You can get daily stats on the number of folders that turned in work in the last week by going here http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/individual_list.php?s=&srt=3&p=117 and sorting by points for the week this week there were 11,628 Individual folders that turned in work. I do not know why there is such a gap between FF stats and EOC stats maybe there are allot folding under anonomus.
 
Kakako says there were 32,000 which counts default which I believe contains anonymous, I am not sure there, any way I can not explain the discrepancies. http://kakaostats.com/  Nor can I explain why Fah stats says there are so many more than the 3rd party stats say there are.

kerryd

cokeman54

ArtyD42

cokeman54

ArtyD42

Viper97
Actually 220,854 as of this morning.  There has been a steady loss of over 4K machines since Thursday of last week.  Not a good sign.

220463 at the time I checked.  This is the beginning of the freefall.

219,000 on 01/07/2014 10:54 CST and dropping like a rock.

218,735 1/8/2014 2AM CST.

214,868 01/08/2014 10:25 PM CST not taking 50 days. Something is going on here. Do they count each core as a pc?

My understanding is each gpu counts as 1 gpu so if your got 3 in your computer that is 3 gps"s and a cpu=4.Like me turning off my  2 folding computers = 6.That is 4 gpu's + 2 cpu's.But you can change your core count around and rune like 6 cores + 6 cores on a 12 core cpu I think that would count as 2 cpu"s but not sure on that one.But all the above only works for client v7,V6 and before count your computer as 1 makes no difference how many gpu's + cpu its still only 1.Or at least if I read what I was reading right.

196,450 in free fall 01/10/2014 11:25 PM CST

I'm pretty sure the numbers are speaking for themselves.  The question is does PG do anything about it or do they ride the free fall into the ground.

jinihammerer

texinga
Jini, that kind of drug cost to people makes me so angry with our pharma system and the associated cost for people just trying to treat their disease.  I first thought that maybe you meant per-month, but then Googled MS drugs to find the enormous drug cost faced by people afflicted with MS.  I had no idea!  I'd be shutting off the Folding rigs too for sure.  I'm so sorry to hear about that situation for you.  We care about you whether you can Fold or not.    Keeping you in my prayers kiddo!

 Its crazy how much the shots cost. They alone are like $155 a day, I read someone calculated it out to me something to the effect of 23 million dollars a gallon the pharm company gets for the medication.... but they are not the only things i take. I have one of the over sized daily pill thingies because of all the med's i take now i needed a better way to keep track. Its crazy. I take 24 pills a day well really 25. I take one for the heart burn all the meds cause.
 
But its all good, I'll survive and drive on as they said in the military. 
 
 

Jinn hang in there Hope it works out for you. Look into Obama care if you can , can not hurt to much well maybe.
wish you the best

cokeman54

kerryd

cokeman54

ArtyD42

cokeman54

ArtyD42

Viper97
Actually 220,854 as of this morning.  There has been a steady loss of over 4K machines since Thursday of last week.  Not a good sign.

220463 at the time I checked.  This is the beginning of the freefall.

219,000 on 01/07/2014 10:54 CST and dropping like a rock.

218,735 1/8/2014 2AM CST.

214,868 01/08/2014 10:25 PM CST not taking 50 days. Something is going on here. Do they count each core as a pc?

My understanding is each gpu counts as 1 gpu so if your got 3 in your computer that is 3 gps"s and a cpu=4.Like me turning off my  2 folding computers = 6.That is 4 gpu's + 2 cpu's.But you can change your core count around and rune like 6 cores + 6 cores on a 12 core cpu I think that would count as 2 cpu"s but not sure on that one.But all the above only works for client v7,V6 and before count your computer as 1 makes no difference how many gpu's + cpu its still only 1.Or at least if I read what I was reading right.

196,450 in free fall 01/10/2014 11:25 PM CST

196,101... 1/11/2014 11 AM CST.  It continues to fall.
Edit: It's now below 196k @ 2PM CST.

