Answers to: Reasons for not using F@H.

Moderators: Site Moderators, FAHC Science Team

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

Postby Zagen30 » Tue Apr 06, 2010 4:59 am

Somewhat tangential, but what happened to F@h's FLOPs in the past couple of months? At one point it was hovering up in the 4.5 PF range, I believe (didn't it break 5 briefly?), and then it seemed that after the GPU server problems it dropped substantially to its current 3.5ish. I seem to remember the native Nvidia PF being over 2 at its peak, whereas now it's just over 1, which would be the prime contributor to the overall drop. Did that many Nvidia contributors abandon the project because of the server problems?
Last edited by Zagen30 on Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
Zagen30
 
Posts: 823
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 1:45 am

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

Postby 7im » Tue Apr 06, 2010 9:13 am

k1wi wrote:He might be referring to BOINC's total overall FLOPS (4.9PetaFlop) being higher than Fah's 3.874..?

But that's spread out over a wide number of different projects and whether BOINC's reporting NativeFlops or x86 flops I'm not sure.


Oh, I see. Now Boinc is a DC project? I thought it was simply a network architecture upon which projects are run. ;)

I wonder how many FLOPS we can add up with people doing protein simulations? That's more homogenous that boinc...

Folding@Home, Rosetta@Home, Proteins@home, TANPAKU, Predictor@home, SIMAP, HPF, Docking@home, ... :mrgreen:
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 cristipurdel » Tue Apr 06, 2010 11:55 am

....gpugrid, drugsdiscovery ;)
cristipurdel
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 12:40 am

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

Postby Wrish » Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:31 pm

Zagen30 wrote:Somewhat tangential, but what happened to F@h's FLOPs in the past couple of months?

SMP2/bigadv from cheaper CPUs? They're outproducing GPU farms that haven't really gotten cheaper.
Wrish
 
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:09 am

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

Postby bruce » Thu Apr 08, 2010 7:15 am

Wrish wrote:
Zagen30 wrote:Somewhat tangential, but what happened to F@h's FLOPs in the past couple of months?

SMP2/bigadv from cheaper CPUs? They're outproducing GPU farms that haven't really gotten cheaper.


That's true.

Many people ran SMP concurrently with GPU2. With the restructuring of the bonus system, many people have found that SMP2 (FahCore_a3) awards more points than SMP2 + GPU2. (That depends on a number of factors so it might not apply to you.) The FLOPS for SMP may have been slightly lower than the FLOPS for SMP2, but they're going to be similar so some of these folks have simply removed their GPU2 client, hence the FLOPS that are being counted goes down by one or more GPUs.

The goal here is to align the points system with the value of the scientific results. There are likely other changes coming and there's no way to know how they will influence the FAH donors, but you do need to remember that FLOPS is not necessarily a good measure of the science being produced. Ultimately, though, it seems counter-intuitive to believe that a CPU-only system can produce more science that a CPU+GPU system, so there should be a way to encourage folks to fold on their GPUs, too.
bruce
 
Posts: 20122
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: So. Cal.

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

Postby Prettz » Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:26 pm

Zagen30 wrote:Somewhat tangential, but what happened to F@h's FLOPs in the past couple of months? At one point it was hovering up in the 4.5 PF range, I believe (didn't it break 5 briefly?), and then it seemed that after the GPU server problems it dropped substantially to its current 3.5ish. I seem to remember the native Nvidia PF being over 2 at its peak, whereas now it's just over 1, which would be the prime contributor to the overall drop. Did that many Nvidia contributors abandon the project because of the server problems?

Uhhh, the global super-recession happened.

People and businesses decided to reevaluate their electricity usage to save money.
Prettz
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 7:47 pm

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

Postby Zagen30 » Tue Jun 08, 2010 10:53 pm

Prettz wrote:
Zagen30 wrote:Somewhat tangential, but what happened to F@h's FLOPs in the past couple of months? At one point it was hovering up in the 4.5 PF range, I believe (didn't it break 5 briefly?), and then it seemed that after the GPU server problems it dropped substantially to its current 3.5ish. I seem to remember the native Nvidia PF being over 2 at its peak, whereas now it's just over 1, which would be the prime contributor to the overall drop. Did that many Nvidia contributors abandon the project because of the server problems?

Uhhh, the global super-recession happened.

People and businesses decided to reevaluate their electricity usage to save money.


If my facts are right, the throes of the recession occurred in 2008, but F@h was growing in FLOPs through that time until around April 2009, and started dropping off this past fall/winter, which doesn't exactly line up.
Zagen30
 
Posts: 823
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 1:45 am

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

Postby MJandDave » Thu Nov 04, 2010 7:49 pm

Zagen30 wrote:
Prettz wrote:
Zagen30 wrote:Somewhat tangential, but what happened to F@h's FLOPs in the past couple of months? At one point it was hovering up in the 4.5 PF range, I believe (didn't it break 5 briefly?), and then it seemed that after the GPU server problems it dropped substantially to its current 3.5ish. I seem to remember the native Nvidia PF being over 2 at its peak, whereas now it's just over 1, which would be the prime contributor to the overall drop. Did that many Nvidia contributors abandon the project because of the server problems?

Uhhh, the global super-recession happened.

People and businesses decided to reevaluate their electricity usage to save money.


If my facts are right, the throes of the recession occurred in 2008, but F@h was growing in FLOPs through that time until around April 2009, and started dropping off this past fall/winter, which doesn't exactly line up.


Maybe F@H is a lagging indicator :lol:
MJandDave
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2010 2:36 am

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

Postby 7im » Thu Nov 04, 2010 8:22 pm

Or a leading indicator... :(
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 Eno » Sat Jan 01, 2011 6:00 am

Another reason to not F@H:

"My -enter significant other here- sits at the computer for hours trying to tweak his system to maximize something he calls 'PPD' and 'TPF.' He is pale skinned and forgets the name of his children. He uses phrases like "Up your Vcore," and "Stupid A3 Core" all the time. The kids are frightened. Even Dog the Bounty Hunter gives him a wide berth. Is there any end to this madness?!"

Answer THAT smart people!

(There is no answer... it's an addiction that will surely end up being called a disease of it's own in no time)

Embrace it!
Ian "Eno" McLeod
Folding for team 11108
User avatar
Eno
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 4:27 am
Location: Sidney, BC / Fort McMurray, AB

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

Postby Jesse_V » Thu Aug 11, 2011 9:12 pm

John Naylor wrote:Can’t they just use a Supercomputer? /They already have 400,000 processors, how is my one processor going to make any difference?
F@H is more than three times as powerful as the world’s current most powerful supercomputer, in terms of operations per second, so using a supercomputer would be a massive step backwards for the project. Even with that in mind, the project is still restricted by the power available to it and needs all the extra silicon it can get.


This statement is no longer true. Japan's K Computer stands at a whopping 8.162 petaFLOPS. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_computer However, the K supercomputer is not dedicated or built for protein folding, so its use for that may be limited at best. A better argument would be that RENTING a supercomputer is expensive, and you probably only have a piece of it, and we need raw CPU power for individual slices of a simulation more than crunching a massive dataset at once. Blue Gene is used for protein folding, and a later version of the supercomputer should come online soon with the performance of 20 petaFLOPS. They may have us beat, but we are way up there. Basically supercomputers are designed to process massive amounts of data extremely fast, but the machine has to be maintained, cooled, and whatnot so they can be costly to run. With Folding@home, each donor has a small data set which they crunch at a slow rate, and so a massive dataset is divided up and processed in parallel. While PG does have to pay for professional development of the software, they don't have to pay for cooling all the machines. That's our job and we're glad to do it since we're doing all this great research anyway!

We are faster than everything under BOINC though: http://boincstats.com/stats/project_graph.php?pr=bo
I made note of this on the F@h Wikipedia article, which gets around 350 views a day by the way.
F@h is now the top computing platform on the planet and nothing unites people like a dedicated fight against a common enemy. This virus affects all of us. Lets end it together.
Jesse_V
Site Moderator
 
Posts: 2851
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 5:44 am
Location: Western Washington

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

Postby Barry » Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:36 am

F@H is irrelevant now due to [Corporation X]’s research. Why bother?


Exactly what research is making some people think F@H is irrelevant?
Barry
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 2:38 am

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

Postby bruce » Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:46 am

Barry wrote:
F@H is irrelevant now due to [Corporation X]’s research. Why bother?


Exactly what research is making some people think F@H is irrelevant?


AFAIK there is none. This topic is mostly a collection of excuses for not running F@H. Many of those excuses are inaccurate -- just urban legends -- but that doesn't mean somebody will never claim it to be true.
bruce
 
Posts: 20122
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: So. Cal.

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

Postby ford316 » Sun Jan 06, 2013 9:24 am

bruce wrote:
Barry wrote:
F@H is irrelevant now due to [Corporation X]’s research. Why bother?


Exactly what research is making some people think F@H is irrelevant?


AFAIK there is none. This topic is mostly a collection of excuses for not running F@H. Many of those excuses are inaccurate -- just urban legends -- but that doesn't mean somebody will never claim it to be true.


Only 2 reasons really not to use fah first is not knowing about it like me I didn't know about it until afew months ago 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-)
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 8:44 am
Location: Earth

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

Postby bruce » Sun Jan 06, 2013 8:07 pm

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.
bruce
 
Posts: 20122
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