those with slower procs and dial-up look here

NASsoccer · Jul 26, 2002

interesting statement from vijay... those with smaller procs should look

What's the fix? Longer WUs are the easiest one, which we'll likely move to. Also, once Gro is in and working, I do plan to put in the WU lengh request field in the client -- that should allow the fast machines to get the long WUs and the slow to get the short, balancing out the WUs/day.

V

Click to expand...

hmmm, now he gave absolutely no time frame for this but this could surely help/change a lot of things. this is great "news" for those who have a slower machine or two folding and also great "news" for dial-up users. obviously it isn't official but at least it good to know that they are planning on implementing this option in the near future!

FOLD ON
NAS

DManeKid · Jul 26, 2002

wow thats great news!! im always getting the opposite if that! it really sux!

FoldingAddict · Jul 26, 2002

That would be nice. Thats kind of one of those features that I think should have been in version 3.

Loud · Jul 26, 2002

I still say the assignment servers should already be doing this. They know (or can figure out) how long each processor (by processor ID) is taking for each WU. The servers should adjust WU assignment, instead of leaving it up to users.

NASsoccer · Jul 26, 2002

Loud said:
I still say the assignment servers should already be doing this. They know (or can figure out) how long each processor (by processor ID) is taking for each WU. The servers should adjust WU assignment, instead of leaving it up to users.

i completely agree, this would make it very easy on the user but it won't happen anytime soon because stanford is already backed up trying to figure out what happend to the the code. vijay said this way would take out the heavily modified code that the AS servers would need and by the user designating it, would make the transition a little smoother. also this would mean less of a chance the the code could go haywire again, as problems could be isolated to the clients.

would be nice though to have the AS servers giving out units per proc speed. stanford could then be reasured that there would be less of chance of getting expired WU's back.

FOLD ON
NAS

Loud · Jul 26, 2002

NASsoccer said:
... would be nice though to have the AS servers giving out units per proc speed ...

It's actually a bit more subtle than CPU speed (a la MHz). It has to do with real-time turnaround. An AMD running at 500MHz but dedicated 24x7 may have better turnaround times (maybe 2 days on a Tetraloop?) than a 1GHZ box that can only fold during the day ... or during the night (which might take 3 days for the same Tetraloop).

Am I making sense? Sometimes I drift a bit ...

NASsoccer · Jul 26, 2002

Loud said:
It's actually a bit more subtle than CPU speed (a la MHz). It has to do with real-time turnaround. An AMD running at 500MHz but dedicated 24x7 may have better turnaround times (maybe 2 days on a Tetraloop?) than a 1GHZ box that can only fold during the day ... or during the night (which might take 3 days for the same Tetraloop).

Am I making sense? Sometimes I drift a bit ...

lol,, nah you make perfect sense

and i see where you are coming from. this method would certainly make a lot of sense. would certainly help to gurantee WU's are done on time, i just don't know how hard this would be to implemement

you're guess is better than mine

FOLD ON
NAS

ZeroAquaduct · Jul 26, 2002

Loud said:
I still say the assignment servers should already be doing this. They know (or can figure out) how long each processor (by processor ID) is taking for each WU. The servers should adjust WU assignment, instead of leaving it up to users.

I'm sure we'll receive this feature in the near future. This automatic assignment might be a little too sophisticated and time-consuming right now for the Pande Group (remember the Pande Group's key task is to conduct research on proteins, not to run high-tech servers).

JetMech · Jul 27, 2002

esit said:
I'm sure we'll receive this feature in the near future. This automatic assignment might be a little too sophisticated and time-consuming right now for the Pande Group (remember the Pande Group's key task is to conduct research on proteins, not to run high-tech servers).

True that. And you can bet that there is someone on that campus squacking everytime they submit a budget that reflects the funds needed to do the things that would keep us happy. Stanford needs us to be understanding and patient. They have a very daunting task ahead of them. Getting the most work out of the least effort could tremendously increase how they look to those who would cut their budget due to failure to produce results. There have to be other unrelated projects vying for those same funds. I personally wouldn't want to be in their shoes. But then I'm mentally retired

. I wouldn't be doing this unless I was sure that they were putting forth their best efforts. Let's be patient team. I see really good things coming down the pike. :beer:

DManeKid · Jul 27, 2002

JetMech said:
And you can bet that there is someone on that campus squacking everytime they submit a budget that reflects the funds needed to do the things that would keep us happy. Stanford needs us to be understanding and patient.

i never thought of that...i suggest that every1 else keeps that in mind too

ed8150 · Jul 27, 2002

why not out sourcing the code so we could modify it and resubmit it with the needed improvements? has this already been ruled out?

DManeKid · Jul 27, 2002

they really dont like that idea, since it could mess up results and ruin the whole thing...so no that wont happen

NASsoccer · Jul 27, 2002

ed8150 said:
why not out sourcing the code so we could modify it and resubmit it with the needed improvements? has this already been ruled out?

you mean like this ??

FOLD ON
NAS

Loud · Jul 28, 2002

All points made are good ones. I never meant to say or even imply that making ANY change to the servers would be a simple 5 minute change.

BUT ... I've been in software long enough to know that you never get what you want if you don't ask.

NASsoccer · Jul 28, 2002

Loud said:
All points made are good ones. I never meant to say or even imply that making ANY change to the servers would be a simple 5 minute change.

BUT ... I've been in software long enough to know that you never get what you want if you don't ask.

certainly

never hurts to ask, maybe you could drop the pandegroup an email and suggest it to them

i am sure they would love to hear any ideas to make the folding exprience that much better.

FOLD ON
NAS

Cowboy X · Jul 28, 2002

That ability to choose wus is excellent and I hope it is implemented soon .

As a dialup user I must add that I don't have any problems with a modem and FAH . I am able to submit and recieve WUs within seconds to 1 min unless the servers are down or give the no work available message .

DManeKid · Jul 28, 2002

i have always had a modem and F@H has never given me problems

Cowboy X · Jul 29, 2002

What I'm sayimg is that I understand the relevance of this thread to ppl with slow computers , but the reference to dialup in the title , I don't understand .

DManeKid · Jul 29, 2002

well they say that bc when people with dial ups (that arent always on anyway) now wont have to dial up so often, now do you get it? the bigger the file the longer you will have to work on it and the less you will have to log onto the internet, its very simple

NASsoccer · Jul 29, 2002

DManeKid said:
well they say that bc when people with dial ups (that arent always on anyway) now wont have to dial up so often, now do you get it? the bigger the file the longer you will have to work on it and the less you will have to log onto the internet, its very simple

exactly, from what i understand, stanford gets a lot of complaints about this. most the dial-up users they hear from hate the hassle of having to dial up so frequently and this would help solve this problem as autodialing is not always an option.

FOLD ON
NAS

those with slower procs and dial-up look here

On a string I was held Senior

Member

Intel Fanboy

Member

On a string I was held Senior

Member

On a string I was held Senior

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

On a string I was held Senior

Member

On a string I was held Senior

Member

Member

Member

Member

On a string I was held Senior

Similar threads