Hardware Canucks

Hardware Canucks (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/)
-   HardwareCanucks F@H Team (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardwarecanucks-f-h-team/)
-   -   Bigadv points changes (http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardwarecanucks-f-h-team/44691-bigadv-points-changes.html)

Alpine July 5, 2011 08:15 AM

Bigadv points changes
 
[quote]
kasson Sat Jul 02, 2011 1:11 am
After much discussion, we are adjusting the points bonus for bigadv. Bigadv work units have been given a 50% base points bonus over standard SMP; the rationale for this was to compensate for the increased system load, increased memory requirements, and increased upload/download bandwidth requirements. As judged from the high demand for bigadv work units, this has been very much a success, perhaps a little too much so. We would like to continue to offer a bonus for bigadv to offset the above factors, but we don't want demand for bigadv to overwhelm the rest of the project or imbalance the points system.

We are therefore dropping the bigadv base points bonus from 50% to 20%, effective for all work units issued this time onwards.

We very much appreciate the donors who have volunteered to run bigadv work units; these projects add substantially to our scientific capabilities. We do important science with all classes of work units, however, and we want the points system to reflect that. Based on extensive feedback, we are considering renormalizing other parts of the system but have not finalized decisions in that regard.

Thanks again for folding!

New points values, old points values, and unadjusted base values are given in the table below. Deadlines and k-factors remain unchanged.

"Standard points" is what the project would receive for base points if standard SMP. "Old bigadv" is the old bigadv base points (50% bonus). "New bigadv" is the new bigadv base points (20% bonus).

Project Standard points Old bigadv New bigadv Preferred Final k-factor
2684 8529 12790 10235 4 6 26.4
2685 5970 8955 7164 4 6 26.4
2686 5970 8955 7164 4 6 26.4
2689 5970 8955 7164 4 6 26.4
2692 5970 8955 7164 4 6 26.4
6900 5970 8955 7164 4 6 26.4
6901 5970 8955 7164 4 6 26.4
6903 18923 28385 22708 7.2 12 38.05
6904 26284 39426 31541 10.2 17 37.31
[quote]


Folding Forum • View topic - bigadv points changes

Arinoth July 5, 2011 08:20 AM

Looks like they are trying to push people towards 12+ core thread folding if they really want the massive ppd. Its a shame really as it means you are stuck running native linux on a machine to get 12+ core support it would seem and to get the big folding bonuses now.

chrisk July 5, 2011 08:26 AM

This is going to affect us big-time. Some folks who have spent big money on Bigadv will be disappointed.

I wonder if they are just having a hard time getting Bigadv units ready, or is it simply a case of folders not doing other units enough.

Dead Things July 5, 2011 09:02 AM

Something had to give. I like this move.

_dangtx_ July 5, 2011 09:07 AM

yummy. how about forcing units wether you want them or not? :) id love to see that!

lowfat July 5, 2011 09:10 AM

Well this is why my P6800 only gave me 68,000 points over the weekend instead of 105,000. Well this definitely drops the idea of me building a 48-core machine or probably any multi socket machine any time soon. http://smiliesftw.com/x/hsrun.gif

CoreX5 July 5, 2011 09:29 AM

Its good to seem them trying keep points in line with scientific value to the project. Although it is really frustrating for people trying to build folding machines, or purchase hardware to fold on. Unfortunately it always happens with what Stanford considers to be beta projects, they tend to tweak the points as they go along. I remember the uproar when gpu wu got adjusted as they had caught fire in popularity.

chrisk July 5, 2011 09:37 AM

Yeah its a double-edged sword. The current Bigadv point setup dwarfs those with regular machines and regular contributions. You wonder how many folks decided to stop folding with their single ATi gpu or dual-core chip because they looked at the big boys and thought they were not really contributing?

But when you create a points system Stanford should realize by now that folks will spend big money to build around these point schemes.

I wonder if the best method here would have been to simply increase the points for regular gpu and smp projects? No real difference really, except that those who built for 500K or even 1million ppd machines would stll have been able to meet their goals and still have a measure of reward for their money spent?

krazyups July 5, 2011 10:27 AM

Well, it'll be back to regular smp units for me once the 2686 gets submitted today ... makes more sense ppd wise (and not as big of a hit when I decide to game for 2-3 hours!). Even folding a 690x series WU won't give me the same ppd as the regular smp's will (significant difference too).

Oh well, at least I'll be upping the number of units I return in one day ... moar science!

Soultribunal July 5, 2011 11:39 AM

I think a big issue (That stanford really didn't forsee) was the willingness of people to go out and build these massive Boxes for BigAdv folding. The demand was stripping out the supply , and other crucial WU's and simulations that they need run were not being met (the ones our GPU's can Crunch).

So it makes sense, I honestly think they didn't see this comming to the level the world brought.

ST


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:34 AM.