My suggestion is to try and keep RAM and Disk requirements as low as practical. Excessive use of these will impact the machine owners use (enjoyment) of the systems they have purchased. Using lots of unused CPU time is fine, slowing a system down (especially if no warning is given) is not. Yes I am aware of the stated requirement for 512MB RAM to run the R@H project, perhaps the implications (and symptoms) of running it on systems with overcommitted RAM could be more clearly set out.

I have thought about this as well, not so much as reducing the RAM requirements which I assume are the "nature of the beast" in terms of what Rosetta requires. Rather, I think it might be wise to put the system RAM requirement up front and center on the main project page. This is a unique BOINC project in that respect. You are asking for more cutting edge (recent) systems than other projects.

Perhaps there is also a way to configure your server so it rejects (with a polite note) any system sign-up that does not meet the minimum requirements.

Sure, a lot of people in my opinion will not have the minimum RAM, in fact most maybe will not. But I think if you highlight clearly up front and center what is required and why, and politely suggest going on to one/some of the many BOINC projects without such stringent requirements, I think you will keep ill will and problems to a minimum. Just mho.

Thanks!

---

Regards,
Bob P.

So I need to ask...after reading this thread (and still not quite understanding all the biology/chemistry mumbo jumbo) a few questions:

1)What, in general, has RAH found so far? In laymen's terms please...have we found any cures to anything?

2)It's been at least 2+ years since RAH has launched...how close are we to finding/reaching ANY of the projects goals? Again, please answer the question in plain old English. :)

3)After 2+ years we only have 500,000 participants in this project? Don't you find that extremely low (regardless of how other @HOME projects are doing). Does RAH advertise at all? I've never seen RAH mentioned in Time, Discover, Scientific American, the news, etc. With over 300million people in the U.S. alone, (and I would bet there are at least 100million US residents have computers powerful enough to join RAH), why is the participation so low? We're at 0.5% of the U.S. population. The world population is 6+BILLION (yes, I know not all 6 billion people have a pc) but for a project that seems so meaningful, why is there so low attendance (of people, not CPUs)?


I am really excited about this project but just don't understand what we've found, what we are hoping to find in the next ___ months, and why the participation is so low.

Thanks a bunch!

-Eric

---

Perhaps because the Project team refuses to discuss the possibility of adding a client for the millions of PS3's in use, and isn't interested in the resultant free publicity that such a client would generate (even bringing in new pc crunchers) ?

So I need to ask...after reading this thread (and still not quite understanding all the biology/chemistry mumbo jumbo) a few questions:

3)After 2+ years we only have 500,000 participants in this project? Don't you find that extremely low (regardless of how other @HOME projects are doing). Does RAH advertise at all?