Change in BA requirements

[HaloJones]

I don't buy that reducing the number of machines that do BA can possibly increase the amount of science being done. If that is true, hive BA off into a different stats system and watch what happens. It's always seemed an anomaly that a particular kind of work done on a particular kind of machine can earn exponentially ridiculous points compared to the guys chugging along a their home computer.

Secondly, the idea that Core17 is using the same points system as SMP seems equally nuts. Are the same units being given to both? Doesn't look like it from where I'm sitting but I'm ready to be corrected.

So from what I'm seeing we have a broken points system where donors are told not to buy specifically for Folding but are rewarded exponentially for having the latest gear. Rich (and not-so-rich) folders come in with Titans and BA machines and make in a day what others have spent a year achieving. Argunents occur every time changes are proposed. Either it's unfair to the power-folders or unfair to the long-standing folders of yesteryear.

Either we stop the QRB or apply it everywhere.

Either way, the change in points would be so fundamental as to invalidate the previous points. I doubt anyone would appreciate a giant re-valuation exercise where some would inevitably win and others lose. So I repeat my previous request.

Declare this round of FAH over. Stop the clock for a day. Re-calculate the points for all remaining new units so that either they all have QRB or none of them (preferably none IMO).

Finally, I ask this one question: while Stanford is busy "maximising the amount of science", how much science will be done if the donors move elsewhere?

[Nathan_P]

You'll have to invent some numbers to fill in the following potential explanation.

Some percentage X of BA assignments are currently completed in A days by machines that will still be folding after the change(s) take place. The remainder of BA assignments are completed by slower machines in B days. The average completion time is X*A + (100%-X)*B. After the change, deadlines will be shorter and the average completion rate will be A rather than some weighted average of A and B. Yes, fewer WUs will be completed per day, but they'll be completed faster so they'll be more valuable scientifically.

By a similar argument, assuming some percentage of machines which will no longer be folding BA will be folding SMP (granted that that's an uncertain number) the average completion rate of SMP assignments will go up.

If my earlier suppositions are valid (still unconfirmed), the science done by both SMP and BA will improve, speed-wise.

Science dictates some minimum number of trajectories are valuable. Allocating more WUs than are needed is not good, but having trajectories that nobody is working on is also not good. The ideal situation is where science needs roughly the the same number of trajectories as there are machines working on those projects.

If science needs more SMP trajectories to be completed than there are machines to work on them, some are not being worked on, slowing overall progress. If science needs fewer trajectories than the number of donor machines attempting to fold them, either less-critical trajectories are added to the server or the server runs out of work (another cause for angry Donors).

OK I chose some random numbers

Less computers means less to work on each trajectory, I am currently working on 3 different BA WU across projects 8101 and 05. When 2 of these machines get obsoleted in april they will not be replaced, so that is 2 less trajectories being done. Now say that there are going to be 500 machines rendered obsolete thats 500 less trajectories being worked on at any one time. Now some may invest in a 4p replacement and there may be a few new folders join, that's still an overall loss to the science. 300 4p machines can still only do the work of 300 machines, not 800

[Adak]

This is just my opinion: I don't "see" points as just competition. We are working on something inheriently intangible and not empirical. Points are my way of having some idea of the (hopefully) good I do for medical science. Yes I'm suffering since 15 Y.O. My diseases are last on anyones list but I want to help suffering ...period. I can build a house, re-model a house, carpet huge office buildings, Hulk Hogans, HomeDepots Southern manager, other celebrities homes. But folding? How can I "see" what I've done? I can't. I was lead to believe,and hoped points would tell me. What I don't understand is: My same hardware runs 24/7. So how is 1 project MORE important? I get bonuses for upgrading hardware. But why not points per hour? Some run few hours a day, I know. So bonuses for folders running 24/7 because F@H (know or should? ) their results be done soon. Why not "loyalty" points? I mean someone can run F@H 1 day a week and get all 8900's and 24/7 get 8018"s. I don"t get people saying why should I run my XXX hardware if I don't get the high paying WU's? Aren't we all here to stop suffering? I do "get" others human desire to be equal, I do. Just questions with no answer.