TheWolf

nathan_P
Says it all really
 
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1040537670&postcount=138

Translation: We could care less what you dump donors think.
Thanks suckers for your help, please do take it else where cause we don't care its our way or the highway! mahahaha

Pretty sure our response as donors has been very obvious.  195,649 now at 9:30 PM CST
 
It's a steady drop.

195,209 8AM CST 1/12/2014
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lWJXDG2i0A

Top

---

Re: Change in BA requirements

by VijayPande » Sun Jan 12, 2014 6:29 pm
I'm sorry really sorry about this. What's great to see is how passionate they are about this and how much they care and want to make things better. My group and I are all really energized by that. What's also clear is that many donors here would like to get more feedback and communication. We've been trying to do that starting with the new year, with a lot more blog posts per week than we've ever done. Clearly more would always help.

In terms of what I said about running on Google -- I didn't ever think that people would take that as we don't care about donors or run FAH and I'm sorry if I communicated that poorly and I can see how that sentiment would make donors very upset. Hopefully our current work can demonstrate how much donors matter, i.e. the fact that we're doing that now and still working hard to continue to push FAH (including work on issues that crop up during the only 2 week vacation most of take all year, pushing more interaction through the blog, bringing up new AS infrastructure to help fix GPU AS issues, pushing out a new client, and more to come) shows our continued commitment here.

I am also very worried about how much unhappiness the Big Adv program has caused. Our goal here is to fight disease and do the best science we can. Our style is to push to new and create approaches. That's how we pioneered FAH in the first place, and GPUs, SMP, PS3, BA, etc. All of these are our attempt to push the science as far as we can. There is a critically important human element to all of this and I don't think that's our strength. I think we're best when we're pushing new algorithms and coming up with new scientific ideas.

We haven't made any decisions about BA, but in terms of recognizing my teams strengths and weaknesses, I think managing something as complex as BA in terms of donors needs and expectations isn't something we've done well at all. That makes me worried and disappointed, since the goal here is for all of us to work together to do some great science, not for us to cause grief and anger amongst donors. My current thinking is that we're doing too much and we need to simplify what we do at FAH so we do less better, and then expand from there. We haven't decided what that means, but what is clear is that this sort of unhappiness amongst donors is a very clear sign that we're doing something very wrong and my team needs to regroup and come up with a plan to avoid this in the future.
Prof. Vijay Pande, PhD
Departments of Chemistry, Structural Biology, and Computer Science
Chair, Biophysics
Director, Folding@home Distributed Computing Project
Stanford University


VijayPandePande Group MemberFor those that do not follow the blog, there has been a posting almost daily since the first of the year. Looks like the donor loss is taking its toll along with the recent hardware problems. They know they have a problem but have yet to decide what to do about it. In the meantime they are now down to 194,722 and continue to fall.

Viper97
First! 

You pooper-scooper you! 

Re: Change in BA requirements

by VijayPande » Sun Jan 12, 2014 1:49 pm
Sure, here are some more details. I think we've discussed this in the past but donors clearly aren't familiar with it, which I think has been at the root of a lot of the misunderstandings here. It seems we really need to make a bigadv FAQ so this information is in one place and easy for people to find. From the very beginning, our plan with BA was to change the BA requirements as time moves on. We have changed it in the past already. From the donor reaction, I think we have waited too long since this most recent change. It seems that many donors either have forgotten or just never knew about this history (and this also shows us just how much popular the BA experiment was and how passionate the donors are). Something that we weren't expecting.

BA has always been intended to be used for a few calculations/Projects in FAH that requires the most processing power; larger RAM, more cores, and more bandwidth than typical FAH calculations. However, as time goes on, the BA requirements are met by more and more donor machines due to technological advancements. If we wait too long, a large fraction of donor machines will become BA capable (and in terms of the computing power of FAH, a very large fraction of FAH would be in the BA class in that case). In that situation, in order to get any useful work done in FAH, we'd have to make all WUs in the same category as BA WUs (since most donor would not want to run any other type of WU given the point difference as many choose to optimize for highest PPD/Watt ratio). However, that change would just lead to a big inflation of FAH points and also wouldn't give donors with the most powerful machines any benefit for being part of BA. Something that we wanted to avoid.

So, the plan has been (as publicly discussed) to frequently increase the BA requirements. I should make it clear that I don't think it is a mistake to change the BA requirements (that has always been the advertised plan). However, I think we have made mistakes in terms of making sure donors knew this. We tried to give heads up in terms of a few months notice. Unfortunately, it's clear that donors were expecting more like 6 to 12 months notice and ideally a roadmap.

Regarding the increasing of core count from 24 to 32 over a two months gap, this was done to ensure a smoother transition (we felt that the jump from 16 cores to 32 cores was too drastic) and to reach our goal of limiting BA to only the top 5% of donor systems. Given the increase of BA system which exceeded our 5% criteria (which is already a significant expansion of BA beyond our original 1% threshold), this approached seemed to be one way of doing it. It's amazing to see the enthusiasm to build and maintain such powerful systems, the issue was we only had a small amount of BA work and a lot of non-BA work. We chose a simple method of increasing the core count to achieve our target (top 5% of donor systems).

Moreover, a lot of attention was given to BA work which we appreciate but unfortunately, the same amount of attention wasn't given to non-BA work. This created a somewhat unfair representation of non-BA work for some donors. While increasing the points for non-BA work (especially SMP) would seem an "easy fix", unfortunately, it isn't since we take any changes to the point system very seriously. Any changes to it, if not implemented properly, would upset donors across the board.

We've gone over this thread and we hear your concerns regarding the points difference so we are actively discussing it and are looking into methods to improve this to get a better representation of science and points. Unfortunately, it is too early to discuss this now but rest assured, we aren't ignoring those concerns and once we have come up with a plan, will disclose it publicly before it will be implemented. This will allow us to listen to your feedback regarding any proposed changes to the points system.

Once again, I really appreciate everyone who has donated their time and efforts into this F@H Project and I hope that they will continue to do so in the future.
Prof. Vijay Pande, PhD
Departments of Chemistry, Structural Biology, and Computer Science
Chair, Biophysics
Director, Folding@home Distributed Computing Project
Stanford University

TheWolf
lol exclusive club for BA, what a joke.
Just say your lazy and can't handle the load the BA donors have put a pone you & your team Dr Pande.
You say the BA project is important but cutting useful hardware doesn't show that and if SMP really needs
help that much make the points change that will insure it gets the help it needs, those are your answers
and are pretty simple.

He appears to have ignored this before.  Three times now?

It's his ballpark and his rules. He has changed the rules in the past and will continue to do so in the future. If you do not like the rules or the playing field, then there are other ballparks in town where what ever gear you bring, is welcome. FAH is broken, and until it is fixed for donors and the problems presented, it will only get worse. Coin mining will take it toll and computer enthusiasts are getting more rare every day. One of the most important things is what he did not say, they will not put a hold on their plan as proposed by several people. Glad to have found a new ballpark where I feel welcome.

I seen nothing in ether of VJs posts for me to start up my folders.So the power supply's will stay off for the time being.
I get the 5% part but not the 3 months for upping the core count,Or the big drop in ppd when changing a 4p over to smp.

I'd have to agree if my hardware isn't good enough for all work that needs to be done then its best off somewhere else.

ArtyD42

TheWolf
I'd have to agree if my hardware isn't good enough for all work that needs to be done then its best off somewhere else.

I could care less if my hardware isn't the top of the line setup for FaH.  It gets done what it gets done.  This would be why I'm the greatest devil's advocate there is to them.  I already know I can do better directing my computer power elsewhere.  What I want is reason to continue.  They have yet to establish that.