USA

Re: Is Folding -bigadv on less than 8 thread against the rules?

Postby 7im » Sun Sep 05, 2010 5:05 am

Pande Group doesn't typically comment on fringe issues like this. And caring vs forcefully denying are completely different issues. Don't confuse inaction with a lack of caring. :roll:

People have always looked for ways to game the system to earn more points. When the gaming slows down the results, or breaks the rules, or is deemed bad for the project, they WILL change the rules and take action to remedy the problem.

Others have shown that even highly overclocked Quads can meet the -bigadv deadline, but with little margin for error. As already said, not really worth the hassle for most people. And I doubt the -bigadv WU bonus that close to the deadline is really that much more than with a standard SMP WU.

Folding -bigadv WUs on 6 core systems is not against the letter of the rules, but it does go against the spirit of the rules for -bigadv, hence the 8 core download requirement. That being said, Stanford has not taken action to prevent i7s from folding -bigadv WUs, so I doubt they will do anything to prevent 6 or 4 core systems from attempting to fold -bigadv WUs. That is unless those folders start slowing done the results significantly, or start causing a lot of EUEs trying to push their chips too hard to make the deadlines.

Then let's remember the spirit of -bigadv folding, especially high points, for especially fast returns, and sneaking in a WU just under the deadline is not PG's intention for this segment of folding. Don't confuse permissible outcomes with preferred outcomes.

IMO, if your 6 core is finishing a WU with a few days to spare before the pref deadline, go for it if you don't mind the sneakernetting hassles. Buit if only a few hours to spare, then fold regular SMP WUs.
How to provide enough information to get helpful support
Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.
User avatar
7im
 
Posts: 15237
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:30 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Is Folding -bigadv on less than 8 thread against the rules?

Postby zodac » Sun Sep 05, 2010 6:06 am

Well, as long as Stanford don't have nay problem with it, it's all good then. Will go ahead and start pushing it a bit more.

7im wrote:IMO, if your 6 core is finishing a WU with a few days to spare before the pref deadline, go for it if you don't mind the sneakernetting hassles. Buit if only a few hours to spare, then fold regular SMP WUs.


No sneakernetting involved. ;) Most of them are making the -bigadv with over half a day to spare (a bit tighter on {2684), but the PPD is ~20-25k in most cases. :D
zodac
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 11:17 pm

Re: Is Folding -bigadv on less than 8 thread against the rules?

Postby P5-133XL » Sun Sep 05, 2010 7:14 am

zodac wrote:
No sneakernetting involved. ;) Most of them are making the -bigadv with over half a day to spare (a bit tighter on {2684), but the PPD is ~20-25k in most cases. :D


If you are not sneaker-netting, then how are you doing it? Just note that Stanford does care if you are breaking the EULA and will react to those types of issues.
P5-133XL
 
Posts: 4345
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 4:36 am
Location: Salem. OR USA

Re: Is Folding -bigadv on less than 8 thread against the rules?

Postby kasson » Sun Sep 05, 2010 9:45 am

We would highly discourage manipulating the system to fold bigadv on less than 8 threads.
User avatar
kasson
Pande Group Member
 
Posts: 1909
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:37 pm

Re: Is Folding -bigadv on less than 8 thread against the rules?

Postby Infineon » Sun Sep 05, 2010 12:28 pm

P5-133XL wrote:
zodac wrote:
No sneakernetting involved. ;) Most of them are making the -bigadv with over half a day to spare (a bit tighter on {2684), but the PPD is ~20-25k in most cases. :D


If you are not sneaker-netting, then how are you doing it? Just note that Stanford does care if you are breaking the EULA and will react to those types of issues.

I invite you to explore our thread on this subject :)

BTW, I'm mmx+ from Overclock.net
i7 860 @ 3.8ghz -- Asus P7P55D Pro -- 2GB XMS3 1456 -- Lian Li PC-A05S -- Corsair H50 -- Caviar Blue 500GB -- XFX 650w XXX
Infineon
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 8:22 pm

Re: Is Folding -bigadv on less than 8 thread against the rules?

Postby P09 » Sun Sep 05, 2010 3:11 pm

kasson wrote:We would highly discourage manipulating the system to fold bigadv on less than 8 threads.


Hi,

I should drop my first BigAdv WU from my 1055T in 14 hours or so, although I'm guessing you aren't advising it because of the potential of failed WU's, right?

It seems we've determined at OCN that as long as you have a decent overclock (4 GHzish), you should have no problem folding BigAdv with time to spare. I'm getting a 40 min TPF on a P2685 (ETA a little under 3 days), is this acceptable - or would you prefer faster WU return from an overclocked i7?

Thanks,
Patrick
P09
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 3:04 pm

Next

Return to SMP with bigadv

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron