With Rosetta, I understand that there is no "better" run time from a science perspective.

But what is the best for RALPH? Is the goal to just to see if a WU works? In which case, would a minimum run time be best, to process the largest variety of WUs? Or is it better to try to run as many models from the same WU?

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA

Well, the question has come up before and the project team was rather set on quick turn around. Highly focused apparently on proving the new release has a low error rate, and getting it out to Rosetta.

I pointed out that this is not how true testing should be done. Indeed, presently, the point is being brought up that R@H is having screen saver problems, and many Ralph users probably don't USE the screen saver... so right there, we've not run the program in the mannar it will be run on Rosetta. And this difference means a difference in Ralph predicted error rate, and the Rosetta experienced error rate (my guess).

Indeed after I pointed this out last Spring, there were issues were some WUs were logging extensive msgs to stdout and only if you ran the WU long enough would you get an error about the file being large enough that it exceeded a maximum limit that is set for the output (to prevent programs from looping out of control and consuming all of your disk space by mistake).

So, MY advice, for what it is worth, is simply to run Ralph with the same preferences as you do Rosetta. I feel this is the truest testbed for Ralph.

---

Thanks for your thoughts. Your approach seems reasonable to me.

---

Reno, NV
Team: SETI.USA