Folding pratices guideline

Status
Not open for further replies.
Xilikon

Xilikon

[H]ard|DCer of the Year 2008
Joined
Oct 12, 2004
Messages
15,010
As promised in another hot thread about BWM manipulating the AS logic to get the desired workunits, I'm making this thread to lay the ground for a good guideline of folding pratices, both allowed or not. The current way to do as discussed with Pr Vijay Pande is for me to make the guideline with all your help (other teams is also welcome so let's pimp everywhere) then submit this to him. If he think it's good, he'll put in the EULA section and will be the official reference.

The PG admitted the current problem is caused by a lack of written rules and good communication so from our discussion, we agreed that writing the rules would be a good start to tell everyone what is good for them and what isn't. We hope this will reduce the abuse and the useless flamewars over what is right or wrong. As for punitive measures, they will come with some ways later but it's not in our hands unfortunately.

Without further ado, let's start with a exhaustive list of behaviors. Try to make it as simple but precise so we can avoid leaving a few holes. I'll start with some of the most obvious ones :

-It's not allowed to circumvent the assignment server logic in any way to attempt to pick more desirable work units or block unwanted work units. Reference : http://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=58&t=15069&p=149346#p149346
-Packaging the F@H files inside of another software package in a attempt to install without the user consent is strictly forbidden. Reference : http://folding.stanford.edu/English/FAQ-Policies (part about running on authorized computers only) and http://folding.typepad.com/news/2008/12/update-of-the-eula.html.
-It's forbidden to distribute the F@H files yourself. Reference : http://folding.stanford.edu/English/FAQ-Policies (part about running on authorized computers only) and http://folding.typepad.com/news/2008/12/update-of-the-eula.html.
-Trying to use flags for inappropriate purpose to gain a unfair advantage. Reference : http://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=16011&p=159108#p159108
-Using any means to trick the client into downloading a work unit not meant for the hardware it is running on is forbidden. Reference : http://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.ph...157380#p157380 and http://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.ph...158383#p158383
-Deleting a work unit for any reason other than the reasons below is not permitted. Deleting work units disrupts the priority of work assigned and causes delays in dependent work unit assignments. The only permitted reasons for deleting work units are:
  • work unit or client instability
  • inability of the host system to complete the work unit before the final deadline
  • more?

I trust everyone can come with more examples. It's a even better thing if you can find a link to a official comment from a PG member (especially Vijay Pande or Dr Kasson). Please don't turn this into a flamewar arguing what is right and what is wrong, it's not the purpose of this thread.
 
Last edited:
"-Trying to use flags for inappropriate purpose to gain a unfair advantage."
You really need to clarify this. What is inappropriate to you won't be to another. Possibly: No modifying a GPU client to run on cards it wasn't written for.
 
KWH said:
"-Trying to use flags for inappropriate purpose to gain a unfair advantage."
You really need to clarify this. What is inappropriate to you won't be to another. Possibly: No modifying a GPU client to run on cards it wasn't written for.
Click to expand...

Well, this is about using the fermi flag on non-fermi cards. However, this is up for a better rewrite to better show the spirit of that rule.
 
How does everyone feel on using WINE? Currently Linux doesn't have -bigadv capability but if you emulate a Windows environment it works with the Windows client.

I personally don't see a problem with it as you're not modifying the client or doing anything shady, just creating an environment for it to run.

Same could go for the GPU client as I've seen reports of people WINE for that as well.

Right now it's kind of a grey area as nothing official has been said about it.
 
rmdashrrootsplat said:
How does everyone feel on using WINE? Currently Linux doesn't have -bigadv capability but if you emulate a Windows environment it works with the Windows client.

I personally don't see a problem with it as you're not modifying the client or doing anything shady, just creating an environment for it to run.

Same could go for the GPU client as I've seen reports of people WINE for that as well.

Right now it's kind of a grey area as nothing official has been said about it.
Click to expand...

