We're looking into it -- I just contacted Rob, who can probably give you an update on these tests.

5 x the same error as BigMike mentioned ("Incorrect function. (0x1) - exit code 1 (0x1), ERROR:: Exit from: .fragments.cc line: 465"): results 689005, 688961, 688506, 688423, 689759, named "1****_BOINC_ABINITIO_BEST25_VF_SCORE3-1*--1****-vf__2657_*_*".
All wingmen immediately failed too.

Peter

---

I definitely apologize for wasting your computational time on this...

Not a problem as far as I am concerned.

And thank you for explaining what's happening. It makes a difference to know someone is actually reading these posts. And I enjoy hearing about the nuts and bolts of Rosetta :)

==Mike

---

Don't believe everything you think.

It seems version 5.85 now has its very own message thread

See you over there...

==Mike

---

Don't believe everything you think.

The VF runs are testing variable fragment sizes, ranging from 3 to 25 mers instead of the 3 and 9 mers traditional rosetta abinitio uses.

The "Incorrect fragment size requested for omega alignment. Expected 1,3, or 9, but actually got: 16" error is what the old version of rosetta used to say whenever it encountered a fragment sized outside of the norm. This was fixed for 5.85, but unfortunately when the ralph versions were updated these changes were not properly applied to the linux specific executable.

That has now been fixed, so we certainly don't expect to see that error again.

On the other hand the more recent BEST25_VFSCORE3 errors were entirely my fault. Evidently even when rosetta doesn't need 3mers for abinitio it still checks to see if they exist, and fails if they don't. Some of these runs don't use 3mers at all, so I thought I could save people some space by leaving them out of the jobs. Now, this is a mistake we would normally catch on our local machines. Unfortunately I ended up doing my tests with 3mers present anyway and didn't catch the problem before sending it to ralph. I managed to remove the jobs once the first error messages started coming back, but by that point at least a thousand were already in progress.

I definitely apologize for wasting your computational time on this, and to anyone affected, thank you for helping to catch my mistakes before they went to boinc.

Thanks for the update. Not a real problem I suppose as this is an Alpha project but I was wondering why it took 3 days to respond. I started reporting these problems back on the 3rd.
No worries, the only harm done is that I wont be able to do any more Ralph jobs for awhile due to all the dozens of errors (I had well over 50 of them), Boinc will not request any more work, and when it does it will only ask for a few jobs till I get successful ones returned.

---