Community driven support forum for Folding@home
https://foldingforum.org/
I think fixed the bug and released a new version was very good, but as a programmer, there is no way to assign clients a WU that can't handle, user SHOULD upgrade their clients, but not mean that we don't need to care about if there is someone didn't upgrade, it's a different view , I hope F@H could be better so I said that, of course I knew there is a new version, and after I upgrade it and problem will be solved, I knew it!7im wrote:They released v6.34 to fix the problem and most everyone was already running 64 bit software for a long time by then. There was no need to update the v6 32 bit client.
This is a case of notfred's software being out of date, not a fah problem solved more than two years ago. Sorry, but IMO, you are putting the blame in the wrong place.
Thanks for folding.
The problem is that with limited resources, development resources can only be spent in certain areas. For the last while now, that area has been the V7 client. J. Coffland's done a lot of work in making the software simple to use, easy to understand, and much more scientifically flexible than the older v6 client. Sure, the v6 client still has work it can do, but the V7 client is the recommended software that can do more. As the researchers launch projects that can only be run on the later clients, the v6 client will, eventually and inevitably, run out of supported WUs and become deprecated. This has happened for the older v5 and below clients.Mr.Hello wrote:I think fixed the bug and released a new version was very good, but as a programmer, there is no way to assign clients a WU that can't handle, user SHOULD upgrade their clients, but not mean that we don't need to care about if there is someone didn't upgrade, it's a different view , I hope F@H could be better so I said that, of course I knew there is a new version, and after I upgrade it and problem will be solved, I knew it!
Thank you very much!7im wrote:@Mr.Hello, I understand your intentions, and I agree with them. I will ask if it is possible to raise the minimum client version setting (programming) on this project number so that it does not go out to older clients. However, that may result in a reduction of the work units available to that client, bringing v6 one step closer to end of life.
v6 has a lot of way to deploy, v7 is too new that there are not tool like Diskless Folding or other deploy tool, if there is not a big bug will make some serious problem, I hope v6 can be alive, some config and design are not so humane, I believe many people got problems when they want to monitor v7 client, the IP and pass config need to restart the client to apply, think about if you want to change your proxy setting in browser, every time you change it, and you want to check if it is valid, you need to restart your browser again and again, it's very not convenient, (though I think v7's security is better)...Jesse_V wrote:The problem is that with limited resources, development resources can only be spent in certain areas. For the last while now, that area has been the V7 client. J. Coffland's done a lot of work in making the software simple to use, easy to understand, and much more scientifically flexible than the older v6 client. Sure, the v6 client still has work it can do, but the V7 client is the recommended software that can do more. As the researchers launch projects that can only be run on the later clients, the v6 client will, eventually and inevitably, run out of supported WUs and become deprecated. This has happened for the older v5 and below clients.Mr.Hello wrote:I think fixed the bug and released a new version was very good, but as a programmer, there is no way to assign clients a WU that can't handle, user SHOULD upgrade their clients, but not mean that we don't need to care about if there is someone didn't upgrade, it's a different view , I hope F@H could be better so I said that, of course I knew there is a new version, and after I upgrade it and problem will be solved, I knew it!
It's a similar story with operating systems. The release of the next iteration (or the iteration after that) usually marks the beginning of end for the older versions. In Windows, this timeline is measured in years and in non-rolling Linux distributions this is measured in months. 7im is right, development has stopped on the v6 client, and unless you have a good reason, it's recommended to upgrade to V7.
But I think we're drifting the topic a bit.
I thought that, for a old user, v6 is easy to control, though I think v7 is more friendly for new user and it's better for a fresh man! so I said it's different view, not everybody need the same way.I like the complete control I get with v6. v7 seems to want to do its own thing, which is fine on a dedicated system, but not on an occasional folder.
7im wrote:@Mr.Hello, I understand your intentions, and I agree with them. I will ask if it is possible to raise the minimum client version setting (programming) on this project number so that it does not go out to older clients. However, that may result in a reduction of the work units available to that client, bringing v6 one step closer to end of life.
I already used the method I said before, build a fake Stanford server let my diskless PCs to download the client and core, so I use v6.34 now, thank for your help, I think there are always somebody not upgrade already, this decision may avoid the same problem on others!7im wrote:7im wrote:@Mr.Hello, I understand your intentions, and I agree with them. I will ask if it is possible to raise the minimum client version setting (programming) on this project number so that it does not go out to older clients. However, that may result in a reduction of the work units available to that client, bringing v6 one step closer to end of life.
Asked and answered. The researcher, Dr. Kasson, has raised the minimum version for a4 work units on that server to v6.33 so the older clients which had trouble folding these won't get them any more. Thank you Dr. Kasson.
And depending on the supply of a3 work units, clients older than v6.34 will eventually experience WU shortages. Not soon, but you should plan on upgrading sooner than that.
Can you clarify this? What do you mean by "fake Stanford server"? Does that relate, and if so how, to the diskless PCs? A disk drive isn't a necessary requirement for F@h.Mr.Hello wrote:I already used the method I said before, build a fake Stanford server let my diskless PCs to download the client and core, so I use v6.34 now...
Nick Reilly's Diskless Folding is a small image can be loaded by pxelinux or syslinux via lan or a usb disk, it will connect to folding.stanford.edu to get client, unfortunately, though I use a 64-bit kernel, seems it will download a 32-bit client(and the 32-bit version is too old that not support new core then caused this problem I just said), so I download a 64-bit client by myself and build a small web server, redirect http request from my lan to the fake server, which is going to folding.stanford.edu originally, that's all!Jesse_V wrote:Can you clarify this? What do you mean by "fake Stanford server"? Does that relate, and if so how, to the diskless PCs? A disk drive isn't a necessary requirement for F@h.Mr.Hello wrote:I already used the method I said before, build a fake Stanford server let my diskless PCs to download the client and core, so I use v6.34 now...
Hmm. I found viewtopic.php?f=16&t=20458Mr.Hello wrote:another problem, there is a file "mpiexec" in 32-bit v6.29 but not in 64-bit v6.34, I dont know is Nick Reilly's Diskless Folding's problem or F@H's, whatever I repack the 64-bit v6.34 client to add the file(unpacked from 32-bit v6.29) on my server, and it works very well!
Yes, I download from this URL, and modify it, it looks like after v6.30 "mpiexec" was not used anymore, but on Nick Reilly's Diskless Folding, it is still needed, whatever, the most important, after upgrade to the modified v6.34, it works very well!Jesse_V wrote:Hmm. I found viewtopic.php?f=16&t=20458Mr.Hello wrote:another problem, there is a file "mpiexec" in 32-bit v6.29 but not in 64-bit v6.34, I dont know is Nick Reilly's Diskless Folding's problem or F@H's, whatever I repack the 64-bit v6.34 client to add the file(unpacked from 32-bit v6.29) on my server, and it works very well!
I recommended downloading the software from the website directly and installing it if you can. As you discovered, the problem with images like that is that they can be outdated, causing another level of confusion.
http://folding.stanford.edu/English/Download2011 has the download for the v6 clients