That's a good point but I believe it's ok to run that way for 2 reasons :

-You aren't getting a unfair advantage doing that instead of running in native Linux or Windows. All you gain is flexibility because some people doesn't want to run Windows on their computer for daily usage.
-Wine is just a environment layer and the F@H files is the same no matter where you run it.
 
whatever
 
Last edited:
Tobit said:
There is nothing wrong with running WINE. People have been using this method for YEARS to run the GPU client on Linux. I only have an issue when people start manipulating /proc/cpuinfo to be able to fetch -bigadv WUs on machines that are not -bigadv qualified.
Click to expand...
So we can basically say that intentionally masking physical hardware specs from the F@H client to gain an unfair advantage or to download a WU not normally assigned to that hardware is forbidden.
 
Good guidleline Xilikon, when its done, I'll add it to the Folders Compendium
 
rmdashrrootsplat said:
So we can basically say that intentionally masking physical hardware specs from the F@H client to gain an unfair advantage or to download a WU not normally assigned to that hardware is forbidden.
Click to expand...

I agree, I can think of a good example of a grey area : Phenom II X6 crunching -bigadv even if they have only 6 threads. I believe it require some magic to force to download on those even with a missing 2 threads required for them.

This will be added :

"Intentionally masking physical hardware specs from the F@H client to gain an unfair advantage or to download a WU not normally assigned to that hardware is forbidden."
 
Xilikon said:
I agree, I can think of a good example of a grey area : Phenom II X6 crunching -bigadv even if they have only 6 threads. I believe it require some magic to force to download on those even with a missing 2 threads required for them.

This will be added :

"Intentionally masking physical hardware specs from the F@H client to gain an unfair advantage or to download a WU not normally assigned to that hardware is forbidden."
Click to expand...
Another grey area... Using -forcegpu flag to allow certain GPU's to fold when they aren't correctly identified by the client.
 
whatever * 2
 
Last edited:
Great start... and honestly I have nothing more to add.
 
Xilikon said:
Well, this is about using the fermi flag on non-fermi cards. However, this is up for a better rewrite to better show the spirit of that rule.
Click to expand...
Xilikon said:
I agree, I can think of a good example of a grey area : Phenom II X6 crunching -bigadv even if they have only 6 threads. I believe it require some magic to force to download on those even with a missing 2 threads required for them.

This will be added :

"Intentionally masking physical hardware specs from the F@H client to gain an unfair advantage or to download a WU not normally assigned to that hardware is forbidden."
Click to expand...
rmdashrrootsplat said:
Another grey area... Using -forcegpu flag to allow certain GPU's to fold when they aren't correctly identified by the client.
Click to expand...
This can all be rolled into one rule. Something like: Using any means to trick the client into downloading a work unit not meant for the hardware it is running on is forbidden.
 
Vijay Pande about the written permission of a computer owner to install a F@H client : http://folding.typepad.com/news/2008/12/update-of-the-eula.html

This was following the points zeroing of a former [H] folder who installed clients in the computers in a former company without the owner permission.

About data integrity and core/files tampering : http://folding.typepad.com/news/2009/08/importance-of-software-and-data-integrity.html

About F@H files modifications to add features outside the PG : http://folding.typepad.com/news/200...license-agreement-eula-and-why-its-there.html (it was there because someone modified it to allow multiplue GPU to run, even for a good intention due to a possible data integrity issue).
 
Last edited:
You should edit those links into the first post as well. They are very good references.
 
SpeedyVV said:
Good start... is there a dealine for submitting input?
Click to expand...

No set deadline but the sooner we complete this, the better.

I'll reorganize the first post with the links later today after getting a good feedback.
 
why dont you leave it till tomorrow?

That way folks can use that as the baseline for input. Most of us will need an evening because or work\school whatever.
 
What will be the point of this? I've never fully read an EULA ever before, and I doubt many have. If it goes there it'll just get lost. And besides, how is anyone to enforce this? Publishing this will just make all the BWMs here shut their traps and not parade it about so openly, it won't really make a difference if someone still wants to do something unethical.
 
