Posts by Snake Doctor

21) Message boards : Current tests : [idea] - version release/log in this section (Message 884)
Posted 16 Mar 2006 by Snake Doctor
Post:
any info on 4.92? or is the change so small that\'s it\'s not worth it? :P


Check out this post here from David Kim.
22) Message boards : Feedback : Mac reports (Message 832)
Posted 8 Mar 2006 by Snake Doctor
Post:
Well the 4 day WU just finished. While it did complete successfully it did show some errors that it apparently recovered from -

<core_client_version>5.2.13</core_client_version>
<stderr_txt>
# random seed: 3993767
# cpu_run_time_pref: 14400
# cpu_run_time_pref: 28800
MacOS Error -43 occured in Mac_Lib.c line 64
MacOS Error -43 occured in Mac_Lib.c line 64
# cpu_run_time_pref: 345600
# cpu_run_time_pref: 345600
# cpu_run_time_pref: 345600
MacOS Error -43 occured in Mac_Lib.c line 64
MacOS Error -43 occured in Mac_Lib.c line 64
# cpu_run_time_pref: 345600
MacOS Error -43 occured in Mac_Lib.c line 64
MacOS Error -43 occured in Mac_Lib.c line 64
SIGBUS: bus errorSIGSEGV: segmentation violation# cpu_run_time_pref: 345600
MacOS Error -43 occured in Mac_Lib.c line 64
MacOS Error -43 occured in Mac_Lib.c line 64
# cpu_run_time_pref: 345600
# cpu_run_time_pref: 345600
# cpu_run_time_pref: 345600
# cpu_run_time_pref: 345600
# cpu_run_time_pref: 345600
# DONE :: 1 starting structures built 184 (nstruct) times
# This process generated 186 decoys from 186 attempts
MacOS Error -43 occured in Mac_Lib.c line 64
MacOS Error -43 occured in Mac_Lib.c line 64

</stderr_txt>
23) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Maximum disk usage exceeded (Message 675)
Posted 26 Feb 2006 by Snake Doctor
Post:
In the prefs it is not really clear what all these setting actually do. I had this problem a few times on my laptop which always runs close to a full disk. I finally figured out a few things that are not intuitive about the space settings.

1) First the \"use no more than xxx GB\" applies to BOINC space used. Everything for BOINC not just rosetta or rosetta slot space. You are unlikely to violate this one with any normal size queue.

2) \"Leave at least xxx.xx GB\" refers to the total space that must be left on the disk before BOINC will be allowed to run the project but it is not a BOINC space use number. If loading anything from a project would violate that value BOINC will not allow that to happen. You can also violate it outside of BOINC and stop BOINC from running.

3) \"Use no more than xx%\" refers to the total FREE space on the disk no matter what is using it, it is not a BOINC space use number. But if loading something for BOINC would violate it BOINC will not allow that to happen. And it too can be violated outside of BOINC and stop BOINC from running.

So in practical terms, these all play against each other as \"OR\' factors not \"AND\" factors. But you can force an \"AND\" condition (which is what is happening in your case). Violate any one or more of them in any combination and BOINC will give you the not enough space space error.

If BOINC would use more than XXX GB of space (1) it will not run (or load work). OR if you have less than XXX.XX GB of total free space (2) on the disk if BOINC added new data BOINC will not run. OR If your total use of a disks FREE space exceeds xx% (3) no matter how much is BOINC or anything else then BOINC will not run.

But it seems that the information below on disk space calculation may be correct. Part of the problem is the difference between these values as calculated by the system. To most people 1Kb is 1000B, but to the disk system it is 1024B. So the system thinks it has more data that the person reading the numbers unless you take that difference into account. And for BOINC there is no gray area on this. Go over the parameter by so much as a single byte and it will fail.

So If I were you guys, I would not worry about the first setting 100GB should work fine Mine is set to 100GB, a value bigger than my total disk space. I would set parameter 2 to something less than 5GB, mine is .001GB. I would set the third setting to something like 80%, mine is at 50%. My laptop has a 55GB drive and only has 2.4GB of free space and it runs just fine, but it took a while to figure this out so it would work.

Regards
Phil

24) Message boards : Feedback : Mac reports (Message 611)
Posted 25 Feb 2006 by Snake Doctor
Post:
Over 13 hours into a Ralph Wu set for 4 days. Runing like a swiss watch so far. Mac G4 dual, 1GB memory, OS 10.4.5, Ralph Ver. 4.85, BOINC 5.2.13. Sharing the system with CPDN Sulphur, Predictor, SETI, SETI Enhansed, and Rosetta (time set @ 4 hours). Grafics running fine, screen saver works too.

Application swaps no problem. No errors of any kind.

Looking good so far.

Regards
Phil
25) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Maximum disk usage exceeded (Message 570)
Posted 24 Feb 2006 by Snake Doctor
Post:
This work unit / result was aborted with:
2006-02-24 10:57:25 [ralph@home] Aborting result BARCODE_30_1a32__219_4_0: exceeded disk limit: 200020295.000000 > 200000000.000000
2006-02-24 10:57:25 [ralph@home] Unrecoverable error for result BARCODE_30_1a32__219_4_0 (Maximum disk usage exceeded)

The limit must be part of the work unit as I still have several GB of free disk space, that is available to boinc.


You can set your disk usage parameters in your prefs. It probably exceed the \"use les than xxx %\" setting or something like that.

Regards
phil
26) Message boards : Feedback : Credit scores (Message 528)
Posted 23 Feb 2006 by Snake Doctor
Post:
...No where in the guidliens does it say suggestions have to be exactly on what they are testing AND only on what they are testing.

NOTE: This is a test project so credits* and other competitive statistics are not important. There will be times when no test work units are available.

1. Please do not abort work units.
2. Try not to cache too many work units since we are trying to test on as many different machines as possible.
3. Since the message board is the main feedback channel, please help to keep it manageable. Do not post repetitive information and only post constructive feedback.

* see above explanation

This is not repetative information, it is one topic on credit testing here related to new changes in the test client and it (was) constructive.


Did I say it needs changing now, no.

Just ideas <geez>


Fluffy -

I am fully aware of the relationship between rosetta and ralph. They are however NOT the same project. Certainly what is discovered in Ralph will be used for Rosetta, and issues that are raised in Rosetta may or may not eventually be brought to RALPH for solution testing. That is in fact the very basis of my point.

What is lost in all of this is that this in a science project. In science you set up controls, and protocols, and try to eliminate all extraneous and unrelated factors to test for results, by focusing on as few factors as might be required to get valid test results. The fact is that the last part of the guidelines that you quote say more than what you focused on in your post. Guideline 3 says all that I am trying to say to all of you.

The guidelines say that these boards (the Ralph boards) are the feedback channel. I think we can assume that the statement applies to Ralph since they are Ralph guidelines. It then follows that there is somewhere else for posting Rosetta issues. This is followed by a simple request to keep it manageable. I think we could all agree that IT means these forums. I think we can all see that when he says \"manageable\", he is asking everyone to keep post and thread counts as low as possible, it is a clear reference to the size of the forum. This is then followed by the statement \"Do not post repetitive information and only post constructive feedback.

I never suggested your question was repetitive. While you focus on that concept, what you have raised here relates to rosetta operational concerns not the current testing in ralph, and so no one ever raised it here because it does not apply here. Therefore it is not repetitive. but that is only one of the criteria by which you should be measuring your posting on the Ralph boards. Reading the rest of the request in the guidelines we also see a criteria for only constructive feedback. That cannot be taken out of the context in which it was offered, Ralph project issues.

The constructive feedback should be focused on Ralph and these current testing objectives. While you state that your post is about the credit tesing in the Ralph project, there is NO credit testing in the ralph project. They aren\'t eben looking at that. The project is not asking for new ideas about what to test for, they are not asking for feed back on things they are not testing for at this time, and they certainly are not asking for things to look at that relate to off site use of rosetta credit scoring data.

While I can see that you think that your view of the statements from the project that credits do not apply to ralph, may support your view of this thread and it content, it is a rather narrow view of the meaning of the statements themselves. When someone tells me that credits are of no concern to the ralph project, and they say it at every opportunity. I take that to mean precisely that. There is no context in which credits have meaning to this project. That includes testing them, looking at them, awarding them, thinking about them, worrying about how other sites might use them, or testing new methods of generating them. When that changes, I feel fairly confident that the project will tell us and then this thread would be relevant feedback for the ralph project. But it isn\'t now, and it is not helping to keep the ralph forums manageable. People open a lot of threads just because they can, and that is not helpful to the project in getting at what they need to see to fix the problems thy are focusing on.

