View Single Post
  #119 (permalink)  
Old January 20, 2009, 08:58 PM
LCB001's Avatar
LCB001 LCB001 is offline
Folding Captain
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Aylmer QC.
Posts: 1,770

My System Specs


Originally Posted by Chilly View Post
I don't know, the thing with Rosetta @ Home is that its something that can easily be run on the CPU while people Fold @ Home on their GPU's. F@H and R@H can live togther peacefully and at full throttle with little to no issue. I see adding a third team would simply strain the resources of our folding/crunching members as they try to alocate resources between 3 or more projects.

R@H and F@H complement each other as the F@H ppd achieved on a CPU is minisucle compared to GPU folding. This allows people to crunch full power on R@H, producing good numbers on both, taking a almost non-existent hit on both(maybe 5% ppd/RAC on both due to overhead, loss of CPU folding)

Theres something to be said about spreading oneself too thin, and starting another 3rd main team would be just that IMO.
I actually have the same concerns as you just stated. I thought I would just throw it up there to explore the idea and see what thoughts people had on the subject. I am at heart a F@H addict and certainly don't want to distract members from either the F@H or R@H parts of our Team. I mentioned WCG because its popular, Cure For Cancer is Canadian based, and with Seti@Home would give us something to Crunch when the R@H servers are down as they seem to be frequently lately.

If we do decide to join DC Vault do we sign up as;

Hardware Canucks Forum - like our F@H Team
HardwareCanucks - like at R@H or
Hardware Canucks - two words like our Seti@Home Team.

Subtle differences but a standard should be established as it will come up again as our site grows.

As to CPU Folding, its not quite miniscule as my quads do ~3800-4000 PPD and a i7 running the linux client @3.6GHz will do 9000-10000 PPD. That said if I can get another decent card going I will be back contributing to our R@H Team...
Folding For Team 54196

Reply With Quote