Mr. Pedantic said:
What will be the point of this? I've never fully read an EULA ever before, and I doubt many have. If it goes there it'll just get lost. And besides, how is anyone to enforce this? Publishing this will just make all the BWMs here shut their traps and not parade it about so openly, it won't really make a difference if someone still wants to do something unethical.
Click to expand...

It will at least help you know if you are doing something that you should not.

it will help you be protected from a group of people attacking you unjustly for breaking rules because they are difficult to find.

Oh, I have read the EULA, and it is very short and sweet. It allows me to do things that others might not like, but at least I feel fine by following the EULA.

It allows the PG to build systems that enforce these rules.

Hopefully make the competition more fun and less frustrating.
 
Mr. Pedantic said:
What will be the point of this? I've never fully read an EULA ever before, and I doubt many have. If it goes there it'll just get lost. And besides, how is anyone to enforce this? Publishing this will just make all the BWMs here shut their traps and not parade it about so openly, it won't really make a difference if someone still wants to do something unethical.
Click to expand...
there appears to be some confusion about what is/isn't permitted when it comes to modifying the default FAH configurations for whatever reasons. This will be a standard that established members like us can point to whenever a conflict arises.
 
Xilikon said:
-Deleting a work unit for any reason other than real issues is not allowed as this delay everything else in the project.
Click to expand...
how about:

-Deleting a work unit for any reason other than the reasons below is not permitted. Deleting work units disrupts the priority of work assigned and causes delays in dependent work unit assignments. The only permitted reasons for deleting work units are:
  • system or client instability
  • inability of the host system to complete the work unit before the deadline time
  • more?
 
jebo_4jc said:
[*]system or client instability
Click to expand...
I'd change that to "WU or client software instability", otherwise it could be a loophole for people saying "my system is unstable on 670x projects so I'm deleting any that I get per the EULA".
 
yeah, I thought about that, but sometimes I delete a WU because an unstable OC has caused the client to go bonkers, but the WU/software was probably OK. I suppose that scenario could fall under item #1 or #2. I think I agree with you.
 
Mr. Pedantic said:
What will be the point of this? I've never fully read an EULA ever before, and I doubt many have. If it goes there it'll just get lost. And besides, how is anyone to enforce this? Publishing this will just make all the BWMs here shut their traps and not parade it about so openly, it won't really make a difference if someone still wants to do something unethical.
Click to expand...

As jebo_4jc said, even if most won't read the EULA, what really matter here is that those guidelines is written in the EULA to serve as reference when future situations like the BWN's case arise. We can refer to explain why it's not ok.
 
Last edited:
jebo_4jc said:
yeah, I thought about that, but sometimes I delete a WU because an unstable OC has caused the client to go bonkers, but the WU/software was probably OK. I suppose that scenario could fall under item #1 or #2. I think I agree with you.
Click to expand...

When a unstabe OC cause it to get bonkers, the problem is with your system, not the PG fault. It's your responsibility to make sure everything is stable to be able to fold anything thrown at your system.

That would warrant another rule :

-We must make sure the whole system is stable. It's your responsibility to stop folding if the system is unstable and causing issues while folding.
 
Mr. Pedantic said:
What will be the point of this? I've never fully read an EULA ever before, and I doubt many have. If it goes there it'll just get lost. And besides, how is anyone to enforce this? Publishing this will just make all the BWMs here shut their traps and not parade it about so openly, it won't really make a difference if someone still wants to do something unethical.
Click to expand...

Also, to phrase it as I haven't seen the others hit yet "Ignorance of the law is no defense against the law."

Just because you don't READ the EULA doesn't mean you can't be legally bound to suffer consequences triggered by the EULA.

Also, I believe it will be beneficial to codify the ways we've learned that interfere with the AS system so as to simply eliminate any doubt (AKA - Any method that monitors ip addresses to only receive certain work (BWM's scripting), Any method that blocks the IP addresses of servers that provide specific work(firewalling) and any other we have stumbled across).

If, for some reason, an ISP has black listed an IP that one of the servers is using, it wouldn't be fair at all to penalize any folders using that ISP, and codifying the violations give us a metric with which to begin to identify WHERE the violation is happening.
 
