Hello KWSN - A Shrubbery,
I have not heard anything so I will guess that nothing has been done. The reason seems obvious - BOINC is designed to run projects rather than sub-projects so WCG would have to do the design and coding. This means that the changed interface would have to attract more new members than any other change using equivalent resources. For a long time we have been working on GPU code and new projects. I suspect that either of these two measures is expected to bring a higher return on resource investment.

Lawrence

I disagree but understand your point. The reason I disagree is that I already have all of the active badges at the 2 year level now, so any further crunching is for my own reasons, such as my aunt that did of cancer, or my long dead niece that died of childhood cancer, or the kids dieing of malaria, or whatever other reasons each cruncher has. I would like to say put 50% of my crunching on the hcc project here, with another 10% going to 5 other projects. Currently the only way to do that is manually, which is a disincentive to crunch here, IMHO. I must manually put resources towards a project then switch them to attempt to maintain my choices, or just crunch elsewhere where the Boinc software has those options BUILT IN! The difference is that WCG has several 'projects' under one umbrella instead of one focused 'project'. The Boinc software lets you assign a percentage of your crunching time to each 'project', but since WCG has several 'projects' under one umbrella it is an all or nothing thing. Don't get me wrong...I LIKE the idea of WCG, a sort of one place fits all place, it just needs some tweaking to make it better for me the cruncher. I am NOT saying EVERYONE needs, or even wants, all those options, but SOME of us do and it would make it better for us. I CAN manipulate SOME of those thru the different default, home, work and school settings, but further tweaking would be more helpful to me as I have multiple machines crunching, many more than the 4 options.

If it will matter sometime in the future, count my vote for adding balancing into sub-project loads as explained by KWNS - A Shrubbery and mikey159b

This thread seems like a good target for my concern. How about the priority of processing of Work Units for Validation? Seems like, since the introduction of GPU for HFC - glorifying Points and the number of Work Unit - the validation of high run time Work Units for sciences like Human Proteome is lagging.

Interpretation: You propose there to be a feedback system from server to client to tell client "Hey your wingman is in, speed your copy up, now!".

There's a myriad of things that would have to be recoded in the client [of which there are many versions around] and server, all for the glorification of getting your points earlier, to include that the scheduler has to be accessed at least twice as often for a costly lookup [scheduler load] to see who's got the wingman copy and then send a modified deadline date to the client [it's one of the key parms the client prioritizes tasks on, deadline threat]. Opinion: Never to happen. The deadlines are the deadlines, so all volunteer devices can participate, at their own pace, 24/7 or 2/7.