Individually removing our computers from Open Pandemics CPU tasks is pointless. The tasks are created and will be assigned to somebody. If you don't waste your threads, somebody else will.

Knreed wrote about avoiding OPN becoming an intermittent project.
I thought that was a curious thing to say.
Maybe feast-or-famine tasks are harder on the system, or harder to manage, or even result in too many forum posts to moderate as people discuss getting work, constantly bicker, and troubleshoot out-of-work messages?

In every recent project update, there is less than a month of MCM batches in the queue. I've been saying from the start that we need to shift 100% of this project to the GPUs to free up massive CPU computation for other projects.

Now that the Microbiome Immunity project is ending, we're talking 280 years of crunching power a day, with one project big enough to absorb the demand. But maybe it's not big enough; maybe that would be enough to make MCM batches become intermittent?

Is that a problem worth avoiding?
Would WCG staff, or crunchers mind if every project backlog ran dry?
Do we mind so much as to be willing to run millions of low priority work units to keep the supply stable?

Looking at the statistics, yesterday the total run time was 546 years of which 34 was MIP (down from over 60 years per day since the announcement). As this was only 10% of total crunching the slack should easily be able to be absorbed by other projects. However, the next project to finish might be a different matter without new work.

There is still supposed to be a project coming along but how long that will take is anyone's guess.

Mike