So the entire thread is off topic as ralph feedback, and represent just the sort of clutter the project did not want to have on these boards.
27) Message boards : Feedback : Credit scores (Message 509)
Posted 22 Feb 2006 by Snake Doctor
Post:
\"But, adding boinc_ops_cumulative means code-changes to the application, meaning any likely change to Rosetta@home\'s crediting should be alpha-tested by RALPH before it\'s released, and is therefore on-topic in this alpha-project.\"

That\'s what Ingleside said and I second this...

It must be of great interest to the project team to keep the crunchers stay with Rosi. I hate cheating and me (and others) will take our ressources to other projects if this problem isn\'t resolved in the long run.


No question Ingleside is correct as far as testing any new credit system would be concerned. His post is a fine description of the current BOINC options for credit systems. RALPH would be the place to test any new credit system when/if a test application for that function is prepared and needs testing.

What he and many posters to this thread seem to be unable to see is that there is NO such application being test here NOW. Nor has one been proposed. This discussion would be on topic if thread title of \"credit scores\" were part of the CURRENT alpha test. They are NOT.

Even Fluffy Chicken who started the thread, only raised a question about Rosetta credits not Ralph or even Ralph testing of credit systems. In the original post it is clear that it is about about perceived off site record keeping issues for rosetta credits, nothing about ralph. As close as it gets to a ralph related question is to ask about floating point benchmarking and the possibility of \"blanket\" scoring in ROSETTA. Not even a suggestion of a proposed test of these functions in RALPH, which in a twisted way might have been viewed as a proposal for a test.

Later Fluffy Chicken mentions why the question was posted here. Not because it is actually relevant in any way to this project, but because \"Here we can bash out ideas for improvement to the client without the mess associated with the main forum (rosetta).\"

So the real reason it was brought here was not because it was relevant HERE, but instead so the question would draw attention. So the whole point of posting it here was to be certain the developers would see it and attract their attention. Attention that at every opportunity they have said they would prefer to focus on other issues at this time.

This is still the wrong place and/or time to post this discussion, because it is simply not timely and it is off topic. People still seem to be unable to grasp that simple concept. Put all this in the ralph cafe forum, fine. Move it to Rosetta, fine. But this forum is for feedback for the CURRENT ralph test, and it should focus on that single purpose to help the developers find information they need for the current testing.

As a developer Ingleside, should know that.
28) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Report - Previously Unclassified Work Unit Errors (Message 502)
Posted 22 Feb 2006 by Snake Doctor
Post:
The WU jumped now from 11% to 100% after 4,5h. Don`t know how, only finished Model 15. I don`t understand the time settings. Is it only for getting new WUs? Anybody help me about this?


The time setting is only used to determine how long a work unit will run. But, the jump in % complete you have reported may be normal for the time setting you have. There is more information in the Rosetta FAQa here about this. It explains how the % could jump like you say it did.

Here is another one that says exactaally what you said happened.

It looks like you adjusted the time pref. to less time than the time the work unit had already processed, so when it finished the model it was working on it jumped to 100% and reported. Here is the data from the work unit -

stderr out
<core_client_version>5.2.13</core_client_version>
<stderr_txt>
# random seed: 3993914
# cpu_run_time_pref: 28800
# cpu_run_time_pref: 86400
# cpu_run_time_pref: 7200
# DONE :: 1 starting structures built 6 (nstruct) times
# This process generated 15 decoys from 15 attempts

</stderr_txt>

Regards
Phil
29) Message boards : Feedback : Credit scores (Message 499)
Posted 22 Feb 2006 by Snake Doctor
Post:
I wouldn\'t start a thread about credits or participate in such thread in R\'s forums, as if it became a hot topic of debate, it\'d just waste project human resources. So, personally I feel we are discussing a valid subject, with the R project\'s best interest in mind.


Agreed. We are just discussing it in the wrong place.

Regards
Phil
30) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Report - Previously Unclassified Work Unit Errors (Message 495)
Posted 22 Feb 2006 by Snake Doctor
Post:
At the actually running \"Barcode.xxx\" WU, after 2h 23% (Model 10) and now again falls back to 9% (Model 11). What now?


did you change your time setting or something?

Regards
Phil
31) Message boards : Feedback : Credit scores (Message 494)
Posted 22 Feb 2006 by Snake Doctor
Post:
RALPH is a ALPA testing project. Credits are a total non-issue for RALPH. This question would better be asked in the Rosetta Forums, as this project will not be addressing how credits are granted in BOINC.

The Project Team has asked that posters keep the RALPH boards specific to reporting for RALPH issues.

Please do not create a lot of off topic threads in the RALPH forums, and keep your posts focused on issues related to RALPH.

Periodacally we will be purging the forums of off topic subject matter. So expect this and some other threads to disappeaar.


RALPH is the alpha-testing project for Rosetta@home, and its point will therefore be to test any improvements/changes to Rosetta@home before it\'s released on the \"public\" project, to make sure the Rosetta@home application works and doesn\'t crap-out most of the time....

But, adding boinc_ops_cumulative means code-changes to the application, meaning any likely change to Rosetta@home\'s crediting should be alpha-tested by RALPH before it\'s released, and is therefore on-topic in this alpha-project.



First and foremost the credit system in Rosetta is not broken. You may not like the way credits are awarded, but they are awarded using a standard BOINC calculation method. Not one single participant of the rosetta (or Ralph for that matter) project that has successfully completed a WU has not been awarded credit. So the basic assumption for the entire discussion is wrong.

Some may feel that redundancy might fix a perceived credit awarding fairness issue, but the lack of redundancy is not an application bug, it is a conscious decision about how the project is conducted. In other words it is a condition of play for those that are focused on credits, and it makes for faster science production which is what the project is really about.

The current series of tests in RALPH does not include anything to do with credit calculations, credit awarding, WU redundancy, or changes to ANY of these features of the BOINC/Rosetta system. Currently serious issues with the running of the application, failing WU runs, the Work units and their structure/format, and helping with bandwidth problems ARE the focus of the testing.

I think David Kim an others have made it very clear that they want the Ralph forums reserved for discussions of the CURRENT Ralph testing, and that credits are of no concern. How can a thread about credits and awarding them constitute \"feedback\" on the results of an application alpha test that does not involve credits in any way? They did not over look possible credit issues which you are only now reminding them to look at. They were specifically left out for the purposes of THIS test series. So no one at UW is going to suddenly jump up, yell OOPS! and put credit testing in this test phase.

If and when Rosetta decides that they want to test possible credit system changes, THEN and ONLY then, that discussion would be part of the RALPH testing, and therefore topical for Ralph and these forums. But until that announcement, I would agree with the position that this thread is in fact off topic for the project and the RALPH forums. The place for this discussion is at rosetta, as a \"PROPOSAL\" for something to test, or at best in the Ralph Cafe under a thread topic like \"Proposal for credit system testing in RALPH\". But there is no proposal in any of this, just more talk and complaints about what people don\'t like.

I would agree with Fluffy Chicken who points out the relative \"Mess\" on the discussion boards at rosetta. But then why sow the seeds for the creation of a similar mess over here to discuss things which do not apply to this project at this time, by creating threads that do not bring CURRENT Alpha test issues to the foreground, but instead serve only to conceal those issues in the litter of off topic discussions?

I would agree with Angus when he points out that a lot of people are obsessed with credit awards. But that is unfortunate because that is not what projects like predictor and rosetta area about. I comment the Rosetta project for trying to steer a different course.

I would also agree with River~~, that if the credits were turned off completely for RALPH and some flat rate were given as a token of participation, it would be beneficial to the testing environment, for the very reason that Angus cited. People who are focused on and obsessed with credit awards would not attach and try to refocus the project direction by dredging up the same issues over and over again about credit awarding. There is not one single new idea in this thread, and the ideas that are here have been discussed to death on every other BOINC project forum, including rosetta.

It is absolutely amazing how often people return to the credit issue when it was made clear at the start that credits and awarding of credits would be of \"no concern\" on this project. (Although it is frequently the same people) While that may change, it has not changed yet. I can only hope that the project people stay focused on the real issues facing rosetta, ignore this thread completely and do not waste a lot of time on the gaming aspects of the BOINC environment. There are something like 40,000 people crunching rosetta and the vast bulk of them have never said one single word about credits. A lot of those people would stay if credits were turned off tomorrow.

From my point of view, any of the mods can delete this post and the thread along with it.
32) Message boards : Feedback : Creating work for Ralph (Message 415)
Posted 21 Feb 2006 by Snake Doctor
Post:
Sounds good to me. I will lower the quota. Since test work units will come and go fairly infrequently, a small resource share should not really hurt us. Let\'s see how it goes. edit: I took the resource share recommendation off the guidelines page.


Actually I am not so sure River has this figured right. He is correct on the feedback rate, but, if someone with a high resource share is pounding the server, and they have their contact interval set high (big queue). When they get WUs they will get a lot of them. That will not leave many for the rest of the users. This will have the effect of reducing the number of different systems that can get WUs. Meanwhile the client is building a project debt faster with the higher share value, so when the work come in the system will likely shift to Ralph for a while exclusively. This will upset a lot of the multi project users.

