Not receiving WU on 4P

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

Moderators: Site Moderators, PandeGroup

Re: Not receiving WU on 4P

Postby Grandpa_01 » Sun Dec 15, 2013 12:08 am

7im wrote:Not helping to improve V7 and hiding your heads in the sand with v6 is short sighted. It will be going end of life sooner than later like all versions before it have. Caveat Folder.


That may be, but for now it is still viable and probably will be for years to come, you can still get v4 from Stanford and it apparently still works, I very seriously doubt Stanford will remove the use of something that donors still wish to use that would be kind of like doing the proverbial cutting off you nose to spite your face. If bigadv goes away then there would be no difference but for now there is, and v7 still has a few bugs to be worked out. :wink:
Image
2 - SM H8QGi-F AMD 6xxx=112 cores @ 3.2 & 3.9Ghz
5 - SM X9QRI-f+ Intel 4650 = 320 cores @ 3.15Ghz
2 - I7 980X 4.4Ghz 2-GTX680
1 - 2700k 4.4Ghz GTX680
Total = 464 cores folding
User avatar
Grandpa_01
 
Posts: 1757
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:36 am

Re: Not receiving WU on 4P

Postby tear » Sun Dec 15, 2013 2:20 am

7im wrote:Not helping to improve V7 and hiding your heads in the sand with v6 is short sighted. It will be going end of life sooner than later like all versions before it have. Caveat Folder.

I'm not hiding my head, I just elect to deal with PG directly instead of FF which is simply ineffective bridge between the project and donor community.
One man's ceiling is another man's floor.
Image
tear
 
Posts: 857
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 4:08 am
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: Not receiving WU on 4P

Postby 7im » Sun Dec 15, 2013 3:19 am

Grandpa_01 wrote:
7im wrote:Not helping to improve V7 and hiding your heads in the sand with v6 is short sighted. It will be going end of life sooner than later like all versions before it have. Caveat Folder.


That may be, but for now it is still viable and probably will be for years to come, you can still get v4 from Stanford and it apparently still works, I very seriously doubt Stanford will remove the use of something that donors still wish to use that would be kind of like doing the proverbial cutting off you nose to spite your face. If bigadv goes away then there would be no difference but for now there is, and v7 still has a few bugs to be worked out. :wink:


v4 and v5 are not on the active client download page, although you can still dig deep and find them if you want. But as you said, try running the software. The v4 client gets no work unit assignments. Neither does v5. ;)


Code: Select all
##############################################################################
                       Folding@Home Client Version 5.03
                          http://folding.stanford.edu
##############################################################################

snip

[03:05:38] + Attempting to get work packet
[03:05:38] - Connecting to assignment server
[03:05:39] - Successful: assigned to (0.0.0.0).
[03:05:39] + News From Folding@Home: Welcome to Folding@Home
[03:05:39] Work Unit has an invalid address.
[03:05:39] - Error: Attempt #6  to get work failed, and no other work to do.
             Waiting before retry.



Last I checked, v6.3x was the minimum version to get work, but that may have changed.

Let's see if bollix47 confirms a v7 performance difference or not. At least he seems willing to post supporting data, either way.
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: 14648
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:30 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Not receiving WU on 4P

Postby Bill1024 » Sun Dec 15, 2013 4:58 am

Instead of arguing about v4 and v5 Tim, why not just ask them why they prefer ver 6 over v7 in their instal guide?
Why not try to make ver 7 better if there is a something in the way it works that makes most multi-socket folders not use it?.
Bollox already said he had to add the Kracken to v7 to get minutes worth of TPF improvement. Where in your gude does it say to instal the Kracken?
Yes I seen you post saying it is third party software, but at least point to it in the directions so people can cut the TPF MINUTES not seconds.
If you fallow and use [H] guide vs installing using Stanfords guide there is a huge difference in TPF proven fact.
Bill1024
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:45 am

Re: Not receiving WU on 4P

Postby orion » Sun Dec 15, 2013 5:35 am

7im wrote:Not helping to improve V7 and hiding your heads in the sand with v6 is short sighted. It will be going end of life sooner than later like all versions before it have. Caveat Folder.


Why make a statement like that?

Be happy that people are folding regardless of what client their using and that people like tear donate their time to help the project get work done faster.
iustus quia...
User avatar
orion
 
Posts: 285
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:45 pm
Location: neither here nor there

Re: Not receiving WU on 4P

Postby Grandpa_01 » Sun Dec 15, 2013 8:05 am

7im wrote:
Grandpa_01 wrote:
7im wrote:Not helping to improve V7 and hiding your heads in the sand with v6 is short sighted. It will be going end of life sooner than later like all versions before it have. Caveat Folder.


That may be, but for now it is still viable and probably will be for years to come, you can still get v4 from Stanford and it apparently still works, I very seriously doubt Stanford will remove the use of something that donors still wish to use that would be kind of like doing the proverbial cutting off you nose to spite your face. If bigadv goes away then there would be no difference but for now there is, and v7 still has a few bugs to be worked out. :wink:


v4 and v5 are not on the active client download page, although you can still dig deep and find them if you want. But as you said, try running the software. The v4 client gets no work unit assignments. Neither does v5. ;)


Code: Select all
##############################################################################
                       Folding@Home Client Version 5.03
                          http://folding.stanford.edu
##############################################################################

snip

[03:05:38] + Attempting to get work packet
[03:05:38] - Connecting to assignment server
[03:05:39] - Successful: assigned to (0.0.0.0).
[03:05:39] + News From Folding@Home: Welcome to Folding@Home
[03:05:39] Work Unit has an invalid address.
[03:05:39] - Error: Attempt #6  to get work failed, and no other work to do.
             Waiting before retry.



Last I checked, v6.3x was the minimum version to get work, but that may have changed.

Let's see if bollix47 confirms a v7 performance difference or not. At least he seems willing to post supporting data, either way.


Standard install v7 8101 AMD 4P@3Gh =12:42 on 8101
Standard install v6 H fahinstall image 8101 AMD 4P@3Gh =10:40 on 8101
The truth of the matter is there is no comparison between the two standard installs. :lol:

Can v7 be made to compete with v6 as far as ease of install and optimizations go, probably but that would take someone willing and intelligent enough to take the time and effort to write the code and fix any bugs do allot of testing and everything else that goes along with it. I am sure you are more than welcome to go ahead and do all that if you wish. Or tear has left his contact information.

Speaking of tear let me list some of his accomplishments, and the things he has done to help improve folding software performance and make it more fun, which has probably brought more people to Folding@Home and can be directly attributed to him, In my opinion tear is the person that is responsible for bringing more people to F@H than any other single donor to date.

Langouste: FAH WU upload/download decoupler
The Kraken thread scheduler
[H] Ubuntu Folding Appliance ( optimized for bigadv )
[H] Fahinstall ( Basic Ubuntu Desktop Install optimized for bigadv )
OCNG Bios which was devoliped strictly for / with folding in mind (overclocking AMD MP boards)
And he has been a top 100 folder for as long as I can remember

Now does anyone wish to list their accomplishments for the betterment of Folding@Home and compare them, If not I personally think I would keep my negativity to myself.
User avatar
Grandpa_01
 
Posts: 1757
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:36 am

Re: Not receiving WU on 4P

Postby Bill1024 » Sun Dec 15, 2013 8:37 am

I fold for a small team with 10 active folders, here is a post from our forum with some data for you.
I talked someone in to switching from V7 to V6.4 who was doing bigadv Linux 8105 WU and his PPD seemed low to me.
I got him to do the H guide Musky install.
His TPF went from over 21 to 15 min a frame. Thats around 100,000 PPD
Here was his reply to me as far a being ahead of me in PPD. From our own forum.
System was either a 2P 6274 or a 4P 6264
I will find out.

by xxxxxxxx » August 10th, 2013, 5:05 am
Ok bill, you helped seal your own fate lol

my test wu is an 8105
v7 - 20 minutes a frame average
v6 - 15 minutes a frame average

so this should translate to much better ppd

samples from the logs

v6
Code: l[08:25:49] Completed 15000 out of 250000 steps (6%)
[08:40:59] Completed 17500 out of 250000 steps (7%)
[08:56:10] Completed 20000 out of 250000 steps (8%)
[09:11:23] Completed 22500 out of 250000 steps (9%)
[09:26:37] Completed 25000 out of 250000 steps (10%)
[09:41:50] Completed 27500 out of 250000 steps (11%)
[09:57:02] Completed 30000 out of 250000 steps (12%)
[10:12:16] Completed 32500 out of 250000 steps (13%)
[10:27:28] Completed 35000 out of 250000 steps (14%)
[10:42:43] Completed 37500 out of 250000 steps (15%)
[10:57:58] Completed 40000 out of 250000 steps (16%)


v7
Code: 17:28:38:WU00:FS00:0xa5:Completed 15000 out of 250000 steps (6%)
17:50:07:WU00:FS00:0xa5:Completed 17500 out of 250000 steps (7%)
18:11:26:WU00:FS00:0xa5:Completed 20000 out of 250000 steps (8%)
18:32:43:WU00:FS00:0xa5:Completed 22500 out of 250000 steps (9%)
18:54:00:WU00:FS00:0xa5:Completed 25000 out of 250000 steps (10%)
19:15:12:WU00:FS00:0xa5:Completed 27500 out of 250000 steps (11%)
19:36:31:WU00:FS00:0xa5:Completed 30000 out of 250000 steps (12%)
19:57:50:WU00:FS00:0xa5:Completed 32500 out of 250000 steps (13%)
20:19:16:WU00:FS00:0xa5:Completed 35000 out of 250000 steps (14%)
20:40:44:WU00:FS00:0xa5:Completed 37500 out of 250000 steps (15%)
21:02:10:WU00:FS00:0xa5:Completed 40000 out of 250000 steps (16%)
Bill1024
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:45 am

Re: Not receiving WU on 4P

Postby mdk777 » Sun Dec 15, 2013 2:51 pm

Instead of arguing about v4 and v5 Tim, why not just ask them why they prefer ver 6 over v7 in their instal guide?
Why not try to make ver 7 better if there is a something in the way it works that makes most multi-socket folders not use it?.
Bollox already said he had to add the Kracken to v7 to get minutes worth of TPF improvement. Where in your gude does it say to instal the Kracken?
Yes I seen you post saying it is third party software, but at least point to it in the directions so people can cut the TPF MINUTES not seconds.
If you fallow and use [H] guide vs installing using Stanfords guide there is a huge difference in TPF proven fact.


Unfortunately, this attitude has been here for many, many years.

Tear has done simply fantastic work. However, due to an insane "not invented here" attitude, not only is his work not credited and lauded, it is actively dismissed. :roll:

It goes without saying, that the disrespect shown to a group of people(handful) who donate BILLIONS of points each...=insanity. :!:

While you will never get an apology from PG for this treatment;

Tear, and grandpa-01, you have mine. :!: :mrgreen:
Transparency and Accountability, the necessary foundation of any great endeavor!
mdk777
 
Posts: 813
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 4:12 am

Re: Not receiving WU on 4P

Postby 7im » Sun Dec 15, 2013 3:01 pm

Grandpa_01 wrote:...

Standard install v7 8101 AMD 4P@3Gh =12:42 on 8101
Standard install v6 H fahinstall image 8101 AMD 4P@3Gh =10:40 on 8101
The truth of the matter is there is no comparison between the two standard installs. :lol:



You got one thing right. There is no comparison. And there is NOTHING about your finstall that is standard except the use of the v6 client. Custom Linux image, custom kernel, the kraken, etc.

You said V7 was slower than v6, not that V7 was slower than your highly customized v6 install. Seems like you are trying to walk back what you said or to change the terms.

And this isn't personal. It's not about one person's contribution. It's about the the betterment of the fah project. It's about enlightening people who still claim that V7 is crap but then don't do anything to help improve it. And let's see bollix47's results.
User avatar
7im
 
Posts: 14648
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:30 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Not receiving WU on 4P

Postby Grandpa_01 » Sun Dec 15, 2013 3:48 pm

7im wrote:
Grandpa_01 wrote:...

Standard install v7 8101 AMD 4P@3Gh =12:42 on 8101
Standard install v6 H fahinstall image 8101 AMD 4P@3Gh =10:40 on 8101
The truth of the matter is there is no comparison between the two standard installs. :lol:



You got one thing right. There is no comparison. And there is NOTHING about your finstall that is standard except the use of the v6 client. Custom Linux image, custom kernel, the kraken, etc.

You said V7 was slower than v6, not that V7 was slower than your highly customized v6 install. Seems like you are trying to walk back what you said or to change the terms.

And this isn't personal. It's not about one person's contribution. It's about the the betterment of the fah project. It's about enlightening people who still claim that V7 is crap but then don't do anything to help improve it. And let's see bollix47's results.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

Please point out where I said that and use the whole statement not just a snipped out part of one, :lol: :lol: :lol:

The OP is about [H] fahinstall every comment I made I refereed to it. You on the other hand have been trying to start something since your first post attacking others makes it personal. :wink:
User avatar
Grandpa_01
 
Posts: 1757
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:36 am

Re: Not receiving WU on 4P

Postby tear » Sun Dec 15, 2013 4:01 pm

I voiced my concerns with V7/Linux back in 2009 (and none of them pertained to CPU overhead).

There has been no comment from PG nor any improvement whatsoever. Until said problems are
addressed V7/Linux client will not be endorsed...