Xilikon said:
As jebo_4jc said, even if most won't read the EULA, what really matter here is that those guidelines is written in the EULA to serve as reference when future situations like the BWN's case arise. We can refer to explain why it's not ok.

When we look at EVGA's team, they allowed people to delete WU to get the good ones and the mods closed their eyes because there is nothing written forbiding this. After lots of explanations about why it's not ok and links to the official comments from the PG, they finally undestood and enforced this rule afterwards, thus the BWN's debacle.

When you're faced with a well written set of rules, it's easier to determine what's right and what's wrong with your actions vs the science.
Click to expand...

:eek::eek:Now wait one minute. Throwing the entire EVGA team under the bus like that is not needed and certainly uncalled for. That is NOT the entire deal/story. There are countless posts/threads to the contrary of this. Had there been the BWM problem, you betcha. And others learned from it. Did the few that made the mistake of listening to the BWM bunch change once they learned the correct path, yes yet again.

So for the love of God please do not throw the entire team under the bus and make the rest of us look like this. We bust are frk'n ass to fold as much as possible for the cause. If we want to play this way a few [H] members had done the same. Glass Houses comes to mind...

I came here to support this thread and read things like this? All it did was upset me. I have three i7 systems folding and that is a lot in my eyes. I have NEVER done as this has accused. Heck I had no idea until it was brought to light. I am a set it and forget it fella.

Not only that, but I came here to support it because I agree with the idea of at least having the information available to be nothing less than an "Educated public" kind of idea. The thought is simple, for example. If there is no rule to say... Speed in a school zone... Do you think folks will or will not speed in that school zone? Yeah I know silly, but clearly this kind of act has a similar seriousness to it right?

It also helps keep the honest, well honest. How can it be considered bad if folks do not know it is? Remember, not everyone has been folding from the beginning. I have only been folding for about 18 months, so I am not privy to all the "Once spoken, never to be again" info as this got started.
 
I like the idea but I have a concern. I can finish a bidadv using 7 cores with pleanty of time to spare. I've done this before because I like to leave one core for my 3-275's.
If I'm having no issues finishing the WU within the deadline why must there be a rule to tell me I can't do it?
I can see a problem if people are trying to complete bigadv's but fail to do so on a regular basis.
 
hey afterburner, seriously, I'm glad you came over to post.

However, in fairness, I believe it was rcranfield who specifically endorsed the idea of deleting slow SMP WU's a few months ago. I think he recently reversed his position, however xilikon's statement is valid.

We know you have a (mostly) good team, but when your moderator(s) were condoning one of the cardinal sins of folding, it rightfully sparked some backlash from some members of our team, and yours, if I recall correctly (I remember punchy speaking out, IIRC).

In any case, the whole idea here is for education. The past is behind us :)
 
tank1023 said:
I like the idea but I have a concern. I can finish a bidadv using 7 cores with pleanty of time to spare. I've done this before because I like to leave one core for my 3-275's.
If I'm having no issues finishing the WU within the deadline why must there be a rule to tell me I can't do it?
I can see a problem if people are trying to complete bigadv's but fail to do so on a regular basis.
Click to expand...
behavior like this should be OK under the "guidelines."

Which part of the guidelines do you feel like forbids that kind of behavior?
 
jebo_4jc said:
behavior like this should be OK under the "guidelines."

Which part of the guidelines do you feel like forbids that kind of behavior?
Click to expand...

In one of the link provided by the OP, I think it was Dr. Kasson who said he doesn't agree with using anything less then 8 cores.
 
tank1023 said:
I like the idea but I have a concern. I can finish a bidadv using 7 cores with pleanty of time to spare. I've done this before because I like to leave one core for my 3-275's.
If I'm having no issues finishing the WU within the deadline why must there be a rule to tell me I can't do it?
I can see a problem if people are trying to complete bigadv's but fail to do so on a regular basis.
Click to expand...
The minimum requirement is that it is run on a machine with 8 threads. You have an 8-threaded machine. The client sees it as such and you're not fooling the client to think that it is if it wasn't. There's nothing in the rules stating that you must utilize all the threads in your machine.
 
Afterburner said:
:eek::eek:Now wait one minute. Throwing the entire EVGA team under the bus like that is not needed and certainly uncalled for. That is NOT the entire deal/story. There are countless posts/threads to the contrary of this. Had there been the BWM problem, you betcha. And others learned from it. Did the few that made the mistake of listening to the BWM bunch change once they learned the correct path, yes yet again.

So for the love of God please do not throw the entire team under the bus and make the rest of us look like this. We bust are frk'n ass to fold as much as possible for the cause. If we want to play this way a few [H] members had done the same. Glass Houses comes to mind...

I came here to support this thread and read things like this? All it did was upset me. I have three i7 systems folding and that is a lot in my eyes. I have NEVER done as this has accused. Heck I had no idea until it was brought to light. I am a set it and forget it fella.

Not only that, but I came here to support it because I agree with the idea of at least having the information available to be nothing less than an "Educated public" kind of idea. The thought is simple, for example. If there is no rule to say... Speed in a school zone... Do you think folks will or will not speed in that school zone? Yeah I know silly, but clearly this kind of act has a similar seriousness to it right?

It also helps keep the honest, well honest. How can it be considered bad if folks do not know it is? Remember, not everyone has been folding from the beginning. I have only been folding for about 18 months, so I am not privy to all the "Once spoken, never to be again" info as this got started.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry if you felt that way, it's not my goal to throw the whole team under the bus. All I mentionned is that at some time, a mod or two said that since there is no rule about deleting WU, they don't see a problem. That's the main issue. I also said that after everyone saw how detrimental it is to the science to delete WUs, they were quick to rectify and make sure everyone get to do all the workunits thrown at them.

To my defense, I didn't follow everything which happened in the EVGA forums and here so I might have missed a few things. My goal with that story is to explain why we need to have a set of written rules so there is no ambiguity about what's permitted and what's not.

What we should try is to use what's happened in the past as a good teaching to write the guidelines to make sure it won't happen again in the future. I know the greatest teams will strive to follow those guidelines to the letter, including EVGA, [H] and others.
 
rmdashrrootsplat said:
The minimum requirement is that it is run on a machine with 8 threads. You have an 8-threaded machine. The client sees it as such and you're not fooling the client to think that it is if it wasn't. There's nothing in the rules stating that you must utilize all the threads in your machine.
Click to expand...

Got it ! Thanks
 
Afterburner said:
:eek::eek:Now wait one minute. Throwing the entire EVGA team under the bus like that is not needed and certainly uncalled for. That is NOT the entire deal/story. There are countless posts/threads to the contrary of this. Had there been the BWM problem, you betcha. And others learned from it. Did the few that made the mistake of listening to the BWM bunch change once they learned the correct path, yes yet again.

So for the love of God please do not throw the entire team under the bus and make the rest of us look like this. We bust are frk'n ass to fold as much as possible for the cause. If we want to play this way a few [H] members had done the same. Glass Houses comes to mind...
Click to expand...
Posts over at EVGA criticizing bwm were deleted for being "personal attacks". rcranfield specifically said that it is okay to delete work units, though he later retracted his statement. As a matter of fact, it was in a thread on this forum where he was provided evidence that it is not acceptable to do that. EVGA was not responsible for bwm's actions, but the actions taken by the staff over there certainly didn't help. The difference between EVGA and here is that when people engage in such behaviour here, they are openly criticized for it. At EVGA, the staff did not allow that.

PS: Xilikon's comment was more or less accurate. Until evidence was provided that PG does not condone deleting work units until more favourable ones are received, the moderators at EVGA did nothing to discourage bwm's behaviour and in fact condoned it. After rcranfield was shown proof that it is not acceptable to delete units, he posted a retraction. That's what happened, and that is what Xilikon said. Now, please don't derail this thread any further, since this is not about EVGA or bwm or anyone else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top