Posts by Lee Carre

1) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Bug reports for Ralph 5.30 and 5.31 and 5.32 (Message 2426)
Posted 24 Oct 2006 by Lee Carre
Post:
while crunching the result named FRA_2rio_CASP7_hom001_1_2rio_1_1a06__IGNORE_THE_REST_232_1281_3_0, when i showed the graphics, the rosetta application stopped responding
the version was 5.32 on a windows system

each thread (science and graphics) each took up all the cycles on 2 of my CPUs (i have a multiCPU machine)

stopping/exiting boinc closed the app without a problem, and it was working again when boinc was restarted

it was working fine before i viewed the graphics too, no problems at all since 5.32 was released
I was gonna mention 2rio is a very large protein and uses a lot of meory, but that is clearly not a problem for your computer:-) Some users have reported similiar problem before, and we hope we can reproduce it reliably on our local computers in order to debug.
ah, if it\'s memory related that might be why, i have lots of memory because i use quite a few memory intensive apps, and sometimes use all of it :p

so it might have been my fault, but at least the unit didn\'t fail, it continued after i restarted boinc :)
2) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Bug reports for Ralph 5.30 and 5.31 and 5.32 (Message 2408)
Posted 14 Oct 2006 by Lee Carre
Post:
while crunching the result named FRA_2rio_CASP7_hom001_1_2rio_1_1a06__IGNORE_THE_REST_232_1281_3_0, when i showed the graphics, the rosetta application stopped responding
the version was 5.32 on a windows system

each thread (science and graphics) each took up all the cycles on 2 of my CPUs (i have a multiCPU machine)

stopping/exiting boinc closed the app without a problem, and it was working again when boinc was restarted

it was working fine before i viewed the graphics too, no problems at all since 5.32 was released
3) Message boards : Current tests : CPU Run Time preference (Message 838)
Posted 9 Mar 2006 by Lee Carre
Post:
My run-time pref was \"not selected\" and I noticed the first of my latest batch of Ralph wu\'s put in 5 hrs with, it claimed, about 3 to go. I just changed my pref to 2 hours and it finished, as I\'d expect given the desciptions of behavior when changing the prefs mid-wu.

I read somewhere that Rosetta will use 8 hours for the default, so my question is are the tests set for production defaults now, else what happened to the 1 hr test default?

rosetta did use 8 hours as the default, but now it\'s using 2 hours
4) Message boards : Feedback : Screensaver needs to be more fluid please (Message 483)
Posted 22 Feb 2006 by Lee Carre
Post:
holding down the left-mouse-button and moving the mouse around you can rotate the 3D \"native\" protein and with the right-mouse-button held down and moving, you can zoom-in-out.
And with middle mousebutton or mousewheel pressed you can move it around (even out of the borders)
knew it could be rotated, but didn\'t know about moving or zooming, i wish they had said that on the graphics explanation page!
5) Message boards : Current tests : CPU Run Time preference (Message 331)
Posted 19 Feb 2006 by Lee Carre
Post:
If so, then are the people getting the \"1% bug\" ever getting past model 1?

very doubtful
6) Message boards : Current tests : CPU Run Time preference (Message 233)
Posted 18 Feb 2006 by Lee Carre
Post:
This is the correct scenario, and you\'re right, I don\'t know how to trigger BOINC to issue a message like that either. Could be a client side bug, or even server side.
it\'s just a case of the client not displaying a message about it, because as i stated, the client is actually aware of the change, it just doesn\'t make any noise about it
7) Message boards : Current tests : CPU Run Time preference (Message 221)
Posted 18 Feb 2006 by Lee Carre
Post:
Well, even if the message board never displayed a change in prefs, my host #66 is now taking two hours to do a wu. I even rechecked the log and it\'s NOT there. At no time from when I change the website until it actually crunched the WU did the messages tab display that an updated pref was found.

I\'ve found the same for other projects too, unless it\'s something major that\'s obvious (like resource share) there\'s no message about it, but BOINC is aware of the change (looking at the TCP stream of the GUI RPC) so i\'m guessing this is a boinc client issue rather than a project issue
8) Message boards : Current tests : CPU Run Time preference (Message 217)
Posted 18 Feb 2006 by Lee Carre
Post:
Have I understood this discussion correctly? If I download WUs as before they will run a prediction and then end after a varaiable amount of time and return the results.
they\'ll end after they finish their current \"answer\" (unless they predict that they\'ll go over the time limit by a long way, and they\'ll stop before however many hours you\'ve set)

If I set the CPU run time preference it will run sufficient predictions on the same WU to process up to that amount of time (Einstein runs different calculations on the same data, but does not have a time limit)
correct :)

If so what happens to the partial result? I.e. if I set it to 2 hours then I assume the work that is cut off at 2 hours will only be a partial result. Is this prediction ignored?
not quite, a normal WU would do 10 predictions (10 \"answers\"), the new method will keep working and producing \"answers\" untill the time limit is reached/exceeded
however, if it knows that each answer takes say 20 minutes (just a guess), and you\'ve set a limit of 2 hours, if it reaches 1:50 then it might stop there, and not do another one (because it would run over the limit quite a bit)

I.e. should we all set such a CPU limit?
use it how you would use rosetta, set your prefs to match your needs
this way a veriety of settings get tested (i\'m sticking with \"none selected\" because i don\'t have bandwidth issues, and to make sure that the default works as desired for those who don\'t choose a pref)
if you need to use 8 hours, use that, if you need 2, use that, if it doens\'t matter, use \"none seleceted\"
i\'m sure the devs will work things out as results are returned (but it\'s looking good so far)
9) Message boards : Current tests : CPU Run Time preference (Message 166)
Posted 17 Feb 2006 by Lee Carre
Post:
you could always look in the client_state.xml file to see if the prefs have actually been updated, although this won\'t solve the original problem
10) Message boards : Feedback : Screensaver needs to be more fluid please (Message 135)
Posted 17 Feb 2006 by Lee Carre
Post:
just noticed the native structure rotates around its center now and does not look flat when you rotate it away from its default view anymore, you can even zoom now, nice work. (was working like that with my last 2 WUs, now i got none left anymore too :/)

cool, thanks :)
11) Message boards : Feedback : Screensaver needs to be more fluid please (Message 125)
Posted 17 Feb 2006 by Lee Carre
Post:
Another screensaver issue for the to-do list:
If the screen is an odd shape the graphic is in the upper left corner rather than centered in the available space.
when you say odd shape do you mean unusual resolutions?

some examples if you would be so kind :)


I also have this question. What do you mean by odd shape? Most screens are either 4:5 or 16:9 aspect ratio. Is yours different?

I think you mean 4:3 and 16:9 (4:5 would be taller than it is wide lol)
but you can set a 16:9 res on a 4:3 and a 4:3 on a 16:9 , and a veriety of other combinations
my monitor is 4:3 but my displayed res is 1280x1024 which is 5:4
12) Message boards : Feedback : Screensaver needs to be more fluid please (Message 101)
Posted 17 Feb 2006 by Lee Carre
Post:
Another screensaver issue for the to-do list:
If the screen is an odd shape the graphic is in the upper left corner rather than centered in the available space.
when you say odd shape do you mean unusual resolutions?

some examples if you would be so kind :)
13) Message boards : Current tests : CPU Run Time preference (Message 93)
Posted 17 Feb 2006 by Lee Carre
Post:
well, i assume that people who want each workunit to run for a long time, will only get workunits that would have otherwise been short.

also if they need more results for a structure, then they\'ll issue more workunits, if there\'s enough, then they\'ll stop issueing WUs for that sturcture

this is only a guess, and i could be completely wrong
but in a project such as this (or any really), having more results is always good

oops, forgot about credit
well currently there\'s only 1 result per WU, so a host will just be granted the ammount they claim

for multiple hosts, i don\'t know, an official will have to answer that one
14) Message boards : Current tests : CPU Run Time preference (Message 82)
Posted 16 Feb 2006 by Lee Carre
Post:
We are going to update the code to remove the 99 limit. For most work units 99 would take too long. We would prefer lower run times so that results are returned quicker.


Well, the only problem I am seeing with this, is the accurracy of the 1 hour workunits, versus the 8 hour workunits.

Surely this isn\'t my issue as a LOWLY tester :) , but it helps to understand the under-workings of it all. Here\'s how I currently understand it :

Workunit [insert workunit name].001 gets sent out to (hypothetically) 5 people.

User 1 processes it for an hour, and returns 6 structures.
User 2 processes it for 2 hours, and returns 15 structures.
User 3 goes for 4 hours and returns 45 structures.
User 4 does the full 8 hours, and returns the max of 99 structures, but ends early at 7 hours 30 minutes.

(again, hypothetical figures)
#1 claims 60 credit
#2 claims 120 credit
#3 claims 480 credit
#4 claims 900 credit

so... then you\'ve got 4 seperate results for 1 workunit? How is credit canonical for User #3, or 4?

Assuming even if selecting your processing time preference will limit you to workunits that are only sent to like-setting machines, (I.E. once a workunit gets tagged as 4 hour processing times, only people with this preference can d/l them.. etc) Then at what point does the extra time become redundant?

well, i assume that people who want each workunit to run for a long time, will only get workunits that would have otherwise been short.

also if they need more results for a structure, then they\'ll issue more workunits, if there\'s enough, then they\'ll stop issueing WUs for that sturcture

this is only a guess, and i could be completely wrong
but in a project such as this (or any really), having more results is always good
15) Message boards : Feedback : Target CPU run time ?? (Message 57)
Posted 16 Feb 2006 by Lee Carre
Post:
have you tried this thread in the current test forum?
16) Message boards : Feedback : Screensaver needs to be more fluid please (Message 56)
Posted 16 Feb 2006 by Lee Carre
Post:
there\'s also a problem with the native structure
the center of rotation is not in the center of the structure, so when it\'s rotated it becomes hidden by the other panels
17) Message boards : Current tests : CPU Run Time preference (Message 50)
Posted 16 Feb 2006 by Lee Carre
Post:
I have a question:

for those of us (including myself) who don\'t have bandwidth issues, what is the recommendation, currently i have my prefs set to \"not selected\", but does this mean no option is applied, or will the scheduler know that i\'m willing to accept anything?

if a value has to be selected, what is the \"normal\" one used on the main rosetta project?
18) Message boards : Current tests : CPU Run Time preference (Message 49)
Posted 16 Feb 2006 by Lee Carre
Post:
Uhm.. ok.. first :) I just got here.. but I\'m also not a -complete- idiot..

However, I must now seem like one, because I was hoping you could explain this in much more detail, and explain some of the effects of doing such with various workunits, and what we should expect credit-wise, science-wise.. etc..

basically it tries to find more matches per workunit than it would normally, so instead of downloading 10 workunits and getting 10 \"answers\" for each, you can tell it to download 5 and work out 20 \"answers\" for each, the project gets the same amount of science done, but it costs you less bandwidth

as for credit, i\'d assume that the general way of boinc will continue, the longer work takes to do, the more credit you get, think of it in terms of \"credit per structure result\"

you\'ll be producing the same number of \"answers/results\" but more of those answers will be for the same workunit






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