Continue crunching 5.06 Ralph??

Message boards : Current tests : Continue crunching 5.06 Ralph??

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
Profile feet1st

Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 06
Posts: 313
Credit: 113,747
RAC: 0
Message 1423 - Posted: 28 Apr 2006, 16:36:11 UTC

I haven\'t found any posts indicating if we should cancel any remaining Ralph WUs or if their results are still going to be useful.

When you cut a new version, I always abort my old Ralph WUs, sometimes even when they\'re in progress, and I don\'t report them on the aborted thread, because I figure you can see by date/time and release that they don\'t need to be studied... is that the right thing to do?

Can we start a thread for Ralph instructions for use? Or something with guidelines?
ID: 1423 · Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Profile feet1st

Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 06
Posts: 313
Credit: 113,747
RAC: 0
Message 1426 - Posted: 28 Apr 2006, 21:43:53 UTC

I see more WUs were produced for Ralph, but application version still shows 5.06. I\'m not seeing any discussion on what the objectives are for this.
ID: 1426 · Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Moderator9
Volunteer moderator

Send message
Joined: 16 Feb 06
Posts: 251
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
Message 1427 - Posted: 29 Apr 2006, 0:04:44 UTC - in response to Message 1426.  

I see more WUs were produced for Ralph, but application version still shows 5.06. I\'m not seeing any discussion on what the objectives are for this.


Sorry for the delay. Been over on Rosetta. I would let them run. I have no information that they are testing anything in particular, but they do verify Work Units in Ralph before deploying them in Rosetta. SO they may just be testing for bad Work Units right now.

Moderator9
RALPH@home FAQs
RALPH@home Guidelines
Moderator Contact
ID: 1427 · Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Profile Fuzzy Hollynoodles
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 Feb 06
Posts: 37
Credit: 2,089
RAC: 0
Message 1428 - Posted: 29 Apr 2006, 5:13:02 UTC
Last modified: 29 Apr 2006, 5:13:44 UTC

I had these two in my cache at the same time:

Rosetta: AB_CASP6_t216__458_3090_0 http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/result.php?resultid=18451899

CPU time 11195.640625

stderr out

<core_client_version>5.4.6</core_client_version>
<stderr_txt>
# random seed: 2184411
# cpu_run_time_pref: 14400
# DONE :: 1 starting structures built 30 (nstruct) times
# This process generated 3 decoys from 3 attempts

</stderr_txt>


Ralph: AB_CASP6_t198__451_25_1 http://ralph.bakerlab.org/result.php?resultid=99001

CPU time 6211.5

stderr out

<core_client_version>5.4.6</core_client_version>
<stderr_txt>
# random seed: 3081944
# cpu_run_time_pref: 7200
# cpu_run_time_pref: 7200
# DONE :: 1 starting structures built 5 (nstruct) times
# This process generated 5 decoys from 5 attempts

</stderr_txt>


The difference may lie in my Target CPU run time, as I have

Rosetta: Target CPU run time 4 hours

Ralph: Target CPU run time 2 hours

Explanations, anybody?


[color=navy][b]"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me[/b][/color]

ID: 1428 · Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Profile anders n

Send message
Joined: 16 Feb 06
Posts: 166
Credit: 131,419
RAC: 0
Message 1429 - Posted: 29 Apr 2006, 5:52:48 UTC - in response to Message 1428.  

I had these two in my cache at the same time:

Rosetta: AB_CASP6_t216__458_3090_0 http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/result.php?resultid=18451899

CPU time 11195.640625

stderr out

<core_client_version>5.4.6</core_client_version>
<stderr_txt>
# random seed: 2184411
# cpu_run_time_pref: 14400
# DONE :: 1 starting structures built 30 (nstruct) times
# This process generated 3 decoys from 3 attempts

</stderr_txt>


Ralph: AB_CASP6_t198__451_25_1 http://ralph.bakerlab.org/result.php?resultid=99001

CPU time 6211.5

stderr out

<core_client_version>5.4.6</core_client_version>
<stderr_txt>
# random seed: 3081944
# cpu_run_time_pref: 7200
# cpu_run_time_pref: 7200
# DONE :: 1 starting structures built 5 (nstruct) times
# This process generated 5 decoys from 5 attempts

</stderr_txt>


The difference may lie in my Target CPU run time, as I have

Rosetta: Target CPU run time 4 hours

Ralph: Target CPU run time 2 hours

Explanations, anybody?




You are right it is your Target time that ends the 1st one.

No 2 asked for 5 runns and was reported when it had done them.

Anders n

ID: 1429 · Report as offensive    Reply Quote
genes
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Feb 06
Posts: 45
Credit: 43,300
RAC: 0
Message 1432 - Posted: 29 Apr 2006, 15:29:48 UTC
Last modified: 29 Apr 2006, 15:55:47 UTC

I have this 5.06 WU:

WATCHDOG_KILL_VERY_LONG_JOBS_447_2_1

Currently at 1.03% after 14 hours. It\'s not stuck, it\'s moving very slowly, at step 6 million and change. [edit] that\'s 62 million! [/edit]

When is the watchdog supposed to kill it?

ID: 1432 · Report as offensive    Reply Quote
genes
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Feb 06
Posts: 45
Credit: 43,300
RAC: 0
Message 1433 - Posted: 29 Apr 2006, 19:26:30 UTC
Last modified: 29 Apr 2006, 19:27:14 UTC

Well the watchdog finally killed it after almost 17 hours. I had my run-time preference set to 4 hours. I see that the watchdog waits for greater than 4X your preferred time. I guess that answers it...

Resetting my run-time preference to (not selected) so it runs whatever the default is.
ID: 1433 · Report as offensive    Reply Quote
Profile feet1st

Send message
Joined: 7 Mar 06
Posts: 313
Credit: 113,747
RAC: 0
Message 1435 - Posted: 29 Apr 2006, 22:05:09 UTC - in response to Message 1433.  

I see that the watchdog waits for greater than 4X your preferred time.

I believe the watchdog is unaware of time as compared to your preference. It is looking at a number that isn\'t shown on the graphic called the Rosetta score. This score is essentially a single simple representation of how good the current model is looking. As the model evolves, the scores are constantly changing. The watchdog looks for WUs where their score doesn\'t change for several trials. I\'m not clear if it checks every start of a model, or every checkpoint, or what. But if your score goes unchanged for an abnormally long time (note how vague that statement can be on fast vs slow machines, and small vs large WUs), then it steps in to end the WU.

In other words, watch dog \"knows\" we should have seen some change by now, and since we have not, it ends the WU. You can start to appreciate how tricky that was to get the right balance. That is likely why it took more than one attempt to get it right. The LAST thing you want to do is cancel a huge WU on a slow machine just because it\'s taking a long time to make progress.

ID: 1435 · Report as offensive    Reply Quote

Message boards : Current tests : Continue crunching 5.06 Ralph??



©2018 University of Washington
http://www.bakerlab.org