You're correct, gimpy. We are here to further science, without the science, the better treatments, and the cures, won't happen. FAH won't do the cures, but they will provide the data that others will need, to develop the cures.

The way points work, people who fold longer, on equal PC's, will make more points than those who fold less hours per day (or per week, etc.), in the long run. Not every single day, and maybe not every single week, but most days, and most weeks, they will come out just as they should. More folding time on equal PC's, gets more points.

You are also correct about points being much more than just competition. They are a measure of our donation and work for FAH. They become a part of our feelings about ourselves. The more you fold, the more your self-image becomes closer to your point production and ranking (team, world-wide, milestone, etc.).
That's another reason, beyond the cost factor, why the emotions here are running high.

And thanks for your support of FAH.

@mdk77: great idea. A cool down period would be great.

@Bruce: for God's sake man - don't post any more "definitions". WTH! I understand your frustration with this thread, just don't.

@Viper and texinga: FAH has always had a "points system problem". Pande Group is good with science, but can't set up a really good points system, to save their souls. After all these years, I've concluded it's just not in them.

The FAH project is still a very good one (as is WCG). My advice is to expect bumps in the road regarding points and projects, in FAH. Ride out the bad, and enjoy the good. They aren't trying to "stick it" to you, it's just the way they have the project set up. FAH has frequently been a bumpy road with points and projects. No doubt the bigadv projects have stimulated FAH's project. The downside is the disappointment the folders have when their folding rig no longer can fold the bigadv wu's. That is a big deal, but remember that you had a great folding run while it lasted, and those powerful folders will still do a great job of folding regular SMP work units. Not spectacular, but still, very good.

Whatever project you donate to, they will be fortunate to have it.

[Adak]

@HaloJones: FAH has never had a way to assign points in a linear fashion, for all kinds of reasons. QRB is a very good idea, and should have been implemented from day one, on every work unit. In fact, QRB should be "folded" right into the basic point system. As such, it would "disappear" as a topic, separate from a discussion of basic points.

FAH works in a sequential fashion with the projects. They need the first generation results, to see what the 2nd generation should start with. Getting the work units folded and returned quickly, is critical to that process. In all BOINC projects for instance, quicker returns equals higher points earned for that work unit.

@Nathan_P: First, condolences buddy, I know this hits you quite hard. I'm just guessing out of ignorance here, so keep the grains of salt handy.

I believe that the Pande Group has looked at the bigadv wu's, and have some data to support the idea, that now they need a quicker return on their bigadv wu's. It might be from some requirement that some sponsors have, for instance? The reason simply isn't known to us - but they HAVE a reason. They're research scientists, not nut jobs. That is why they stated earlier, that these adjustments to the bigadv threshold, would be continuing. So everyone knew they were coming soon(ish). At least, I expected one "jump" this Winter, (but not two "jumps" so close together! )

I know it won't be nearly as much as the ppd you can earn now, but those systems can do a good job folding regular SMP work units, and I hope you'll consider staying on in the project.

Maybe the team could start a fund to help defray the cost of replacing the rigs that are going to be unable to continue folding bigadv?

[7im]

...

...FAH has always had a "points system problem". Pande Group is good with science, but can't set up a really good points system, to save their souls. After all these years, I've concluded it's just not in them.

Whatever project you donate to, they will be fortunate to have it.

And yet, no one, in many years, has been able to conceive a workable suggestion to improve the points system that didn't bring with it more problems than solutions, or more cost than benefit.

Considering the speed of technological churn, the points system remains comparatively stable, with occasional adjustments in the benchmark. A benchmark which continues to be tied to both the science and the original benchmark system. Where other DC projects reset their points to zero every few years, or don't even last a few years, fah maintains its basis for long term consistency as well as possible.

So whatever PG has in them or not, it's been more than anyone else has been able to put in.


Here is a hypothetical situation to show you the difficulties in making Points Adjustments without thinking things through completely and assuming there are simple solutions.

The enthusiast consensus says that if you want more SMP work done, you need to raise the points. Assume they raise SMP points by 20% so it tails together more closely with the BA points curve, with 10 years of scientific value and equal points for equal work be damned.

Let's say that AVX support comes along in a few months and doubles the SMP performance on newer Quad cores. Do you then remove the 20% boost? The logical answer seems to be yes, the 50% boost from AVX support easily negates the need for a false 20% boost any more.

What is not obvious is that not all of the current quad cores folding SMP WUs support AVX, and so their points won't get that boost. But by then, everyone has become accustomed to that false 20% elevation of points, both on the AVX and non AVX systems. So then AVX users get a 50% boost, and the non AVX users get a 20% cut in points, and scream bloody murder again.

Do you also boost the GPU points by 20% because they can now do the same work as CPUs? Do you also cut the GPUs by 20% after the AVX release? All the new fah donors who joined after the false 20% boost will complain about the cut in pay, as is natural. Was the 20% boost in SMP worth the complaints from the GPU donors?

When AVX support comes, and BA performance doubles, is a top end Intel 4P BA system really doing 3 Million PPD worth of science each day? If they did 3 WUs per day yesterday for 1 Million PPD, and AVX comes along, and now they can do 6 WUs per day, is double the work really worth triple the points? Are those 6 work units in 1 day really worth the same amount of points as some people have earned in 10 years of folding?

What happens when NV JIT doubles the GPU performance on NV GPUs but not on AMD GPUs? Will they claim they didn't know JIT was coming? How do you answer that question? Do you remove the false 20% boost on all GPUs, or just the NV GPUs? Is that fair?

I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

[Bill1024]

So Tim what is your solution?

[mdk777]

Sooo...given the above, what was the benefit of making a change at this time again?
Just to reopen and re-expose the problem?

If I know I am in a "delicate" position, I do everything i can to avoid rocking the boat.
When I do determine that I have to make a move(say pass on a price increase to a customer in a down economy or very competitive market)...I make double sure I am prepared to explain, defend, and document the pressing need for change.

Nothing I hate worse than going into a meeting unprepared...I just don't do it.

Just to be clear, my advice was for PG to take immediate ACTION.
Withdrawing until further review is action. It shows a serious resolve to address the donor complaints and carefully review the situation again. Allowing complaints to just simmer and hoping they will dissipate over time is suicide.

Again, 7im, the changes in hardware and software MIGHT require adjusts if and when they come to fruition...
I would make changes at that time, and even if I had a broader agenda; I might use those changes as a pretext for more extensive changes in the entire point scheme.

All that said...PG has made no explanation of the benefit of the current announcement,applied to current WU, now.

[Adak]

Oh please:

And yet, no one, in many years, has been able to conceive a workable suggestion to improve the points system that didn't bring with it more problems than solutions, or more cost than benefit.

Either you're joking, or you mean a workable suggestion that will immediately be shot down by someone who has no clue how to implement it. Because absolutely, positively, a better point system could be set up. You simply don't have anyone who wants to work on it, who knows how to set up a points system. I understand that. They're researchers, not statisticians or handicappers.

[k1wi]

Oh please:

And yet, no one, in many years, has been able to conceive a workable suggestion to improve the points system that didn't bring with it more problems than solutions, or more cost than benefit.

Either you're joking, or you mean a workable suggestion that will immediately be shot down by someone who has no clue how to implement it. Because absolutely, positively, a better point system could be set up. You simply don't have anyone who wants to work on it, who knows how to set up a points system. I understand that. They're researchers, not statisticians or handicappers.

I'd suggest that the reason a new points system hasn't been implemented is because it suffers the critical flaw in that it will be a change, and leave some folders worse off as a result.

[mdk777]

unfortunately, he's not joking.

What he is pointing out is the current state of affairs.

When met with a difficult series of choices regarding points...

PG has consistently reverted to the "no action at this time" choice.

In another words, since they don't have a "perfect" solution, they continue with a hands off, que sera sera attitude.

I have pointed out many times in the past:
it is probably accurate to assume that those who post here are a very small minority of donors...and that alienating even the smaller number of BA donors who might quit; might indeed work out to be an inconsequential affect to the larger project.

However, the lack of attention, the lack of administration in this aspect(donor relations,communication,and point administration) reflects poorly on the project and has a much larger multiplier on donor morale than the numbers of actual machines would indicate.

This has been my opinion for many, many years...and is really my single theme of posting(as astute readers will gather)

[gwildperson]

I'd suggest that the reason a new points system hasn't been implemented is because it suffers the critical flaw in that it will be a change, and leave some folders worse off as a result.

I'm absolutely in favor of a new points system as long as I'm not one of the people who ends up being worse off.

In its present form, the announcement, though lacking in details, is a new points system for those with 2P systems and they seem to have a perfectly good reason for not liking it, science notwithstanding. The other 99% of us don't really care how much the CEOs of big business or their VPs get paid.

[mdk777]

and now for something completely different.

I came to the conclusion that we were usually hired for unique bespoke problems that no one ever saw before. If you were thinking within the context of one model, you couldn't solve this new problem. But if you examined it through multiple models at the same time, you could find a solution. So we pulled problems apart using many models, whether they were discipline-based, like marketing and manufacturing, or the stay small or grow big model, or being low-end focused or high-end focused."

Martin thought he could bring this "integrative thinking" approach to a business school.

http://management.fortune.cnn.com/2013/ ... er-martin/

So when no single model or method seems to work, seems to be the best fit...It must be time to integrate the best parts of the competing models into a new model...

Dang...the guy spends 15 years of his life pushing this idea and builds one of the newest and most successful business schools in the process.
Snap...seems obvious, but easier said then done I guess.
None the less

This is what is required here in my opinion.

[Rattledagger]

Where other DC projects reset their points to zero every few years

I'm only aware of 2 DC-Projects starting at zero again, this is SETI@home and Folding@home.

Let's say that AVX support comes along in a few months

Welcome after, no changes to credit-system was neccessary with the release of AVX-application earlier this year on another DC-Project, equal credit for equal work regardless of hardware used still works.

I'm absolutely in favor of a new points system as long as I'm not one of the people who ends up being worse off.

Except if you're currently #1, re-starting at zero again will be a benefit, since you've not got anyone else ahead of you.

[gimpy]

Is this TOO simple? X points pre hour of X hardware???? If it takes the "bench machine" x hours to complete the WU...so what? These are hypothetical points to satisfy man's(my, if that makes you feel bettr) greed or estimation of accomplishment for his efforts...See greed. Yes I'm human and envy noones accomplishments but it seems this "donor" program is promoting one up-manship? Read: Free enterprise system (greed).A man will spend a fortune to be seen as the "better man". If F@H wants to progress....need find a way to settle mans vanity equally? or perish? My P.C runs 24/7,uses same power and the cost still same as when I bought it.

[Xavier Zepherious]

If AVX support comes it will apply to some desktop and server rigs (newer hardware)
those 2p & 4p rigs using modern AMD and XEON chips will get the bonus

no the bonus(rebalance) should not be reduced because we have a CPU more capable of doing work than before.

so if you give a 20% boost to SMP - I dare say it should be 30% (because I dropped more than 50% of PPD with the last change - more like 70%)
that would reflect the rebalance of SMP to BIGADV


if you improve some CPU performance(with AVX) than that should be reflected as well (that's additional bonus because those CPU's are capable of thet)

that would just relegate old hardware to lower points and is nearing EOL anyways - anything over 4yrs old is at EOL - end of life -near death and needs replacing soon
just how long do you expect hardware to last?

Im retiring mine - doesn't pay to spend $$ for old hardware that could be put in new hardware