Posts by robertmiles

41) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Minirosetta 3.00 (Message 5268) Posted 2 May 2011 by robertmiles Post: This is the first update post-XRW, What is XRW?? Related to any of these? http://www.file-extension.com/files/XRW/ http://www.ruggedalgiz.com/algiz-xrw/ http://www.lautechgroup.com/algizxrw https://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=xrw http://pcsupport.about.com/od/fileextensions/f/xrwfile.htm http://www.liutilities.com/products/winbackup/filextlibrary/files/XRW/
42) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Minirosetta 3.00 (Message 5254) Posted 2 Apr 2011 by robertmiles Post: Whenever my computer tries to report the minirosetta 3.00 workunit completed recently and ask for more, it gets these error messages: 4/2/2011 8:37:11 AM ralph@home Sending scheduler request: To report completed tasks. 4/2/2011 8:37:11 AM ralph@home Reporting 1 completed tasks, requesting new tasks for CPU and GPU 4/2/2011 8:37:16 AM ralph@home Scheduler request completed: got 0 new tasks 4/2/2011 8:37:16 AM ralph@home Message from server: Server error: can't attach shared memory Is there some problem on the server?
43) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : minirosetta 2.03 (Message 5029) Posted 6 Jan 2010 by robertmiles Post: One ran about 11 hours instead of the 6 hours I asked for, and produced just one decoy. Appears OK otherwise, though. http://ralph.bakerlab.org/result.php?resultid=1694077
44) Message boards : Number crunching : Ralph support OpenCL ? (Message 5025) Posted 5 Jan 2010 by robertmiles Post: Have you read the discussions over on Rosetta@home asking for Nvidia GPU support? The first efforts to try it showed that the minirosetta algorithms are too memory-demanding to make much use of enough GPU cores to get very much speedup on Nvidia boards with a currently reasonable amount of video memory. Therefore, such a conversion would require so much of a rewrite that it currently doesn't look reasonable. So far, it looks like this would apply for AMD/ATI boards as well, the other kind BOINC is already able to handle. I suspect that this may change when either Nvidia or AMD/ATI start offering compilers for the computer language is already written in that are good enough at spreading the work onto multiple GPU cores without increasing the memory requirements, and doing this even for the older GPU boards. Since Ralph@home runs essentially the same software planned for Rosetta@home later, this should apply to Ralph@home as well.
45) Message boards : Number crunching : minirosetta v2.03 (Message 5024) Posted 5 Jan 2010 by robertmiles Post: One of my v2.03 workunits is showing signs that it may run well over the 6 hours I've been asking for lately: http://ralph.bakerlab.org/workunit.php?wuid=1496817 It's now at 04:24:44 40.311% 05:33:01. The other than that's started looks more like it will actually take about 6 hours, and the two which haven't are showing an estimate time to completion of 06:14:57.
46) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : minirosetta 1.98 (Message 4984) Posted 17 Oct 2009 by robertmiles Post: Snagletooth, Are you sure that workunit was under minirosetta 1.98? All of those I've had with similar names recently were under rosetta beta 5.98 (a different application) instead.
47) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Time to update the sticky threads list again? (Message 4949) Posted 2 Sep 2009 by robertmiles Post: Some of the sticky threads no longer seem to have much reason to be sticky. In fact, currently the Minirosetta 1.95 thread seems to be the only one in this forum that still has a good reason to be sticky.
48) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Minirosetta 1.95 (Message 4948) Posted 2 Sep 2009 by robertmiles Post: Any particular reason why RALPH@home is still testing 1.95 when Rosetta@home is already using 1.97? Also, do you know if the lockfile problem with some of the earlier minirosetta versions has been fixed? If so, I'll stop running one of my computers at 95% CPU instead of 100% CPU in order to look for this problem.
49) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Minirosetta 1.74/1.75 (Message 4845) Posted 18 Jun 2009 by robertmiles Post: Still have massive Validation problems on one of my Hosts (was asked to join it at RALPH after seeing the same problems with Rosetta) : http://ralph.bakerlab.org/show_host_detail.php?hostid=18716 My best guess is that the installed Fedora 8 x86_64 has seen too many upgrades and requires a re-installation from scratch (downloading Fedora 11 x86_64 right now). The only odd thing is, that this host never ran into any Validation problems on any other Project (?!) If that doesn't help, I'm out of ideas. RAM was already exchanged, Vcore set back to Auto, cooling was improved (temps are well in the green). What version of BOINC are you running? If it's 6.6.36, note that it has known problems running properly under Linux.
50) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Minirosetta 1.74/1.75 (Message 4844) Posted 18 Jun 2009 by robertmiles Post: I've read that BOINC 6.6.36 finally did something related to the lockfile problem. No word yet on whether it fixes this problem, and since this version has problems with GPU use (as well as use under Linux), I'm not planning to try it.
51) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : minirosetta_1.72 (Message 4835) Posted 9 Jun 2009 by robertmiles Post: Both 1.72 workunits I've had so far have failed. http://ralph.bakerlab.org/result.php?resultid=1471843 ERROR: pairing.range_check() ERROR:: Exit from: ....srcprotocolsabinitioPairingStatistics.cc line: 357 BOINC:: Error reading and gzipping output datafile: default.out http://ralph.bakerlab.org/result.php?resultid=1473166 ERROR: Option matching -in:file:boinc_wu.zip not found in command line top-level context Both were under BOINC 6.2.28 on my 32-bit Vista SP2 machine, using 95% CPU in order to look for lockfile problems.
52) Questions and Answers : Wish list : Different settings for each computer? (Message 4822) Posted 16 May 2009 by robertmiles Post: Now that I have two computers, I'd like to have different settings for the two on how much weight each project gets, and also different values for a few other settings. Could BOINC be updated to allow this option on all projects?
53) Questions and Answers : Web site : New software being tested here or on Rosetta@home? (Message 4821) Posted 16 May 2009 by robertmiles Post: For several of the new minirosetta versions lately, I've seen them on Rosetta@home before I've seen them on Ralph@home. Does this indicate problems on Ralph@home, or does it indicate that the changes were so small you didn't think they needed much testing?
54) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : minirosetta_1.64 (Message 4809) Posted 2 May 2009 by robertmiles Post: not sure what happened here with broker_lb_test3_hb_t313__IGNORE_THE_REST_9385_5_0, but i just got home and rebooted the computer after a windows update and then the task just dies after something like a minute and 6 seconds. Error msg: -1073741819 (0xffffffffc0000005) The other one that took its place is running ok so far and the one before it is 23% into its work and is ok. Did you remember to suspend BOINC during the Windows update and the reboot? I've recently seen something similar for a number of BOINC projects when I was unable to call up the BOINC manager program in order to suspend BOINC during a reboot.
55) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : minirosetta_1.64 (Message 4808) Posted 2 May 2009 by robertmiles Post: Have Rosetta@home and Ralph@home switched roles in which of them tests new versions of applications first? I've already received several minirosetta 1.65 workunits from Rosetta@home, without seeing any sign that there have been any Ralph@home tests of that version at all.
56) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : minirosetta_1.64 (Message 4807) Posted 1 May 2009 by robertmiles Post: Are you sure 1.64 was adequately tested before releasing it to Rosetta@home? I've barely had any 1.64 workunits under Ralph@home at all.
57) Message boards : Feedback : Old threads with stickies (Message 4801) Posted 28 Apr 2009 by robertmiles Post: Looks like time to adjust the list of stickies for various versions of minirosetta again. May also need a link to the 1.63 thread on the home page.
58) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : minirosetta 1.58 (Message 4790) Posted 18 Apr 2009 by robertmiles Post: On this 1.59 workunit, I ran into the lockfile problem on structure _U16X13X_00019, but my wingman chose a shorter workunit length and therefore didn't even try that structure: http://ralph.bakerlab.org/result.php?resultid=1422995 http://ralph.bakerlab.org/workunit.php?wuid=1260423 I use BOINC 6.2.28 under 32-bit Vista SP1 on that machine. Although my machine still uses settings intended to check for the lockfile problem, I'm having to reboot my machine more often to get past problems with the router I'm using to allow a recently installed newer computer to reach the internet, and therefore less likely to actually see such problems.
59) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : minirosetta 1.58 (Message 4775) Posted 16 Apr 2009 by robertmiles Post: I now have a minirosetta 1.59 workunit. Is it time to create a new thread for 1.59?
60) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : minirosetta 1.58 (Message 4752) Posted 23 Mar 2009 by robertmiles Post: Didn't help enough - the first Rosetta@home 1.54 workunit completed after the above procedure had the lockfile problem again, but two more started since then and not complete yet haven't had that problem yet. Suggestion: Modify minirosetta so that it checks for a lockfile as it starts up, preferably before trying to create one, and if this first check finds a lockfile, reduce the number of times minirosetta is allowed to restart before it is able to write the first checkpoint. Suggestion: Modify minirosetta so that it reports which slot it was run under if it is able to do this, since the problem looks likely to repeat for any minirosetta workunit run in a slot where a previous workunit's lockfile was not erased when the previous workunit completed and was reported. Suggestion: Check the procedure used for failed workunits to see if it leaves a lockfile behind after abandoning efforts to restart the workunit. Suggestion: Check what program is supposed to delete the lockfiles for workunits that have been completed and reported. Suggestion: Check if BOINC allows any way to request that a workunit be restarted, but in a different slot. Suggestion: If BOINC is supposed to clean up the slots after workunits complete and are reported, check if BOINC 6.2.28 is known to have any problems with doing this. I haven't had any 1.58 workunits since trying the procedure, so I don't know whether these continued problems also apply to 1.58. I often let BOINC run for a few days between reboots. I still use BOINC 6.2.28 under Vista SP1, with 95% CPU time.

Previous 20 · Next 20