I would think a better approach would be to limit the actual number of WUs each system can take form the available pool. Instead of relying on the normal request process, perhaps the server should only recognize that a request has been made (forget the number of seconds of work requested) and give out only a specified number of WUs, say 3-6. I got 6 when I first signed up, and you can keep them cooking a long time with the new time setting, or let them go fast if you need to get them reported.

But since you know the number of systems in the pool of users, you can size the work generation step to provide a certain number of WUs for all of those systems. I really think the only way to make certain a good sample of system types will get test work is some form of direct rationing at the start of a test run.
33) Message boards : Feedback : Credit scores (Message 414)
Posted 21 Feb 2006 by Snake Doctor
Post:
Actually the Boinc credit system itself isn\'t bad. ... In other projects the damage is lessened by the validation process used in projects with redundancy, but Rosetta has no redundancy so users get what they claim. ....


I think the point is that this issue has been beaten to death on all of the project and team forums. The Rosetta people have already said that they are not going to switch to a canonical validation system because it cuts down on the amount of processing that can be done. It is also very clear that they do not plan on modifying the BOINC software beyond the baseline, unless there is a science based reason to do so. So the whole issue is moot for the rosetta/ralph project and it is therefore a BOINC issue.

In any case this project does not seem to be about credits. Did I miss something? I can\'t count the number of times I have seen that said on the boards here. The fact is that no matter how many credits are awarded, you can\'t even use them to get a cup of coffee. So they are totally meaningless in a \"not for profit\" project environment. Now if people were being paid by how many credits they got I could understand the rabid obsession with them. But that is not the case. This is about curing sickness and saving peoples lives, not useless credits.

Even if you concede that credits are important to some people for whatever reason, it is a game, not a life and death problem. You would think people would want the application to run right first and worry about the credits later. People are constantly threatening to leave the project or suspend the project unless they get the 20 credits they lost from a failed WU. Well, lets forget the credit system for a while and fix the failed WU problems that are aggravating people and slowing down the science. You know, like Ralph is trying to do. As you point out there are ways to cheat the credit system, so why make such a big deal out of them. At best they are just for bragging rights.
34) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Report \"stuck at 1%\" bugs here (Message 411)
Posted 21 Feb 2006 by Snake Doctor
Post:
I don\'t know if I should report this here but I just had a 1% hang in the Rosetta Project App version 4.82. The info for the WU is posted here.

EDIT: Oops, I just found one in RALPH too. This one hung at 4.25 %. Both of these are on Mac OS 10.4.5, both machines are G4s , one is a laptop, one is a dual desktop The Dual is running Application 4.83. I reset the time parameter because my system wen into EDF because I was testing the longer deadlines. When I changed that one of the two WU I had finished and uploaded, and this one stopped running for an App swap. I will watch it when it restarts.

The WU is here, and the result will be here when it reports.
35) Message boards : Feedback : Screensaver needs to be more fluid please (Message 405)
Posted 21 Feb 2006 by Snake Doctor
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 :)

The screensaver is in a 4:3 format. If you have a 16:9 screen it is at the left side of the screen. If you have a tall screen it is at the top of the screen. I would prefer it to be centered in cases where the screen dimension is larger that the graphic dimension.

The fix for this could also be used for the burn-in concern as well. If the graphic dimesion is made slighly smaller than the available screen size it could be moved a few pixels vertically and horizontally every minute or so.


I use both screen form factors and I like it just like it is. It automatically resizes to the correct format if you run it as a screen saver. If you don\'t then you can make it any size you want/need.

Regards
Phil
36) Message boards : Feedback : Credit scores (Message 404)
Posted 21 Feb 2006 by Snake Doctor
Post:

RALPH is a ALPA testing project. Credits are a total non-issue for RALPH. This question would better be asked in the Rosetta Forums, as this project will not be addressing how credits are granted in BOINC.


I don\'t understand why this isn\'t a good place for FluffyChicken to post this. The change he is requesting would need to be implemented and tested in RALPH.

Personally, I agree with FluffyChicken. The current points system is so badly flawed that it takes the fun out of competing. People who enjoy the points competition have to go somewhere besides rosetta to find a level playing field.



The credits system is done by BOINC not Baker lab. So why would you not bring the issue to BOINC instead? I dont think this has anything to do with ralph. The testing for this would be done at BOINC, not here.


Previous 20



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