bigadv move to 16+ cores as previously announced

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

Moderators: Site Moderators, PandeGroup

bigadv move to 16+ cores as previously announced

Postby kasson » Mon Jul 30, 2012 5:03 pm

We announced at the beginning of the year that the bigadv program would be moving to clients with 16+ cores. At this point, we are only serving 16+ BA work units. We do continue to evaluate the program and may make changes (in either direction) in the future as both the scientific work we are doing and the capabilities of donor machines continue to change.

Thanks for folding!
User avatar
kasson
Pande Group Member
 
Posts: 1906
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 9:37 pm

Re: bigadv move to 16+ cores as previously announced

Postby Xavier Zepherious » Mon Jul 30, 2012 8:20 pm

so nothing for 3930k even tho I can do 6901,6903,6904 easily and should easily make 6905,6906

or are we still gonna have some wu's for such systems
Xavier Zepherious
 
Posts: 138
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2011 8:02 am

Re: bigadv move to 16+ cores as previously announced

Postby Nathan_P » Mon Jul 30, 2012 8:25 pm

Xavier Zepherious wrote:so nothing for 3930k even tho I can do 6901,6903,6904 easily and should easily make 6905,6906

or are we still gonna have some wu's for such systems


I reckon I can manage 8102 on dual L5640's but not 8101 and probably not 6905/06.
Oh well off to the scrap heap it goes :cry:
Image
Nathan_P
 
Posts: 1442
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 9:22 pm
Location: Jersey, Channel islands

Re: bigadv move to 16+ cores as previously announced

Postby 7im » Mon Jul 30, 2012 8:29 pm

Xavier Zepherious wrote:so nothing for 3930k even tho I can do 6901,6903,6904 easily and should easily make 6905,6906

or are we still gonna have some wu's for such systems


No, not nothing. As announced many months ago, less than 16 core performance would best help the project running regular SMP work units. ;)
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: bigadv move to 16+ cores as previously announced

Postby Patriot » Mon Jul 30, 2012 10:30 pm

http://folding.typepad.com/news/2011/11 ... -2012.html

Announced Nov 14th 2011.
First BA16 wu much much later...
Image
Patriot
 
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 2:04 pm

Re: bigadv move to 16+ cores as previously announced

Postby Leonardo » Tue Jul 31, 2012 1:42 am

Announced Nov 14th 2011. First BA16 wu much much later...
Well, we can't complain that we didn't get advance warning. :P
Image
User avatar
Leonardo
 
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:09 am
Location: Eagle River, Alaska

Re: bigadv move to 16+ cores as previously announced

Postby rhavern » Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:53 am

Leonardo wrote:
Announced Nov 14th 2011. First BA16 wu much much later...
Well, we can't complain that we didn't get advance warning. :P


But some probably will :-)
Folding since 1 WU=1 point
ImageImage
User avatar
rhavern
 
Posts: 484
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 8:45 am
Location: UK

Re: bigadv move to 16+ cores as previously announced

Postby heikosch » Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:46 pm

I´d like to express that I´m a big fan of this change. In the statistics there are now some teams (just trying to overtake my team) with a large decrease of PPD/day, some of their folders are even reduced to 0 PPD/day - probably stopped folding. Strike! :-)

But I´ve still no idea how science could benefit from that.

Heiko
Image Image
Image
heikosch
 
Posts: 139
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:31 pm
Location: Essen, Germany

Re: bigadv move to 16+ cores as previously announced

Postby bruce » Thu Aug 02, 2012 9:09 pm

heikosch wrote:But I´ve still no idea how science could benefit from that.


Simple answer: FAH needs to maintain a balance for all projects. Managing the PPD rules is an attempt to do that, but if 50% of the CPUs are working on 15% of the projects and the other 85% of the projects need more CPUs, they can ask nicely, they can add 10% to Core_a4, and they can reduce the incentives for Core_a5. Good science is not achieved unless there's a reasonable balance between ALL research projects.

Some will resist that change and some will get mad and leave, but if it makes for a better balance, then it's good for FAH's research efforts, depending, of course on how radically it was out of balance. (I have no numerical data, just a qualitative statement.)
bruce
 
Posts: 22738
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:13 pm
Location: So. Cal.

Re: bigadv move to 16+ cores as previously announced

Postby PinHead » Fri Aug 03, 2012 12:53 am

As with managing anything, you align the resources with the need. This is research so the need changes, or maybe someone just needs to do a sanity check on direction, or maybe we're not making the progress that we anticipated what can we try different. The list is endless, but it is research and if 50,000 ways that it doesn't work are discovered; then we are closer to the way it does work!
PinHead
 
Posts: 351
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 3:43 am


Return to SMP with bigadv

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron