Cost of distributed computing, over 150$ per year per computer!

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
You aren't answering my question. I never said I had any PHD's, I said I would trust the THOUSANDS that do, and are researching cancer, not you, unless you can prove you know more than all the researchers in the world.

Oh, no PhD? Yeah, i knew that before I ever asked the question. Want to know how I knew? People with a PhD or two in something involving either science or medicine are used to scrutiny. They don't blow up with posts like this:

Originally posted by: Markfw900
And you have a PHD from how many universities ? And you propose to know more than all the researchers at Stanford, Berkley and all the other places ?

Once you have proven that you are the smartest person in the world, I would believe that statement. Until then, I put my money on all the PHD's in the world, not you.

When having read something like this:

Originally posted by: myocardia
And just in case someone wondered, no, I'm not against folding. I just think that with all of the computational power they've had over the past 7 or 8 years, that they should have been able to find a cure for nearly every disease that it's possible to solve with a computer. Then again, I can't think of any diseases that it would be possible to find a cure for, using computers.

 

[Insidious]

Originally posted by: myocardia
I just think that with all of the computational power they've had over the past 7 or 8 years, that they should have been able to find a cure for nearly every disease that it's possible to solve with a computer. Then again, I can't think of any diseases that it would be possible to find a cure for, using computers.

OK folks we missed mydorkocardia's deadline.... shut it down

That statement is just plain moronic!


Give me a break

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Markfw900
You aren't answering my question. I never said I had any PHD's, I said I would trust the THOUSANDS that do, and are researching cancer, not you, unless you can prove you know more than all the researchers in the world.

Oh, no PhD? Yeah, i knew that before I ever asked the question. Want to know how I knew? People with a PhD or two in something involving either science or medicine are used to scrutiny. They don't blow up with posts like this:

Originally posted by: Markfw900
And you have a PHD from how many universities ? And you propose to know more than all the researchers at Stanford, Berkley and all the other places ?

Once you have proven that you are the smartest person in the world, I would believe that statement. Until then, I put my money on all the PHD's in the world, not you.

When having read something like this:

Originally posted by: myocardia
And just in case someone wondered, no, I'm not against folding. I just think that with all of the computational power they've had over the past 7 or 8 years, that they should have been able to find a cure for nearly every disease that it's possible to solve with a computer. Then again, I can't think of any diseases that it would be possible to find a cure for, using computers.

And your point is ? You have proved nothing, except you know how to increase your post count. Can you substantiate any of your claims ? That you know better than Stanford, Berkley, and the rest ?

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Insidious
OK folks we missed mydorkocardia's deadline.... shut it down

That statement is just plain moronic!


Give me a break

A sure sign of someone who has no argument to make is nearly always namecalling. Yet you've called someone a name in almost every one of your posts in this entire thread. You really should stop, you're making people who spend thousands of dollars per year on folding proteins look bad.

Originally posted by: Markfw900
And your point is ? You have proved nothing, except you know how to increase your post count. Can you substantiate any of your claims ? That you know better than Stanford, Berkley, and the rest ?

I'm sorry, I must have missed that news flash. Which diseases have been cured so far, using your and sid's computers, along with the millions of other computers they have access to, 24/7? BTW, you never have addressed why you would get so upset over someone having an opinion, just because it differs from your own.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I'm sorry I made that comment about the power usage, if it devolved into this name-calling. I just wanted to know if I was in the ballpark in terms of power usage.

I have a limited budget, and I was planning on adding some more crunchers, but now it looks like I won't be able to, which is too bad. I've already bought parts for one of them, which I think I'll build, but I'm at my limit for power costs per month.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
I'm sorry I made that comment about the power usage, if it devolved into this name-calling. I just wanted to know if I was in the ballpark in terms of power usage.

Don't be sorry, you had a question. That's the entire purpose of this forum, getting questions answered.

edit: And yes, you did the math right on the power usage, although like Louisssssss said, a Q6600 only uses around half of what that article you read said, because of video card and monitor usage.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Insidious
OK folks we missed mydorkocardia's deadline.... shut it down

That statement is just plain moronic!


Give me a break

A sure sign of someone who has no argument to make is nearly always namecalling. Yet you've called someone a name in almost every one of your posts in this entire thread. You really should stop, you're making people who spend thousands of dollars per year on folding proteins look bad.

Originally posted by: Markfw900
And your point is ? You have proved nothing, except you know how to increase your post count. Can you substantiate any of your claims ? That you know better than Stanford, Berkley, and the rest ?

I'm sorry, I must have missed that news flash. Which diseases have been cured so far, using your and sid's computers, along with the millions of other computers they have access to, 24/7? BTW, you never have addressed why you would get so upset over someone having an opinion, just because it differs from your own.

Upset ? No, I am just pointing out that your opinion is unsupported by the vast majority of the world, yet, you keep trying to change the subject to defend your position.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
Upset ? No, I am just pointing out that your opinion is unsupported by the vast majority of the world, yet, you keep trying to change the subject to defend your position.

Which diseases have been cured by folding proteins? I didn't see an answer in your post, but maybe I missed it. Have any proof of the majority of the world's opinion? Obviously, it would need to be unbiased to be believable, so a link to Stanford, Berkley, or anyone else running a folding program would be suspect, at best. You know, something from a reputable source, like the NEJM, the JAMA, or the like would completely change my mind, I'm sure.

 

[LOUISSSSS]

i understand your points, i have my own small doubts on "lets see some results"

but there are some literary works written on F@H. have fun reading Papers

and if F@H doesn't accomplish anything why are they winning some awards?

i know i didn't spend anytime reading those papers, but i really do believe that out PC's folding these work units are doing something. at least, its building their folded work unit database. and they can easily access those files whenever necessary when they do have a lead on something.

i DO trust that the many people around the world using F@H aren't all morons wasting their money on electricity such as leaving all the lights on in the house when you're not home.

i also believe that stanford wouldn't be wasting their time on getting people to fold if it really does nothing

am i making any sense to all the doctors out there?

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
but there are some literary works written on F@H. have fun reading Papers

and if F@H doesn't accomplish anything why are they winning some awards?

Originally posted by: myocardia
Obviously, it would need to be unbiased to be believable, so a link to Stanford, Berkley, or anyone else running a folding program would be suspect, at best. You know, something from a reputable source, like the NEJM, the JAMA, or the like would completely change my mind, I'm sure.

i know i didn't spend anytime reading those papers, but i really do believe that out PC's folding these work units are doing something. at least, its building their folded work unit database. and they can easily access those files whenever necessary when they do have a lead on something.

Yeah, that sounds good. Have any links of that ever having happened?

 

[Markfw]

So, again, you know more than the entire world. And until they actually cure cancer, you think its a waste.

OK, I give up....I hope you don't actually contract any of these diseases before you die......

 

[LOUISSSSS]

Originally posted by: myocardia

i know i didn't spend anytime reading those papers, but i really do believe that out PC's folding these work units are doing something. at least, its building their folded work unit database. and they can easily access those files whenever necessary when they do have a lead on something.

Yeah, that sounds good. Have any links of that ever having happened?

what? are you trying to say that Stanford U has the thousands of people folding WU's running off of their $$ servers are just discarding all of our folded work units?

if i knew everything behind the scenes at their labs i'd be glad to explain to u, but i don't so heres some more info on what F@H is:

wiki

damn look at the ATI GPU performance!
70x the performance of today's CPU's (x1900 series v AMD x2/early C2D)

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
what? are you trying to say that Stanford U has the thousands of people folding WU's running off of their $$ servers are just discarding all of our folded work units?

if i knew everything behind the scenes at their labs i'd be glad to explain to u, but i don't so heres some more info on what F@H is:

wiki

damn look at the ATI GPU performance!
70x the performance of today's CPU's (x1900 series v AMD x2/early C2D)

I was folding for AT back in 2003. I was ranked either 10th or 11th on the team, when I stopped.

