I have one at 95.2% and it's 4X runtime preference. I'll let it soak until morning, the it gets whacked.

---

This WU failed on my system.

we looked into that error and the only explanation is that the application can't see or open one of the input files. It is specific to your situation and is not a general error. without being able work on your computer, I can't really figure out what is happening. did a file get removed accidentally?

Noup, didn't touch anything. I didn't even notice the error until I visited my results page. Anyway, I haven't touch any files or even settings on my computer/preferences.
Maybe Mr. Gates just didn't like that WU :)

This one worked but stalled at about 86% for over an hour.

score13_hb_envtest62_A_1tig__3225_1253

work unit 667255

I notice my previous failure (work unit 665842) worked on a Darwin without problems.

I have one at 95.2% and it's 4X runtime preference. I'll let it soak until morning, the it gets whacked.

let me know how it goes. hopefully it's not actually stuck.

---

@dekim

This got no response on Rosetta.

Please show how many WUs were released in the last 24h so we can make the "Successes last 24h" meaningful.

Any thoughts?

---

@dekim

This got no response on Rosetta.

Please show how many WUs were released in the last 24h so we can make the "Successes last 24h" meaningful.

Any thoughts?

Meaningful as in getting the success rate? I'll put that on my list of things to do.

---

@dekim

This got no response on Rosetta.

Please show how many WUs were released in the last 24h so we can make the "Successes last 24h" meaningful.

Any thoughts?

Meaningful as in getting the success rate? I'll put that on my list of things to do.

Yes...you already show "Successes last 24h" on server status....just add "Non-Successes last 24h".

Pretty nice having all these WUs to crunch.

---

I put "Failures last 24h" on ralph. It can be client errors, invalid results, unsent results etc, i.e. everything else with a complete status. I am hesitant to add this to R@h. I'd rather point out the positive than negative for the good of the project. I wonder what other users think.

---

I am hesitant to add this to R@h. I'd rather point out the positive than negative for the good of the project. I wonder what other users think.

I think it is good to have at least the feeling, how good/bad it goes.
Especialy here where the bug hunting happens.

But understand your feeling concerning R@h.

Peter

I put "Failures last 24h" on ralph. It can be client errors, invalid results, unsent results etc, i.e. everything else with a complete status. I am hesitant to add this to R@h. I'd rather point out the positive than negative for the good of the project. I wonder what other users think.

That works for me........it's the 95% you said you were getting....now I believe it.

---

I put "Failures last 24h" on ralph. It can be client errors, invalid results, unsent results etc, i.e. everything else with a complete status. I am hesitant to add this to R@h. I'd rather point out the positive than negative for the good of the project. I wonder what other users think.

I have learned my lesson: in Ralph/Rosetta a success is not always a success, and a failure is not always a failure. My native language is not English, but I should think that your "failures" are much more than I personally define as such. Would another word - like noncompletions or whatever - suit everybody's purpose better?

I put "Failures last 24h" on ralph. It can be client errors, invalid results, unsent results etc, i.e. everything else with a complete status. I am hesitant to add this to R@h. I'd rather point out the positive than negative for the good of the project. I wonder what other users think.

I have learned my lesson: in Ralph/Rosetta a success is not always a success, and a failure is not always a failure. My native language is not English, but I should think that your "failures" are much more than I personally define as such. Would another word - like noncompletions or whatever - suit everybody's purpose better?

returns without completion/models or something

I can't run the minirosetta client any longer.

It fails to honor run-time preference: My one hour run-time was exceeded by many times. I ditched the rest of the WUs.

Also, the credits granted are much too low.


This is something that shouldn't be released into the wild.

---

Have just been going through my results and have noticed that the returns (credits/cobblestones granted) on my Windows machine are very much lower than on my Linux machines.

Some of the recent mini Rosetta "score" work units have dropped as low as 5 cr/h and with the failures (validation errors/computation errors/stuck wu's), I am getting about 11 cr/h average on an AMD Opteron 285 computer.

The same spec computer (only hard drives and graphic cards are different), running Linux, is getting 14 or a bit more cr/h.

I also noticed that the number of decoys generated with the Windows machine are a lot less than the number generated on Linux.

Has anyone else noticed this?

At the current credit rate I may have to stop using the Windows machine on Ralph.

---

I'm sometimes getting double of what I'm claiming.

These are my last three Mini tasks (Linux)

CPU time (sec)  	claimed credit  	granted credit
 	13,005.13  	31.92  			50.88
 	13,564.10  	33.29  			50.73
	12,407.80  	30.77  			50.87

In contrast, it seems like I get exactly what I claim on Beta tasks.

---

Kathryn :o)
The BOINC FAQ Service
The Unofficial BOINC Wiki
The Trac System
More BOINC information than you can shake a stick of RAM at.

Yes, Linux is paying more. Here are some small samples (five WUs) from my test machines. I think they are all "minis", I didn't double-check.

Intel E4500, 32-bit Windows, gets 21.97% less than claimed
Intel E4500, 32-bit Linux, gets 22.16% more than claimed
Intel E4500, 64-bit Windows, gets 29.70% less than claimed
Intel E4500, 64-bit Linux, gets 6.60% less than claimed

AMD 4400+, 32-bit Windows, gets 24.33% less than claimed
AMD 4400+, 32-bit Linux, gets 27.37% more than claimed
AMD 4400+, 64-bit Windows, gets 40.46% less than claimed
AMD 4400+, 64-bit Linux, gets 18.55% more than claimed

I've asked for more numbers from the database, but haven't received numbers or a response to my request yet.

edit: just noticed I did receive a PM about my response.

---

Thinks KSMarksPsych should be more generous with the credits granted. Am on W.XP and suffering!

AMD 2600+ Windows, 5.10.20, consistently getting 45% of claimed, less than 5 cr/hour

---

Thinks KSMarksPsych should be more generous with the credits granted. Am on W.XP and suffering!

Install Fedora?

:-)

Don't blame me. I just report what I see.

---

Kathryn :o)
The BOINC FAQ Service
The Unofficial BOINC Wiki
The Trac System
More BOINC information than you can shake a stick of RAM at.

Here is a Windows Vista (64 bit) computer consistently getting more credit than claimed.

Of the last 16 MiniRosetta units completed (at the time of this posting):

On average 11% more granted than claimed.
14 credits/hour cpu time.

Mind you, I'm not complaining ;-) only providing another data point on this issue.