Answers to: Reasons for not using F@H.

Moderators: Site Moderators, FAHC Science Team

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

Postby MtM » Tue Mar 31, 2009 5:31 pm

None of the 63 papers on the result page are from 3rd party sites. http://folding.stanford.edu/English/Papers

Search science direct for authors from PG you get very few results ( for one there is a paper from Kim Branson who is a member of the Pande Group ) and the one's you do find are NOT papers from this project ( afaik ), and if they where ScienceDirect is only asking a fee because they archive allot of papers and offer their web based search engine.

All ( peer reviewed ) results from this project are public domain. <- I can't believe this is even a point of discussion, it's one of the main reasons I paricipate in this project not in another. You serieusly want to consider Stanford/Pande Group would lie about the bold sentence :lol:

Ahh nm I got worked up about this since I can't stand people trolling and maybe some poor soul who just stumbeld on the project and got this thread in sight searching for his primary information would maybe think that poster had any kind of merrit behind him, thus maybe being swayed away from joining up. Nah, it's not like this is the primary help/support forum, is it ;)
MtM
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:20 pm
Location: The Netherlands

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

Postby John Naylor » Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:08 pm

I stand corrected ;)
Folding whatever I'm sent since March 2006 :) Beta testing since October 2006. www.FAH-Addict.net Administrator since August 2009.
User avatar
John Naylor
 
Posts: 357
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:36 pm
Location: University of Birmingham, UK

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

Postby 7im » Wed Apr 01, 2009 7:01 am

nekojx wrote:Here is reasons for NOT USING F@H!!!

We let F@H to use our computers for free, that is not the problem, but some of the results are not allowed to us for free!!!

For example ht*p: //w*w .sciencedirect. com for some F@H research want from us to pay for work which is done by our computers?????
That is unlogically, I think everyone should to use F@H but when will have access to all results, and for now F@H should be shutdowned!!!!


First, Stanford does post a local copy of the paper when they are allowed to post it. There are rules about posting this information some time after the original is published in a science journal. That's how the science journal stays in business, it charges for immediate access to the new paper. Then later, we all get FREE access. That's just how it works.

Check all the older papers!!! And also note how Stanford not only posts copies of the papers, but also the RAW data for researchers to use. Almost all of the Papers have links to free copies of the paper, so you misunderstand the process, and are over-reacting when you say the project should be shut down. And if a link is missing, all you would have to do is ask for a copy of that paper!!! They would gladly send you a copy, or a link to a free copy. Please try to learn a bit more about how the project works before stating such a harsh and incorrect judgement. Thanks.
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: 10189
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 5:30 pm
Location: Arizona

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

Postby toTOW » Wed Apr 01, 2009 1:06 pm

nekojx wrote:Here is reasons for NOT USING F@H!!!

We let F@H to use our computers for free, that is not the problem, but some of the results are not allowed to us for free!!!

For example ht*p: //w*w .sciencedirect. com for some F@H research want from us to pay for work which is done by our computers?????
That is unlogically, I think everyone should to use F@H but when will have access to all results, and for now F@H should be shutdowned!!!!


The results are available for free. A link to raw data is available in this FAQ : http://folding.stanford.edu/English/FAQ-OpenSource
Folding@Home beta tester since 2002. Folding Forum moderator since July 2008.

FAH-Addict : latest news, tests and reviews about Folding@Home project.

Image
User avatar
toTOW
Site Moderator
 
Posts: 5689
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 11:38 am
Location: Bordeaux, France

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

Postby kelliegang » Thu Apr 02, 2009 4:47 am

I have an internet usage cap, using F@H will use more than I am allowed, will it not?
Put simply, no. The uniprocessor clients use up to 10MB each way at their normal settings (assuming use of v6 clients), but most computers if run just during the day will only finish a Work Unit every 2 or 3 days. Over a 30 day period that is an absolute maximum of 300MB (if a WU is completed every 2 days, so 15 WUs at 10MB each way), or well within any usage cap. Most Work Units are far smaller than that limit anyway, and the v5 and v6 clients can be set to limit Work Unit downloads to 5MB each way.


Is this still relevant?

I installed F@H for my mother on her two desktops recently, 1 uniprocessor client on each, as she's very finnicky about her computer being slowed down etc and any time I touch her computer I get the blame for any ensuing slows/problems :roll: .
1 uniprocessor client [on her slower P4 computer] is set at 50% of the cpu and the other uniprocessor client [on her faster pentium duo] is set at 75%, I set them this way for the abovementioned reason & because she doesn't leave her computers running when not in use, so a slight reduction of speed isn't going to be "acceptable" in the big picture.

