Answers to: Reasons for not using F@H.

Moderators: Site Moderators, PandeGroup

Re: Answers to: Reasons for not using F@H.

Postby ford316 » Sun Jan 06, 2013 8:00 pm

bruce wrote:What kind of computer do you have that cannot meet the deadlines running 20 hours per day? Certainly there are assignments that you can't complete, but there are also ways to get assignments that you CAN complete. In other words, it's a matter of learning how to configure your client -- and there's certainly work that needs to be done in future clients so that that information is readily available to even the most novice Donor who might find out about FAH.

There's really nothing that can be done about no internet, but that's a pretty unusual circumstance, these days.


Bruce it was barely a P4 and I did alot of work on it so fah program didn't have a chance at about 4 hours a day which some days I had to leave a few programs running for the 4 hours it had to play catch up. That computer is long gone now off to the heavens to become something better lol true there may have been ways to still work it but at that time I didn't really have the time to research it. Now I have my gaming rig doing it in which case I am taking about a month or 2 off and letting fah catch up while I also make plans to move and build 2 more roughly of the same specs ya see listed in my signature with the exception I plan on running 2 gpu cards in each of the 3 desktops. It was not but just afew days ago I joined the forums but my team site always reminded me about this and finally I got this rig put together had problems at first 2 days but now working great even testing the new 310.90 driver so far about 13 hours and no problems. Months ago I use to be very busy doing many things and helping run afew websites at first I tried running fah while working but it slowed me down to much and thats when I tried the off time of me 4 hours a day and that didn't work I don't remember the exact numbers but some thing like this days to get it done first 17 final day to get it done 36 my time of getting it done would have and was 44 days :( finally it died as I worked it to death and it was time for upgrade. I think it was a 1.6GHz had only 512mb ram it just could not do it in the same time I had for it to do it. Since then I built this rig and my time is not 20 or so hours a day any more so fah can run great now :D
Board: MSI 970A-G46 Processor: AMD FX 8350 eightcore OC 4.51GHz Ram: 16GB PC3-10700
GPU: Nvidia Geforce GTX 650 Ti 2GB GPU clock 1033MHz Memory clock 1350MHz Windows 7 ultimate x64 SP1 Build 7601 client v7.2.9
"will overclock more later"
User avatar
ford316
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2012 7:44 am
Location: Earth

Re: Answers to: Reasons for not using F@H.

Postby Kornflake » Sun Jan 06, 2013 8:02 pm

bruce wrote:
ford316 wrote:...the second reason is computer can't handle it I know because sadly the computer setup I had could not run it because I was on it about 20 hours a day and the off time would not have been enough to finish a unit in time "I tried it" No other reason besides no internet I can think of 8-)


What kind of computer do you have that cannot meet the deadlines running 20 hours per day? Certainly there are assignments that you can't complete, but there are also ways to get assignments that you CAN complete. In other words, it's a matter of learning how to configure your client -- and there's certainly work that needs to be done in future clients so that that information is readily available to even the most novice Donor who might find out about FAH.

There's really nothing that can be done about no internet, but that's a pretty unusual circumstance, these days.


I was looking for the answer earlier but could not find it, what techniques are currently available to receive smaller WUs (or longer time limits)? I had a poster on a different forum explain they couldn't meet deadlines using V7.
Image
Kornflake
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 7:29 pm

Re: Answers to: Reasons for not using F@H.

Postby art_l_j_PlanetAMD64 » Sun Jan 06, 2013 9:41 pm

Kornflake wrote:I was looking for the answer earlier but could not find it, what techniques are currently available to receive smaller WUs (or longer time limits)? I had a poster on a different forum explain they couldn't meet deadlines using V7.

To get smaller WUs:
1) in FAHControl, select 'Expert' mode from the dropdown menu at the top right.
2) now click 'Configure' and select the 'Expert' tab.
3) under the 'Extra client options', click on 'Add'.
4) for Name enter max-packet-size
5) for Value enter small
6) click on OK, then click Save at the bottom right of the Configure window.

From the FahControl - FAHClient Guide:
max-packet-size options:
- small = Configures the slot to get small WUs (~5MB)
- normal = Configures the slot to get normal WUs (~10MB)
- big = Configures the slot to get big WUs (~500MB)
art_l_j_PlanetAMD64
Over 1.04 Billion Total Points
Over 185,000 Work Units
Over 3,800,000 PPD
Overall rank (if points are combined) 20 of 1721690
In memory of my Mother May 12th 1923 - February 10th 2012
art_l_j_PlanetAMD64
 
Posts: 568
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 2:28 pm

Re: Answers to: Reasons for not using F@H.

Postby Kornflake » Sun Jan 06, 2013 9:50 pm

Thank you I will pass that on. From reading http://folding.stanford.edu/English/FAQ-Configure#ntoc3 I got the impression that this was no longer a working configuration option for V7. Additionally, I did not see that flag under: https://fah-web.stanford.edu/projects/F ... ncesV6ToV7
Kornflake
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 7:29 pm

Re: Answers to: Reasons for not using F@H.

Postby Joe_H » Sun Jan 06, 2013 10:01 pm

The small, normal and big tags exist, but have little effect on SMP folding slots. If you were running a system capable of processing bigadv WU's, the big setting could be needed. They do effect slots configured as uniprocessor, which is what is recommended for older and slow systems. Uniprocessor slots are also recommended for some systems that fold intermittently.
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: 4556
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 4:41 pm
Location: W. MA

Re: Answers to: Reasons for not using F@H.

Postby Kornflake » Sun Jan 06, 2013 10:16 pm

Joe_H wrote:The small, normal and big tags exist, but have little effect on SMP folding slots. If you were running a system capable of processing bigadv WU's, the big setting could be needed. They do effect slots configured as uniprocessor, which is what is recommended for older and slow systems. Uniprocessor slots are also recommended for some systems that fold intermittently.


What would be the steps to reconfigure an SMP slot to a Uniprocessor slot? From what you are saying, that sounds like the way to go.
Kornflake
 
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 7:29 pm

Re: Answers to: Reasons for not using F@H.

Postby Joe_H » Sun Jan 06, 2013 10:26 pm

Simplest is to finish the current WU using the Finish button. Then using Configure you can add one or more Uniprocessor slots and delete the existing SMP slot.
Joe_H
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4556
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 4:41 pm
Location: W. MA

Re: Answers to: Reasons for not using F@H.

Postby art_l_j_PlanetAMD64 » Sun Jan 06, 2013 10:39 pm

Kornflake wrote:Thank you I will pass that on. From reading http://folding.stanford.edu/English/FAQ-Configure#ntoc3 I got the impression that this was no longer a working configuration option for V7. Additionally, I did not see that flag under: https://fah-web.stanford.edu/projects/F ... ncesV6ToV7

Yes, as noted elsewhere, the v7 documentation is a work-in-progress, with even experienced folders finding things to be unclear, confusing, or very difficult to find. Especially when on the http://folding.stanford.edu/English/FAQ-Configure#ntoc3 web page it states this:
Below we've listed some of the more common switches used for v6 and V7; please see this page for a complete list.

Where "this page" links to the "ClientDifferencesV6ToV7" web page which does not contain the "complete list", only the differences.

Only after some further searching did I discover the FAHControl document with the full option list.

I had to go here:
https://fah-web.stanford.edu/projects/FAHClient/#Documentation
Which led me to go here:
https://fah-web.stanford.edu/projects/FAHClient/wiki/FahControl
Which actually (I think) contains the true complete list of options.

To try to find this information by starting at the "Home Page":
http://folding.stanford.edu/English/HomePage
or even the "Installation Guides":
http://folding.stanford.edu/English/Guide
is extremely difficult. I just went back and tried it now, and even knowing in advance where I wanted to end up, I could not find a reasonable path to get there. The "straightforward path" led me to the link that has the false claim of being the "complete list".
art_l_j_PlanetAMD64
 
Posts: 568
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 2:28 pm

Re: Answers to: Reasons for not using F@H.

Postby bruce » Mon Jan 07, 2013 4:45 am

Kornflake wrote:From reading http://folding.stanford.edu/English/FAQ-Configure#ntoc3 I got the impression that this was no longer a working configuration option for V7. Additionally, I did not see that flag under: https://fah-web.stanford.edu/projects/F ... ncesV6ToV7
Joe_H wrote:The small, normal and big tags exist, but have little effect on SMP folding slots.


In this world of specialization, you can get different answers from different sources. The small/normal/big options are supported by V7. Unfortunately the assignment server has different ideas. Many of the uniprocessor projects are classified as small/normal/big, especially if your computer is limited to 256K or 512K ram. Since all SMP projects need more than that, those Projects have never been classified so the option is now essentially useless.

See also viewtopic.php?f=38&t=23378&p=233149*#p233149
As has already been said, the best way to get what you want is to use one or more uniprocessor slots and/or setting the "extra-core-args -np N" .
bruce
 
Posts: 22701
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:13 pm
Location: So. Cal.

Previous

Return to How can we help FAH grow

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron