How to select projects - more points/day?
Moderators: NeilBlanchard, Ralf Hutter, sthayashi, Lawrence Lee
-
- *Lifetime Patron*
- Posts: 1465
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 12:27 pm
- Location: Reading.England.EU
How to select projects - more points/day?
It occurs to me it should be possible to select the projects you are assigned (beyond -advmethods to get GROMACS).
For example, on my Athlon XP systems the current project 910 gives around twice the daily point count as project 340 stuff. And at this Stanford pagethere is a list of which servers assign which projects. So if I could persuade my boxen to go to 171.64.122.144 for work I have a reasonable chance of doubling my daily output.
I read in a Stanford folding thread (or maybe misinterpreted) that some guy was selecting his servers - is it perhaps as simple as putting a line in the hosts file? Except it also seems to me the core.exe has a hardcoded list that it polls - maybe we need to do a hex patch?
For example, on my Athlon XP systems the current project 910 gives around twice the daily point count as project 340 stuff. And at this Stanford pagethere is a list of which servers assign which projects. So if I could persuade my boxen to go to 171.64.122.144 for work I have a reasonable chance of doubling my daily output.
I read in a Stanford folding thread (or maybe misinterpreted) that some guy was selecting his servers - is it perhaps as simple as putting a line in the hosts file? Except it also seems to me the core.exe has a hardcoded list that it polls - maybe we need to do a hex patch?
-
- Friend of SPCR
- Posts: 37
- Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2003 12:40 pm
- Location: Northern Virginia, USA
If the client can't contact one IP address, will it try another after a certain amount of time? If so, all that would be needed is to block access to the IP addresses of the servers with less desirable projects.
I'll try to fire up a packet sniffer when future WUs are transmitted and received to see what I can figure out.
I'll try to fire up a packet sniffer when future WUs are transmitted and received to see what I can figure out.
Easiest way to block access to a site is add an entry in the HOSTS file on your PC pointing to 127.0.0.1 (this is the address reserved for localhost).
So if I wanted to block yahoo.com I'd put an entry in HOSTS:
127.0.0.1 yahoo.com
However, I don't know if the Folding client is querying by a name or directly by IP address. If they're going direct for a specific IP address, then my HOSTS method wouldn't work.
Randy Clements
Salt Lake City, UT
So if I wanted to block yahoo.com I'd put an entry in HOSTS:
127.0.0.1 yahoo.com
However, I don't know if the Folding client is querying by a name or directly by IP address. If they're going direct for a specific IP address, then my HOSTS method wouldn't work.
Randy Clements
Salt Lake City, UT
-
- *Lifetime Patron*
- Posts: 1465
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 12:27 pm
- Location: Reading.England.EU
Yup - at the end is an extract from a log where 1 of my boxen spent 2 hours trying to get more work, most of the time trying to access 171.64.122.110 until it for some reason tried 171.64.122.119.WarpedPlatter wrote:If the client can't contact one IP address, will it try another after a certain amount of time?
The problem with this 'unnatural selection' is if the server of 'generous' units is having problems, we could sit without work for a while. But I am still curious to try.
[19:01:01] + Attempting to get work packet
[19:01:01] - Connecting to assignment server
[19:01:02] - Successful: assigned to (171.64.122.110).
[19:01:02] + News From Folding@Home: Welcome to Folding@Home
[19:01:02] Loaded queue successfully.
[19:01:03] + Could not connect to Work Server
[19:01:03] - Error: Getwork #9 failed, and no other work to do. Waiting before retry
[19:22:29] + Attempting to get work packet
[19:22:29] - Connecting to assignment server
[19:22:30] - Successful: assigned to (171.64.122.119).
[19:22:30] + News From Folding@Home: Welcome to Folding@Home
[19:22:30] Loaded queue successfully.
[19:22:31] - Deadline time not received.
[19:22:35] + Closed connections
[19:22:35]
[19:22:35] + Processing work unit
I think we have to continue this thread on our secret forum..
http://kwsnforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=2030
http://kwsnforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=2030
-
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2003 2:35 pm
- Location: Regrettably for you, I'm Upwind in Upstate N.Y. U.S.A.
- Contact:
Bad idea guys, for several reasons:
1. The work units aren't server dependant. Just because you got a 910 from 1 server, doesn't mean it won'r give you a Tinker next time.
2. The units are given out based on Stanfords need. If they don't need 910's, you won't get them, from any server.
3. The whole reason Stanford has multiple servers is to lessen the strain on any individual one, and to increase reliability. Think what would happen if 75% of people kept hammering one server.
4. This will probably result in lower folding scores for you, not higher. We all know how often the servers go down, you machine may spend 12 hours hammering a down server, when it could be folding.
5. And lastly, trying to rig to system to your benefit, rather the Stanfords, flies in the face of the whole point of doing this. It is a charity, after all.
If I told you how to hack the core to have it send back units 10 times as fast, even though the units would be useless to Stanford, would you do it?
1. The work units aren't server dependant. Just because you got a 910 from 1 server, doesn't mean it won'r give you a Tinker next time.
2. The units are given out based on Stanfords need. If they don't need 910's, you won't get them, from any server.
3. The whole reason Stanford has multiple servers is to lessen the strain on any individual one, and to increase reliability. Think what would happen if 75% of people kept hammering one server.
4. This will probably result in lower folding scores for you, not higher. We all know how often the servers go down, you machine may spend 12 hours hammering a down server, when it could be folding.
5. And lastly, trying to rig to system to your benefit, rather the Stanfords, flies in the face of the whole point of doing this. It is a charity, after all.
If I told you how to hack the core to have it send back units 10 times as fast, even though the units would be useless to Stanford, would you do it?
-
- *Lifetime Patron*
- Posts: 1465
- Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2003 12:27 pm
- Location: Reading.England.EU
There is no intent implied to return results that are incomplete/inaccurate whatever. Merely (as per Zhentar) to do work Stanford want, properly, but that improves scoring.Rusty075 wrote:5. And lastly, trying to rig to system to your benefit, rather the Stanfords, flies in the face of the whole point of doing this. It is a charity, after all.
If I told you how to hack the core to have it send back units 10 times as fast, even though the units would be useless to Stanford, would you do it?
Disagree - my understanding is that projects are served by 1 and only 1 server. However if you do stick to 1 server, you still are at the control of Stanford which WUs that server is issuing at the instant you request.Rusty075 wrote:1. The work units aren't server dependant. Just because you got a 910 from 1 server, doesn't mean it won'r give you a Tinker next time.
But your general tone/thoughts are taken to heart - in particular the risk of point 4 means that losing folding time because of some weird Holy Grail would indeed be a very poor result.
ps - anything I am interested in will NOT breach the Stanford license.
-
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2003 2:35 pm
- Location: Regrettably for you, I'm Upwind in Upstate N.Y. U.S.A.
- Contact:
tragus wrote:dukla2000 wrote:n particular the risk of point 4 means that losing folding time because of some weird Holy Grail would indeed be a very poor result. [[emphasis added]]
Methinks that the Knights Who Say Ni might have observations on this point.
We seek the Holy Grail, if you have it you'd better hand it over or we'll dispatch the horde on you . And stop trying to "work" the system you dawgs, chew on whatever bones Stanford gives you .