Anyhow, in 7 days she has completed 16 work units, this seems higher than I expected and using the figures quoted above on only 2 clients she can expect an internet usage of 1.4gb... this seems excessive for 2 computers [one of them ancient] running at far less than maximum capabilities?
User avatar
kelliegang
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 5:30 am
Location: Australia

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

Postby spazzychalk » Thu Apr 02, 2009 5:42 am

it looks like the part you quoted says if the computer is only on during the day and youre running 24/7. anyway it looked like the concern there was usage cap from the ISP. anyway it is relevant if you go in the configuration you have to check a box to allow it to use files larger than 10mb. anyway you will normally see a slower output on your system. you must be getting fast WU. it'll vary. you can get one that's only 125(,000) steps and takes a week and a half and then get one that 1,500(,000) and takes a day. its more of the type of calculations rather than the amount or file size. but your question seems to be processor usage? the clients run in windows services priority low. so pretty much everything else on your computer defaults at priority normal. if you hit control+alt+escape then click on the processes tab. then organize it by processor usage. anyway, pick any service and right click it and go to priority and you'll see it. so in english it just means that even though its using 100% or whatever you set it at. it has the lowest service priority, so whenever you do anything with the computer it gives you all the resources back for what youre doing and only uses whats left over. its very interesting to watch it as you do stuff. it gives it back then takes it when its done. click on something watch the resources change as you click then change back. but its practice it can lag at 100% usage until the new process is loaded into paging but once it is itll run normally. youre only talking about seconds.
spazzychalk
 
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:41 am

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

Postby kelliegang » Thu Apr 02, 2009 6:08 am

Not concerned about the processor usage.. that was just background information to demonstrate that the computers are churning through the work units a lot faster than the suggested expected output and they arent on 100% cpu usage.

I am only concerned about bandwidth as my mother is on a limited connection, 1.4gig per month seems excessive and I want to confirm if the ~10mb download / ~10mb upload per work unit was still correct? I didnt change any of the work unit size settings.
User avatar
kelliegang
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 5:30 am
Location: Australia

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

Postby spazzychalk » Thu Apr 02, 2009 7:50 am

no 10 megs is the max not the norm. max unless you check it off to let it run larger ones in the configuration. plus it should slow down when it gets into a new project series and more complex computations.
spazzychalk
 
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:41 am

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

Postby bruce » Tue Apr 07, 2009 1:43 am

FAH does not have a convenient way to manage total bandwidth usage. You do have the option to choose the size of WUs, but as has already been stated, size is not equal to duration. If there's one thing I know, the list of projects are currently available will continually change, so any statements about "normal" bandwidth are just approximations.

Also, if that machine is assigned several WUs that encounter errors early in the run, you can download new WUs rather quickly. I do recommend you look through FAHlog.txt and FAHlog-Prev.txt to see if there have been EARLY_UNIT_ENDs and if so, discuss them here.

It sounds like you've selected reasonable options for that machine, but I do recommend that you re-check to be sure you have picked the SMALL option. I have seen cases where the server ran out of WUs in the "small" category, but in that event, the client will retry until it finds something that is small. (The bandwidth from repeatedly checking shouldn't be enough to worry about.)
bruce
 
Posts: 20328
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: So. Cal.

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

Postby spazzychalk » Tue Apr 07, 2009 7:38 am

an option for you immediately is to use the "ask before using network" on either systray or dos client i think the dos client its in the install but the systray client you can check and uncheck the box any time
spazzychalk
 
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:41 am

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

Postby MtM » Tue Apr 07, 2009 8:43 am

spazzychalk wrote:an option for you immediately is to use the "ask before using network" on either systray or dos client i think the dos client its in the install but the systray client you can check and uncheck the box any time


Any option is configurable with -config or -configonly.
MtM
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:20 pm
Location: The Netherlands

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

Postby spazzychalk » Tue Apr 07, 2009 8:54 am

so specific instructions for this in particular would be.......
spazzychalk
 
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 7:41 am

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

Postby John Naylor » Tue Apr 07, 2009 9:29 am

  • Create a shortcut to the client
  • In the shortcut's properties, add -config (or -configonly) to the end of the target line, outside the quotes if there are any
  • Start the client using the shortcut and configure as necessary
  • Delete the shortcut or remove the additional flag from the Target line if you wish to continue using the shortcut
User avatar
John Naylor
 
Posts: 357
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 5:36 pm
Location: University of Birmingham, UK

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

Postby kelliegang » Tue Apr 07, 2009 2:39 pm

Thats not an acceptable option for something which I need to run in the background with no user interaction. To be honest, I'm not too keen on the small work units either... but if it looks like it's going to overtake the bandwith limits then i'll definately head down that path...

At this stage I was just looking to determine how much can be expected and questioning the original FAQ type answer... it doesn't seem like it is really appropriate to the time?

Even if my mother is letting the computers run 24 hrs a day [which I doubt] the clients are set at 50% and 75% respectively which seems like it would compensate for the extra time run instead of "during the day" as per the original quote. Even at 50% and 75%, with just 2 clients she is completing 2.5 work units PER client every 3 days.
Bruce I will check when I go over there tomorrow whether there have been EUEs ... but I doubt it, the points she has received look appropriate to the amount of work units completed.


Is there a way I can check the size of the work units she has been receiving?
User avatar
kelliegang
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 5:30 am
Location: Australia

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

Postby bruce » Tue Apr 07, 2009 3:00 pm

kelliegang wrote:Is there a way I can check the size of the work units she has been receiving?


If you have -verbosity 9 set, the data is shown in FAHlog.
bruce
 
Posts: 20328
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: So. Cal.

PreviousNext

Return to How can we help FAH grow

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron