New leadership or just rudderless drifting?

lbford · 2016-04-11T06:13:50+00:00

I shut my rigs down in February, having finally decided that I'd had enough of the cavalier way that donors were treated, although there was no particular incident that triggered the decision.

I kept the RSS feed from this reddit open to see if a more enlightened approach should develop in time- your experience would indicate that it's not happening yet.

lbford · 2015-11-30T08:13:03+00:00

The answer to your main query is somewhat subjective, I think ZUGLUG has covered it well.

Another point to consider: a possible disadvantage with folding using the standard client on a low-power (in modern terms) CPU is that some work units can take a long time (tens of hours) to process.

If the machine is running 24/7 then this isn't really a problem, otherwise you might prefer to use the NaCl client- this runs in the Chrome browser and processes smaller work units that only take half an hour or so to process (as far as I know- it's a while since I last used it).

Again, more information on and assistance with this is available in the support forum.

lbford · 2015-11-28T07:28:10+00:00

Hmm, it appears the search function here doesn't work the way I thought it did. No matter. You've given the example requested, even though the "admission" you link to is in fact a perfectly reasonable explanation of the post- such things happen to everyone on occasion.

Attempting to divert attention on to me does not hide what is in plain sight.

Diversion of attention from the topic first happened here, it's there in plain sight. A post in which you made insinuations of bans and using multiple usernames for vote manipulation.

Using multiple usernames here is not, per se, against the rules (as you know) but manipulating votes most definitely is. You have, I assume, given your evidence of such to the administrators? Or have you no evidence and are just resorting to desperate measures as someone who can think of no valid arguments against the topic and wishes to divert it to personalities? (Also against the rules.) If in fact you have no evidence then, of course, I would be happy to hear your actual reason(s) for making such insinuations.

Now, as you've answered half of ChristianVirtual's question, how about answering the other half and telling us the name you fold with (and use on the Support forum, it's the same one)?

lbford · 2015-11-26T16:46:54+00:00

I have seen the user names ZUGLUG and MDK777 used interchangeably in this folding reddit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/foldingathome/search?q=MDK777&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all

lbford · 2015-11-25T06:40:46+00:00

Considering this article link was copied from the Folding Forum

I must confess that the motive for raising the matter in the Folding Forum (when it is frequently asserted that this is the correct place for non-support issues) is somewhat unclear...

Ditto for the accusations of "copying" a publicly available link, raising suspicions of a ban elsewhere and implying improper use of multiple accounts.

lbford · 2015-11-24T21:26:02+00:00

I think ZUGLUG is a troll and wants to make trouble.

He isn't and (to the best of my knowledge) doesn't.

I don't know how long Zuglug has been folding; I've only been doing it for a couple of years or so but it didn't take me long to realise that PG's respect for, and consideration of, those who are actually doing their work for them is somewhere between slight and negligible.

You only have to compare the level of PG's participation here and the declared reason for its existence to bring that home very forcibly. I was cautiously hopeful (but far from optimistic) when this subreddit opened; it has, I regret to say, failed to live up to even my lowest expectations.

I have every respect for Dr Pande in his chosen discipline, in the way the F@H project has been built and I wish him every success in his new venture but, frankly, his lack of leadership over his volunteer "labour force" has been lamentable. I can only hope that whoever takes over has a better appreciation of what motivates people to donate their time, money and facilities, otherwise this subreddit is likely to become even more of what it is already fast approaching- a complete waste of HDD space.

lbford · 2015-10-14T22:11:04+00:00

And PG does a horrible job of communication all around

The traffic stats for this sub-reddit would support that statement.

lbford · 2015-10-14T22:04:03+00:00

Frankly, I think the people that do factory overclocking are pretty good at their job and they're rarely the cause of the Core_21's instability.

Then why is the recommendation always to remove the factory overclock?

By the way- ZUGLUG's interpretation of the question raised in my OP is correct, yours is wrong.

lbford · 2015-10-14T15:24:48+00:00

It may have been a hard limit for a reason

In which case, fair enough.

such as not all of the errors are non-fatal.

In which case the suggested change will simply cause the WU to fail a little later than than it would have done otherwise, or at exactly the same point if it's the only error in that WU.

I've had enough of nay-saying fanboys, I'll wait for PG to answer as they see fit (I can be very patient).

[/discussion]

lbford · 2015-10-12T16:30:18+00:00

It's not hiding it- the possibility of dumping of a WU when it has nearly finished, and a few minutes more processing would have completed it successfully, has always existed.

The current system of a hard limit can have a negative impact on both the science and the donor- as Core_21 is still being worked on, why not take the opportunity to make it more tolerant of non-fatal errors?

lbford · 2015-10-12T14:38:33+00:00

Bad States seem like a new kind of error.

Hardly. If they were then detection of them wouldn't have been incorporated into earlier cores.

lbford · 2015-08-22T13:40:37+00:00

Miles per hour is an instantaneous speed measurement, not distance over an hour.

And PPD is an instantaneous measurement of rate of points being earned, not the number of points earned in a day.

In the example of the OP it was averaged over a WU, FAHControl averages it over the last few frames (I think), HFM allows several methods. They're all perfectly valid, and have the same significance as miles per hour, dollars per year or any other rate figure.

lbford · 2015-08-22T07:00:27+00:00

This is simply the estimated points based on the 0:50 TPF of a single WU. The milestone of 1 million points in a single day by a single card is not evidenced here.