 

[LOUISSSSS]

^^ so u stopped because u didn't see any results?

 

[myocardia]

Pretty much, yeah. BTW, it was actually 2004 when I started folding. I had built a new 2.5 Ghz Athlon XP-M, and wanted to see what it could do. Anyway, this project has been going non-stop for 15 or 16 years, yet what's been accomplished so far, medically-speaking? I've yet to hear of a single thing, how about you? BTW, I actually quit folding a day or two after I discovered that page. And since then, many billions of CPU hours have been donated, yet not a thing has come of it, at least that I've heard about, sans a few papers (which professors are actually supposed to write, and submit for publication, anyway).

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to talk you, or any of your fellow "folders" out of doing it. It's your computer(s), you should run any software on them that you want, as will I. But you still have to admit that 150-200 watts per computer is nothing to sneeze at, especially when the average folder these days seems to be running multiple systems 24/7.

 

[Insidious]

Originally posted by: myocardia
A sure sign of someone who has no argument to make is nearly always namecalling. Yet you've called someone a name in almost every one of your posts in this entire thread.

I called your statement moronic. it is!

I have concentrated on the actions, not the individual. but you extended that to the personal level... stat was another stupid action.

I haven't called you names, just pointed out the stupidity of what I read. The characteristics of the author have gone un mentioned by me.

-Sid

 

[exar333]

Originally posted by: myocardia
Pretty much, yeah. BTW, it was actually 2004 when I started folding. I had built a new 2.5 Ghz Athlon XP-M, and wanted to see what it could do. Anyway, this project has been going non-stop for 15 or 16 years, yet what's been accomplished so far, medically-speaking? I've yet to hear of a single thing, how about you? BTW, I actually quit folding a day or two after I discovered that page. And since then, many billions of CPU hours have been donated, yet not a thing has come of it, at least that I've heard about, sans a few papers (which professors are actually supposed to write, and submit for publication, anyway).

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to talk you, or any of your fellow "folders" out of doing it. It's your computer(s), you should run any software on them that you want, as will I. But you still have to admit that 150-200 watts per computer is nothing to sneeze at, especially when the average folder these days seems to be running multiple systems 24/7.

Myocardia has a point in relation to the lack of research generated from folding. One thing to remember is that we may not reap the rewards of folding until sometime in the future, maybe never.

I don't think Folding@Home started out with the idea of having people running multiple rigs 24/7, it was likely a simple way for people to donate extra clock cycles they didn't need to help out the computing needed for the program.

It would be great if we find something valuable from the program, but research is never guaranteed. You also can't deny that it is expensive to run these machines. It would be far more efficient to have a huge server doing this, but would people really donate money as they basically are with their power bills, the same way?

 

[waffleironhead]

Originally posted by: myocardia
Pretty much, yeah. BTW, it was actually 2004 when I started folding. I had built a new 2.5 Ghz Athlon XP-M, and wanted to see what it could do. Anyway, this project has been going non-stop for 15 or 16 years, yet what's been accomplished so far, medically-speaking? I've yet to hear of a single thing, how about you? BTW, I actually quit folding a day or two after I discovered that page. And since then, many billions of CPU hours have been donated, yet not a thing has come of it, at least that I've heard about, sans a few papers (which professors are actually supposed to write, and submit for publication, anyway).

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to talk you, or any of your fellow "folders" out of doing it. It's your computer(s), you should run any software on them that you want, as will I. But you still have to admit that 150-200 watts per computer is nothing to sneeze at, especially when the average folder these days seems to be running multiple systems 24/7.

Lets say that folding@home results have given rise to a new form of medication. You do know that it takes on average 12 years to go from idea to market dont you? So even if they discovered something in their 5 year of crunching it would still not be out for sale yet.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: waffleironhead
Lets say that folding@home results have given rise to a new form of medication. You do know that it takes on average 12 years to go from idea to market dont you? So even if they discovered something in their 5 year of crunching it would still not be out for sale yet.

It's only been 5 years since 1992? Are you sure about that?

