Posts by Jack Shaftoe

1) Message boards : Number crunching : Enable RAC Decay please. (Message 4297)
Posted 25 Oct 2008 by Profile Jack Shaftoe
Post:
Can the RAC decay be activated so that we can see an accurate picture of who is doing what in regards to Participants, Computers and Teams.


Agreed, please enable. Thanks,
2) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Bug Reports for Minirosetta v1.38 (Message 4292)
Posted 23 Oct 2008 by Profile Jack Shaftoe
Post:
http://ralph.bakerlab.org/result.php?resultid=1170135

And several more.

10/23/2008 5:02:34 PM|ralph@home|Starting 1c8cA_BOINC_CASP8_ABRELAX_SPLIT_SPLIT_IGNORE_THE_REST-S25-9-S3-3--1c8cA-_5221_3_0
10/23/2008 5:02:34 PM|ralph@home|Starting task 1c8cA_BOINC_CASP8_ABRELAX_SPLIT_SPLIT_IGNORE_THE_REST-S25-9-S3-3--1c8cA-_5221_3_0 using minirosetta_split_terms version 101
10/23/2008 5:02:35 PM|ralph@home|Computation for task 1bkrA_BOINC_CASP8_ABRELAX_SPLIT_SPLIT_IGNORE_THE_REST-S25-9-S3-3--1bkrA-_5221_3_0 finished
10/23/2008 5:02:35 PM|ralph@home|Output file 1bkrA_BOINC_CASP8_ABRELAX_SPLIT_SPLIT_IGNORE_THE_REST-S25-9-S3-3--1bkrA-_5221_3_0_0 for task 1bkrA_BOINC_CASP8_ABRELAX_SPLIT_SPLIT_IGNORE_THE_REST-S25-9-S3-3--1bkrA-_5221_3_0 absent
3) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Rosetta min 1.03 (Message 3635)
Posted 16 Jan 2008 by Profile Jack Shaftoe
Post:
if Boinc will hang next time, go to \"..\\Boinc\\slots\\*\\minirosetta_database\\\" and delete all read-only files in the subdirectories. (Actually just in \"..\\.svn\\\" subdirectories, but maybe it is the same, if just one Rosetta mini WU was running.) Boinc will immediately continue its work.

Peter


Worked for me on my 2 machines with this problem. Thanks,
4) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : bug report for version 5.64 (Message 3097)
Posted 14 May 2007 by Profile Jack Shaftoe
Post:
First time I\'ve seen one and wish I\'d had more time and do a screen capture, but this unit http://ralph.bakerlab.org/result.php?resultid=509878 displayed the freaky blue dot syndrome.


What\'s the blue dot syndrome?


Indeed! It sounds bad!
5) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : RAC decay (Message 2786)
Posted 9 Feb 2007 by Profile Jack Shaftoe
Post:
Can someone please turn on RAC decay for RALPH?


Curious, what is it?
6) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Bug reports for Ralph 5.42 and 5.43 (Message 2685)
Posted 19 Jan 2007 by Profile Jack Shaftoe
Post:
161 error.

http://ralph.bakerlab.org/result.php?resultid=390967
7) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Bug reports for Ralph 5.42 and 5.43 (Message 2684)
Posted 19 Jan 2007 by Profile Jack Shaftoe
Post:
http://ralph.bakerlab.org/result.php?resultid=390604

# random seed: 2772809
sin_cos_range ERROR: -1.#IND000 is outside of [-1,+1] range
sin_cos_range ERROR: -1.#IND000 is outside of [-1,+1] range
sin_cos_range ERROR: -1.#IND000 is outside of [-1,+1] range
sin_cos_range ERROR: -1.#IND000 is outside of [-1,+1] range
sin_cos_range ERROR: -1.#IND000 is outside of [-1,+1] range
sin_cos_range ERROR: -1.#IND000 is outside of [-1,+1] range
sin_cos_range ERROR: -1.#IND000 is outside of [-1,+1] range

etc...
8) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 2160)
Posted 16 Aug 2006 by Profile Jack Shaftoe
Post:
Solution : The Rosetta core application should do it\'s own benchmarking, and assign encrypted scoring values inside each workunit. BOINC level scoring systems could be bypassed on a per project basis, or per workunit basis even if you wanted to. The validator could be changed to decrypt these values on the fly, and everyone is happy. Although now that I think about it, you don\'t -have- to give this responsibility to the validator, you could require some background communication from Rosetta core whenever it needs to send in these values. It could send them in to the scheduler if you prefer.


Wow. Good stuff. Where were you for the last 3 months... ?
9) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 2117)
Posted 16 Aug 2006 by Profile Jack Shaftoe
Post:
I agree with your idea\'s of not back dating credits. It is wrong, no reason to \"fine\" or remove credits from past crunching.


How about rewarding people who have done more work than they have received credit for? That\'s \"wrong\" too?

The question is, do we punish the people who have done more work and received less credit (don\'t back-date) or do we punish the people who have claimed more credit than the amount of work they have done (back-date)? The right thing to do is back date it. There\'s no getting around it.
10) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 2101)
Posted 16 Aug 2006 by Profile Jack Shaftoe
Post:
From what I have gathered at the Rosetta Project there will be no Back Dating of the Credits & all the testing that is being done here with the WU\'s & Credit Revision is to be eventually for the Rosetta Project, so if theres going to be no Credit Back Dating there where the most blatant Cheating was going on then why should it be done here ...


It is being proposed here that ROSETTA credits get back dated to Feb and reflect work done. If you go back a couple posts you\'ll see this (he\'s talking about Rosetta):


dekim
Forum moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project scientist

I\'m extracting the archived data and will see what I can do. What do other users think about trying to backdate the credits using the new work based system?
11) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 2098)
Posted 16 Aug 2006 by Profile Jack Shaftoe
Post:
I can\'t sway myself from thinking that we have the opportunity to make the credit system fairly accurate based entirely on work done. I\'m fairly sure everyone agrees credit should be based on work done. We have the opportunity to back date this to make the credit system consistent and fair throughout. If you\'ve crunched more than me, you\'ll have more credit than me. If not, you won\'t. We know that\'s not the case at the moment, and I don\'t see how anyone can logically be against that.


Precisely, very well said.
12) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 2097)
Posted 16 Aug 2006 by Profile Jack Shaftoe
Post:
(Deleting post, misunderstood)
13) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 2055)
Posted 16 Aug 2006 by Profile Jack Shaftoe
Post:
I\'m extracting the archived data and will see what I can do. What do other users think about trying to backdate the credits using the new work based system?


I would be very happy to see this happen - since it\'s obvious that the new system is going to be a much more level playing field we should show as many credits using this as possible.

Back date to Feb, include everything older than that as they were reported. That gets my vote.






©2019 University of Washington
http://www.bakerlab.org