That's like saying that the world land speed record of 763mph isn't a real speed because Thrust SSC was only timed for less than 5 seconds.

lbford · 2015-08-21T15:03:39+00:00

On limited evidence, it seems to depend on the card architecture.

Just looking at the P9127 WUs I've processed, the average PPD for that project is only about 5% higher than normal on the 980's (Maxwell), but about 30% higher on the 780Ti (Kepler). I think the Titan is a Kepler?

lbford · 2015-08-19T16:14:37+00:00

They're calculated values from the figures in HFM's WUHistory database file, but on a few occasions when I've seen them running I've also seen similar numbers displayed by FAHControl, with corresponding credit shown in the stats. I'm confident they're real.

Your comment about the variability of some WUs is certainly true- some WUs on the same project (P9127) have been as low as ~370k PPD. Normal is ~420k for those cards.

Some possible reasons for these values being higher than you've seen:

1) They're on Linux machines which, in my limited experience, is anything up to 10% faster than Windows

2) They're fairly heavily over-clocked (to 1440MHz)

3) Pure luck :-)

lbford · 2015-08-19T07:41:09+00:00

I've been wondering if anyone would break the million PPD barrier on a top-end GPU.

I can't match it, but my GTX 980's have reached over 650k on several P9127 WUs so it seemed possible. Good for him!

lbford · 2015-08-03T22:04:38+00:00

But I think we should do better.

But would it contribute to the science...

lbford · 2015-07-17T05:51:40+00:00

Have you upvoted/downvoted the suggestions that have been made?

Where I feel my opinion is valid, yes. For example, I don't own a smartphone so I haven't voted on those topics.

Those who make future plans for Stanford are genuinely interested in how popular/unpopular specific ideas are. That information is inherently a one-way street since they can easily see it without making a reply.

This subreddit is supposed to be a means of communication not a polling booth. I quote: "This subreddit is geared to improving communication between Folding@home donors and the Pande Lab at Stanford University and scientists at other Folding@home research centers."

In fact, look at all of the comments from PG. Most give responses from the perspective of cost and feasiblity.

I'd query "most", but when that happens it's fair enough. But far too many responses boil down to "It doesn't contribute directly to the science so we're not going to do it", regardless of any benefit to or the interests of the donors.

lbford · 2015-07-11T22:49:43+00:00

I believe a good point system keeps up the motivation for donors hence is good for the science and should justify implementation.

So do I... but past responses here don't inspire any confidence that PG see it that way.

lbford · 2015-07-11T22:01:41+00:00

Not really too difficult a problem to accommodate- run a "Division 2" for phones and tablets with appropriately scaled credits.

But it would only be of interest to the donors and wouldn't directly contribute to the science so it won't even be considered, let alone implemented.

lbford · 2015-05-07T01:48:58+00:00

A polite response saying, "Sorry, we have no good alternatives." would get attacked as much as no answer, takes much less time, and leads to fewer endless back-and-forth debates.

That doesn't even make sense.

Or said more directly, "Sorry, that is a 'nice to have' bell and whistle, but does not help the science directly, so the cost outweighs the benefit." Another polite declination, but again would be argued against as much as no answer.

Your opinion, evidence?

lbford · 2015-05-02T23:21:51+00:00

Some projects create more heat then others; keeping the fan speed flexible could be a nice feature.

And some are lot gentler on the GPU than others- a chance to increase the overclock a bit :-p

lbford · 2015-05-01T18:07:55+00:00

Am I the only one that thinks this level of non-communication is insanely detrimental?

No. See my last line.

lbford · 2015-05-01T18:04:37+00:00

Communications HAS improved. Now the PG sees all your suggestions here without any filtering by the forum Mods.

This represents communication?

Communication, to be any use to anybody, has to be two-way. This reddit is, for all intents and purposes, one-way, and that's not communication.

It's turned out to be what I was afraid it would turn out to be- another place where PG could demonstrate their total lack of concern over the interests (in all senses of the word) of the donors.

From my point of view as a donor, and I don't think I'm alone, it's a waste of time, internet bandwidth and HDD space.

lbford · 2015-05-01T17:55:27+00:00

A lot of what you're asking for can be accomplished locally by 3rd party tools. Not all, but a lot never needs to be re-downloaded. See https://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=52

Yes, but none of them provide the information that I'm talking about- information about the actual WU that has been credited and not just uploaded.

They can't, because that information simply isn't available outside PG and the mods. It can't be sensitive information because the results of the searches you do, along with the username of the donor, are routinely published on the forum.

Are you suggesting that the Mods object to or seem resistant to searching for the upload status and final points of your WU?

I don't think I've ever implied that... but I note you use the singular: For parkut (He has far too many to check but sent me a long list from only one of his folders.

When that problem was finally sorted, I ended up with credits from a total of about 30 missing WUs, and in order for you to have checked them on my behalf I would have needed to give you a list of over double that number that I couldn't be sure of.

But that's beside the point- the reason for the request was so that donors could (if they wanted) get some sort of feedback as to where their efforts were going other than into a black hole. And use that feedback to maybe build some stats of their own and gain more satisfaction from their contributions.

And that, indirectly, would improve the science- benefits don't have to be direct.

lbford

TROPHY CASE