Well, that's kind of the way it works. All the WCG projects will use as much of your computing power as you let them.

Don't worry about the length of each individual work unit. Your progress is saved frequently. Why do you think short units are better? I know it's nice to see the results flying back, but it doesn't really make any difference.

Genome Comparison and Muscular Dystrophy are smallest, but I haven't actually clocked them recently. The others are relatively massive.

As far as I know, the original target time of 10 hours per unit on an average computer is still the target. I could be wrong, though.

I think the scheduler already does that. However, there are a load of other constraints that the scheduler has to deal with.

One of the techs commented recently that it needs an AI to run it all properly....

GC usually has the smallest length workunits here, although the current batch may be a bit larger. FAAH has the smallest file sizes at the moment, most helpful for dial-ups.

Some of the mathematical projects have workunits of a few seconds to a few minutes. The climate simulation workunits can run for several months, but they take daily snapshots and assign interim points.

Some of the projects also have interesting graphics: Ralph, with double X-Y vector graphic line plots and dynamic fast folding molecules, Malaria, with X-Y-Z rotatable 3-d graphics on a small planetoid with mosquitoes flying around and with sun and moon moving overhead, and Einstein, with a 3-D virtual celestial sphere seen from the outside.

I'm doing Proteins at Home right now. Very short WU's (at 6% and ~20mins). But, it's French and there is basically no community. And hard to see if all the crunching will amount to anything (while WCG has backing of IBM).