...simply because user experience with V7/Linux is *worse* than V6.
And we're not talking imagined cases but actual feedback from the field.

My time is better spent on improving v6 experience than working on the "silver bullet" client.
Wait, wasn't someone actually being paid to make and maintain the V7?

And follow-up question, why is bug management closed and why is FF staff, which, nb,
has zero soft skills and poor technical skills, relaying the bug reports?

In other words, why is development done professionally but donor support -- not so much?

Remember, donor failures are project failures. Be it on software development front or donor support
front. And if you can't support donors well and you turn them away, better don't do it at all.

Seriously, community can do it better than few random, insecure, "know-it-all" guys. Hell, teams
have been doing it in their own realm and this discussion shows their success rate is kinda higher.

Some years ago I read about Folding@Home objective/goal/desire to have a million clients
but somehow this number has been oscillating around 250-300k.
Until donor support improves and donors feel valued, this objective will remain a pipe dream.


P.S.
This post has been preemptively recorded so evidence of tampering, if any, can be provided.
tear
 
Posts: 857
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 4:08 am
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: Not receiving WU on 4P

Postby mdk777 » Sun Dec 15, 2013 5:40 pm

If the issue is a problem when one is using a V7 client, then PG is very interested in the details. If it only pertains to V6, then they're not going to fix it so it would be academic interest only.


And this isn't personal. It's not about one person's contribution. It's about the the betterment of the fah project. It's about enlightening people who still claim that V7 is crap but then don't do anything to help improve it. And let's see bollix47's results.


These two statements are polar opposites and absurd to anyone who has followed this. :roll:

Since Tear worked extensively on this for years, first attempting to work with PG, and then on his own, it is self evident that the issue is well understood.
That it wasn't resolved or integrated into V7 was a choice, and not a mystery of any kind.

The only ones "not doing anything to improve it" are the ones ignoring decades of experience, expertise and continuous feedback.

Say it isn't a priority, say you don't have the resources to spend on optimizations...But don't insult the donors by saying something that we all know is completely false.
1. "then PG is very interested in the details"...they aren't interested in the details because:
a. they have know it for years
b. they have chosen not to use the information
2. "It's about enlightening people who still claim that V7 is crap"
a. no one said this
b. they only said the previous was better for this application
3."but then don't do anything to help improve it"
As is know, these people have worked extensively...but their input is rejected :!:

If you can't tell the truth about a subject, you are just better off not commenting on it. :mrgreen:

Better answer for both 7im and Bruce is they want to defend some slight they feel is being given to V7:

V7 was designed to appeal and to accommodate the largest class of donors. V6 might be optimized for some advanced folders, but we are working on making V7 the best possible experience and welcome any constructive suggestions. :mrgreen:
mdk777
 
Posts: 813
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 4:12 am

Re: Not receiving WU on 4P

Postby mdk777 » Sun Dec 15, 2013 6:26 pm

This discussion brings to mind an important point that I have alluded to in other threads.
Rather than spending time discussing history and defending existing software;
This would be an excellent time for PG to update donors on the progress of these WU and their future. :!:

I can make the inference that the lack of support in V7, the lack of resources spent in optimization, and the lack of respect shown these donors indicates an imminent EOL.

If this is the case, whenever anyone posts a question regarding an optimized build, the answer should be to discourage the pursuit of these WU.

If this is not the case, then an update on existing research and an assurance of future applications anticipated would be great also.

Nothing long or detailed would be required. Just a confirmation, or projection of near term EOL is all that is required. :mrgreen:
mdk777
 
Posts: 813
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 4:12 am

Re: Not receiving WU on 4P

Postby NookieBandit » Sun Dec 15, 2013 6:41 pm

@mdk777 - the most thoughtful and reasonable summary of the issue, along with an eminently logical request regarding confirming/denying EOL for these WUs.
User avatar
NookieBandit
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2012 6:17 pm
Location: Dallas, TX

Re: Not receiving WU on 4P

Postby tear » Mon Dec 16, 2013 12:05 am

mdk777 wrote:V7 was designed to appeal and to accommodate the largest class of donors. V6 might be optimized for some advanced folders, but we are working on making V7 the best possible experience and welcome any constructive suggestions. :mrgreen:

It's not that difficult, is it? :D
This would very much be the first necessary step. Second step would be putting your money where your mouth is and actually following-through.

P.S.
This post has been preemptively recorded so evidence of tampering, if any, can be provided.
tear
 
Posts: 857
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 4:08 am
Location: Rocky Mountains

PreviousNext

Return to SMP with bigadv

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron