| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Support
Forum: Suggestions / Feedback
Thread: Would you like the option to say "No" on the My Projects page? |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 15
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I think we need an option on the My Projects page to say "no work" to specific projects.
----------------------------------------This would be useful when we have the "If there is no work available for my computer ..." box checked (e.g. while waiting for DDDT2 WUs). Suitable times for selectively refusing specific projects might include: (1) When a computer gives too many errors on a project (e.g., my 64-bit W7 machine can't handle HPF2) (2) when we have acheived the badge we want for that project and don't want to spend more time on it or take WUs from others (e.g., at the end of a project). Do you agree? Are there other times a "No" option would be useful? [Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Apr 5, 2010 1:53:51 AM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Sorry I respectfully disagree. Don't believe the perceived benefits are worth the resources involved. The distribution algorithms are complicated enough as they are. Pick the projects you want from the list. If you use the "if there is no work available" you're going to get whatever the servers dish out - c'est la vie.
|
||
|
|
JmBoullier
Former Community Advisor Normandy - France Joined: Jan 26, 2007 Post Count: 3716 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
(1) When a computer gives too many errors on a project (e.g., my 64-bit W7 machine can't handle HPF2) Farpung,from what I have read recently this item has good chances to be handled directly by the servers in their next major upgrade. With the additional benefit that they would issue periodical retries to see if the condition still exists without you having to take care of it. Anyway, if it is not soon (I have no idea about the actual date) it is already "in the pipe" which is a good thing for all members not monitoring their clients as closely as some of us do.  Cheers. Jean. |
||
|
|
sk..
Master Cruncher http://s17.rimg.info/ccb5d62bd3e856cc0d1df9b0ee2f7f6a.gif Joined: Mar 22, 2007 Post Count: 2324 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Snurk, I like your idea.
----------------------------------------Unfortunately I have experienced the failures of the existing system; NRW worked on all but one of my systems. On the quad in question it Always failed. I have many systems attached so it is difficult to accommodate them all (using only 4 profiles), and far too much babysitting work. It took a while to spot this problem when running several projects at once. Don't believe the perceived benefits are worth the resources involved. Well, I think your resources are worth including. As for algorithms becoming too complicated - if that is the case then the system that includes their use needs to be altered to facilitate user choice, and not by the same algorithm. [OT]My opinion is that the project team does not consider user choice really important. They allow you to choose what projects you run, but then reshuffle task allocation to facilitate their own opinions; project balancing - you choose what projects you want to contribute to, and WCG will setup a system that prevents your choice having any overall impact on the projects run rates, by offsetting your choice against others. Just becasue you select to run 2 projects does not mean they will run equally![/OT] Although more profiles would better facilitate my limited project choice, I would much prefer to be able to specifically create settings for each system. As the techs are introducing CPU matching it would appear that they are already using more single system information server side WRT task allocation. Perhaps they will be able to circumvent runaway project failures at this level with ease. Ideally the techs would develop a system that can work out the most productive task combinations to run on each system. For example, If I choose an Optimise WCG for Points option then the server/client would work out the most efficient project combination for each computer that I have. So an i7 might run HCC, HPF2 and DDDT2, while an AMD 4200 might run HFCC and FA@H. This way the systems might be 3% or 7% more efficient, for example. As tasks keep changing so would the allocation for any given system. Much handier than hundreds of people trying to work this all out for themselves, only to find that after a few weeks the tasks changed and their combinations no longer work. Perhaps this could be allowed for a group of computers, while another group of less powerful computers badge chase. [Edit 1 times, last edit by skgiven at Apr 5, 2010 12:17:53 PM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
[OT]My opinion is that the project team does not consider user choice really important. They allow you to choose what projects you run, but then reshuffle task allocation to facilitate their own opinions; project balancing - you choose what projects you want to contribute to, and WCG will setup a system that prevents your choice having any overall impact on the projects run rates, by offsetting your choice against others. Just becasue you select to run 2 projects does not mean they will run equally![/OT] Edit: I believe this is the post I was looking for regarding the tech throttle: https://secure.worldcommunitygrid.org/forums/...ead,28107_offset,0#260714 [Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Apr 5, 2010 2:04:44 PM] |
||
|
|
fkehoetx
Cruncher Joined: May 16, 2008 Post Count: 28 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
I really like the the suggestion of skgiven.