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Anyway, this project has been going non-stop for 15 or 16 years

Folding at home has only been running since October 2000. The FAH project is now in its eight year. Sorry you are wrong on that one. The Pande group has been in existence longer but that is entirely different.

Think of how much less powerful computers were back in 2000. Think about how many people were folding then.

You appear to be a doctor, so I would assume you know that it's good to test your product to ensure its efficacy (be it a drug or a computer simulation). Have the Pande group done this? Why yes

We have folded several small, fast folding proteins, with experimental validation of our method.

The thing is validation and testing takes time. It would take quite a considerable time to fold even a small protein on hardware from 2000 (millions of computational hours) and you would have to do it numerous times. It wasn't until 2003 that FAH had even 100,000 CPUs donating to them, and obviously not everybody donates 24/7. So even in 2003 it was taking several months just to do the fast folding test samples (with 100k people helping). Of course when you get your data back you may think of ways to refine the simulation, or additional factors to input. It of course then needs to run again. More time...

The other thing is FAH doesn't just do one simulation at a time - how many? well have a look FAH projects. Running more than one means that each result takes longer (as obviously not everyone is working on the same project). FAH also still has units which are for quality control (so there are overheads).

So FAH have managed several smaller proteins and are moving on to the bigger stuff. Again back to you being a doctor - how many amino acids are in an average protein? How many atoms make up the amino acids? So how many calculations do you need to do? (Haemoglobins formula is C738 H1166 N812 O203 S2 Fe to give you an idea). Don't forget that each atom will interact with all the others in the vicinity, and then you have solvent interactions to deal with as well!

The other point of FAH is that it helps people understand how to simulate proteins and ligands, what is the point of that? Well understanding how ligands interact with proteins is of prime importance when developing drugs. Currently the simulation of drugs interactions with proteins is not as accurate as drug companies want (which is funny considering it is a lot better than the models used for climate change).

So in summary to "cure" a disease we need to have-
1) An understanding of the scientific process causing of the disease
2) A clinical understanding of the disease
3) Proposed drugs which block some essential portion of the disease process
4) Clinical trials where each of the drugs is tested to confirm it works as predicted in the lab and measurement of the side-effects of that drug.

Folding at home increases the understanding of diseases involving protein misfolding (1); the improvements in software and knowledge also help with the rational design of new drugs (3).

Hope that helps, and remember FAH was only designed for spare CPU cycles; it?s perfectly possible to run FAH for a couple of hours while still playing (insert favourite game here) or browsing the net or doing work.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: wwswimming

folding @ home is Stanford universities project to cure cancer (among other diseases). So to stop global warming, you hope we all die from Cancer ? Who cares if we are all dead.

Great attitude. I hope you are proud of it as you think about this on your death bed....

one very effective way to reduce cancer rates is to
manage the industrial effluents that cause many of
the cancers.

2 of countless examples -
* AMD's pollution of Sunnyvale groundwater.
band-aid solution - approx. $15K for homeowners in Sunnyvale.
* the incident immortalized in the movie Aaron Brockovich.

I think you mean Erin Brockovitch and the Pacific Gas and Electric Company

 

[Markfw]

PlasmaBomb, Thanks for inserting some educated text into this thread. Those bad-mouthing DC as a waster, and claiming they know more than all the higher education universities in the world are annoying to say the least. And I doubt he is a doctor by the un-educated nature of his posts. If he was, I sure wouldn't want him seeing me.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: PlasmaBomb
Hope that helps, and remember FAH was only designed for spare CPU cycles; it?s perfectly possible to run FAH for a couple of hours while still playing (insert favourite game here) or browsing the net or doing work.

I highly doubt anyone would think F@H were a waste, if that were how nearly everyone who folded did it, although that's obviously the ploy that all DC download pages employ, now isn't it? That's far from the truth, though, as I'm assuming you know. Even the OP of this seemed to think so, at least as far as I can tell.

Are you the new F@H spokesperson? I hope so. As you can see, your two predecessors weren't the slightest bit adept at it.

 

[Assimilator1]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
After looking at XBitLabs recent article on the Q9300, specifically the power consumption section - it shows the Q6600 @ 3.6GHz under 100% load as taking nearly 400W for the system.
Am I correct in calculating that 400 x 24hr x 30days = 288000 watt-hours of electric, so at $0.10 per KWH, that's $28.8 - PER MONTH for power just for the computer.

How much do you folks that run F@H on your dedicated crunching quads pay for power? I was thinking of setting up some dedicated crunching rigs myself, but this cost is starting to scare me off.

That sounds far too much for just the CPU to be loaded ,is it an SLI rig? was the graphics card(s?) loaded too?

My main rig ,an MSI 650 mbrd with Q6600 @3GHz 1.3vcore draws 225w at 100% load (all 4 cores) ,with my modest 1950 Pro at full load to that goes up to around ~260w ,as per my earlier post.

Btw energy costs in the UK are much higher than the US at 225w 24/7 it costs me £15/mth, that's about $30/mth.

Sid
Petrol here is ~ £4.73/UK gall (4.5lts) ,that's £1.05/ltr ~ $2.10/ltr= $7.98/US gall!
Btw calm down

myocardia
That's not a waste or power, it's being used for scientific research.

I just think that with all of the computational power they've had over the past 7 or 8 years, that they should have been able to find a cure for nearly every disease that it's possible to solve with a computer. Then again, I can't think of any diseases that it would be possible to find a cure for, using computers.

That's because you utterly & massively underestimate how much computing power is needed to simulate folding protiens ,if you had read at least some of the F@H website you would of at least got some idea of the truely vast amount of CPU power needed.It would also tell you how finding a cure with PCs is possible ,if you read it
And no I & probably nor do most of my team mates believe the answer to everything will come from PCs ,but some answers will!
I haven't got time to trawl the whole F@H site for you now but here is a link to the F@H FAQ which gives you a vague idea of the power needed.

Have any links of that ever having happened?

I think you missed a word out there ,what did you mean?

Anyway, this project has been going non-stop for 15 or 16 years, yet what's been accomplished so far, medically-speaking?

That's not correct for F@H ,it started in 2000, I don't know what the pre-2000 stuff is about though ,don't forget that computing power has increased hugely since those times ,yet it is still just the tip of the iceberg of what can be done ,hence you haven't seen a disease cured as a result of it yet.

From the main F@H FAQ

Why not just use a supercomputer?

Modern supercomputers are essentially clusters of hundreds of processors linked by fast networking. The speed of these processors is comparable to (and often slower than) those found in PCs! Thus, if an algorithm (like ours) does not need the fast networking, it will run just as fast on a supercluster as a supercomputer. However, our application needs not the hundreds of processors found in modern supercomputers, but hundreds of thousands of processors. Hence, the calculations performed on Folding@home would not be possible by any other means! Moreover, even if we were given exclusive access to all of the supercomputers in the world, we would still have fewer computing cycles than we do with the Folding@home cluster! This is possible since PC processors are now very fast and there are hundreds of millions of PCs sitting idle in the world.

What has the project completed so far?

We have been able to fold several proteins in the 5-10 microsecond time range with experimental validation of our folding kinetics. This is a fundamental advance over previous work. Scientific papers detailing our results can be found in the Results section. We are now moving to other important proteins used in structural biology studies of folding as well as proteins involved in disease. There are many peer-reviewed and published in top journals (Science, Nature, Nature Structural Biology, PNAS, JMB, etc) that have resulted from FAH. Currently, the FAH project has published more papers than all of the other major distributed computing projects combined!

PlasmaBomb
Nice post
Care to give an estimate as to how long it would take 1 C2Q @3GHz to simulate one 'fast folding protien'? (to give an idea of the power needed to myocardia).

 

[Markfw]

myocardia, with your attitude here, how could you possibly be qualified as a MOD ? There are several good ones in the list, Yoxxy, Idontcare just to name 2, but their post's don;t create flames like yours.