Profiling by machine would allow all of us the possibility of having "sponsored" machines, for instance. The Amer Cancer Soc may be willing to sponsor a 100% Cancer machine, etc. Otherwise, my second choice would be matching projects for the most productive output. I had a Level 1 package from Dengue Fever that my old Dell machine couldn't handle, but my quad core could have done so. But I can't set a profile for this. Either an automatic system from the servers or a local manual system of allocation by machine would be desirable. It seems to me saying that this would be too much trouble for the servers is a little ridiculous. They can handle the work! Also, need I point out IBM gets major P-R benefits from our work as Crunchers. It would seem to be a small accommodation on their part. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Agree.
|
||
|
|
sk..
Master Cruncher http://s17.rimg.info/ccb5d62bd3e856cc0d1df9b0ee2f7f6a.gif Joined: Mar 22, 2007 Post Count: 2324 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
IBM gets major P-R benefits ...and the benefits of my purchases; IT suites! |
||
|
|
nasher
Veteran Cruncher USA Joined: Dec 2, 2005 Post Count: 1423 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
i know i have mentioned it in the past and i will again now..
----------------------------------------i want alittle more control on the projects i get. right now i am sure i am in the same boat as most other badge hunters they want DDDT-2 work units. yes i know there is a shortage of them and you will need to have other jobs selected or have if no work avalible then yes i know it may not be easy to give people alot more control but i was wondering how hard it would be (and if the techs were willing to do it) to do this as it was listed this is how the process works # If the host is 'reliable', then find any results that need to be sent to a reliable host. If found, assign to that host. # If the host is willing to accept beta work, then scan the array for beta results. If found, assign to that host. # Scan the array for results that were marked 'infeasible' by another computer (this would be because of hr_class, memory requirements, etc). If found, assign to that host. # Scan the array for any results. Assign as needed add 1 more process check allow us to give mabey even 1 alternate to no work avalible IE if no work avalible run HCC or such then if no work avalible eithor then run any i am not a computer programmer but i would think this is probaly only a little bit of added code and wouldnt take up much computer resorces to run cause personaly right now (being i should be cancer free again ) i have a slight agenda for wanting to work cancer as well as badge hunt. yes i would like the just say no to projects as well ... this would help in situations we have experianced recently too. at the end of one project (rice) and knowing im not going to get the next badge but at the same time trying to get DDDT2's i was DDDT2 only selected with a no work avalible then... during that time i got many rice WU's and hope i was not the reason someone didnt get there badge cause i crunched them instead. also there are some people out there that have a Fundamental believe that one project is evil. i honestly know one person who wouldnt join cause of the rice project and another cause of the solar energy and one person who is in his opinion a religious zealot wouldn't join cause we were trying to stop gods cleansing with trying to cure aids and he didnt want to help cure aids. (i think i got them almost convinced to join and just never select if no work available) it would be so much more helpful in my situation of trying to get more people online if i could convince them that they could do an array of work and have the if none available and still not get something they DIDNT want to crunch EVER.  |
||
|
|
sk..
Master Cruncher http://s17.rimg.info/ccb5d62bd3e856cc0d1df9b0ee2f7f6a.gif Joined: Mar 22, 2007 Post Count: 2324 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Perhaps a priority setting would facilitate more user choice
0=dont crunch project 10=primary priority, download and crunch first (if more than one project set to 10 crunch equally). 9=secondary priority, download and crunch if no primary WU available 8=tertiary priority, download and crunch if no primary or secondary WUs are available 7=quaternary priority... Might stop tens of thousands of user update requests! Alternatively, Perhaps a % weight for task allocation: Crunch 50% HCC, 30% HFCC, 10% DDDT2, 10% other tasks Just suggestions, |
||
|
|
|