Posts by Astro
|
1)
Message boards :
RALPH@home bug list :
Bug reports for Ralph 5.30 and 5.31 and 5.32
(Message 2394)
Posted 12 Oct 2006 by  Astro
Post: What does this text mean? If you're using 5.6.5 then Rom has submitted a fix for this to show up in the next version. tony |
|
2)
Message boards :
RALPH@home bug list :
Bug reports for Ralph 5.30 and 5.31 and 5.32
(Message 2385)
Posted 10 Oct 2006 by Astro
Post: To me it seems like it doesn't happen when the screensaver turns on, but more "maybe" when my power options turns OFF the monitor. Like I said, It doesn't happen often enough for me to even be sure of any efforts to fix it. |
|
3)
Message boards :
RALPH@home bug list :
Bug reports for Ralph 5.30 and 5.31 and 5.32
(Message 2384)
Posted 10 Oct 2006 by Astro
Post: thanks for the reply chu indeed. Perhaps if more report it, it'll become a priority??? LOL |
|
4)
Message boards :
RALPH@home bug list :
Bug reports for Ralph 5.30 and 5.31 and 5.32
(Message 2382)
Posted 10 Oct 2006 by Astro
Post: > On my Windows machine, I am still having screensaver lockups. It has carried over from 5.28. The screensaver will be processing and showing data fine but after a long time on (probably greater than 1 hour?) when I move the mouse nothing happens and the screensaver is doing nothing either. Task manager shows the programme is still working fine but not the screensaver. I tried stopping BoincManager.exe and boinc.exe but this did nothing, I can still get the start menu up but unable to get rid of screensaver background. I was about to reboot when I thought to double click on the screensaver and my computer was returned to me. Yes, I have. On my laptop(never on a desktop). I've seen it predominately with Rosetta dating back to 5.22, but have seen it twice with Setibeta or seti. The screensaver will lock itself on top and will not go away. By clicking on places I can hear that it's actually still interfacing with the IE browser window below and it makes noise. Example, the browser window beneath the screensaver had a box game that if you shot a duck you'd win some fantastic prize. I could hear the gun shots from my clicking the mouse over where that area used to be. Rebooting has been my only option. Not even ctrl/alt/del works. Rom Walton has recieved my message about this many times. It only happens once every week or so, so it's hard to track. If you turn screensaver OFF it doesn't happen. tony |
|
5)
Message boards :
RALPH@home bug list :
BAM or RALPH bug?
(Message 2251)
Posted 27 Aug 2006 by Astro
Post: It's probably "Boincstats-Willy" problem. It might have to do with the special fields that only rosetta has. BAM is still a work in progress. |
|
6)
Message boards :
Current tests :
Are we testing anything over here at the moment ?
(Message 2241)
Posted 26 Aug 2006 by Astro
Post: Eggcellent question, Fluffychicken |
|
7)
Message boards :
Current tests :
Strange WUs
(Message 2221)
Posted 22 Aug 2006 by Astro
Post: Theirry, the "no finished file" message means the manager temporarily lost track of the daemon. The daemon (which actually controls the work) should have kept running. It's just reporting the manager (the part you see) lost contact. tony |
|
8)
Message boards :
Current tests :
New crediting system
(Message 2163)
Posted 16 Aug 2006 by Astro
Post: Aaron, even the creators of Boinc (people of seti) couldn't close "the door", they implemented the FPOPS sytem to do just that. For some reason I have yet to understand, Fpops isn't useable here, so they're trying what they can. If the creators of boinc can't fix the existing benchmark system without an overhaul, what chance does the Rosetta staff have??? Oh, and the Benchmark system does have ONE decent flaw, it doesn't give linux users a comparable benchmark to it's windows counterpart (my lord, I'll be joining XS soon. LOL) |
|
9)
Message boards :
Current tests :
New crediting system
(Message 2140)
Posted 16 Aug 2006 by Astro
Post: mmciastro, culd you set them to run at 3hr units. which I believe is the default here (and so I guess at Rosetta, I cannot check as it's under maintenace there) Since that's what the majority will be using, err, by defualt ;-) Done, though I don't know what it will do if they release this new system tomorrow. LOL |
|
10)
Message boards :
Current tests :
New crediting system
(Message 2139)
Posted 16 Aug 2006 by Astro
Post: mmciastro, maybe I'm reading your graph wrong (thanks for posting it btw). . . but it looks very consistant on a credit/hour basis for a given computer. The first four columns are the same as you would see if you looked at "your results" page, the last four are my own composition "C/H" is claimed credit/hour, G/H is granted credit/hour, Model is the number of models done, and ofcourse the last column is the name of the wu done. Claimed credit, and C/H are consistent as they are based on the benchmark credit sytem. Granted credit and G/H are what I'm actually getting. It's Granted Credit or G/H that is all over the map, but as long as they average out to the same as other projects, then they have done a good job in "cross project parity". Currently my G/H is higher (on average) than I get from other projects (see earlier posted cross project comparison chart). does this help? tony |
|
11)
Message boards :
Current tests :
New crediting system
(Message 2135)
Posted 16 Aug 2006 by Astro
Post: Dekim is right, our quantity of individual samples is small. Given that this system is supposed to be moved to Rosetta in a day, we are left to bring up possiblilities of what might happen. Things that the project might have not thought about. They possess the "real numbers", in terms of the big picture as they hold the entire DB. I say "cherry picking" might be possible, but my limited amount of data doesn't support that this is possible.  now, if I collected more data, would a pattern appear which might indicate I'd get more credit per hour running one wu type over another??? If you look at the results in bold, and IF it became apparant that that type WU consistently returned more per hour, then I could delete all that weren't that type. we have to try to find things to improve your final product before you release it. We are left supposing, guessing, speculating in an effort to help you. Note: this pic is the same as my earlier one. It's just had the WU names appended to it. |
|
12)
Message boards :
Current tests :
New crediting system
(Message 2115)
Posted 16 Aug 2006 by Astro
Post: I don't have a problem with a credit scheme that grants 10 credits/hour for one WU and 5 for another, as long as over time they average out to cross project parity. After all, everyone would be getting a similar mix and that would be fair. Now, If it was known that "Xyz" WU got you more credits/hour than "Abc" Wus, then I can guarantee a small population of the community WILL abort the "Abc" WUs until they get a full cache of "Xyz" WUs. |
|
13)
Message boards :
Current tests :
New crediting system
(Message 2105)
Posted 16 Aug 2006 by Astro
Post: Nice work, but could you explain the points which separated 2nd and 3rd stage in detail more? I don't understand your question. I used black to represent stage two, and deep red to show results credited under stage three (if it exists). There appears to be a different credit system which came into play on/about August 14/15, though I'm not sure. If there is a stage three than it appears to be closer to project parity in terms of granted credit/hour, but values from my limited sample shows them all over the map still. It's possible that with what they have, this is the best they can do. I just don't know. If it's the best then so be it, but if there's room for further improvement, then let's try out stage 4. lol For example, I know from my cross project analysis that for users of standard boinc clients, that granted credit is nearly the same (plus/minus 2 granted credits/hour) for a given system. To achieve project parity with results that vary, I would think as returned results which exceed "claimed credit" should be offset by the same number of results which are under the "claimed credit" value so that when they're averaged out come close to "claimed credit". If claimed credit for a machine is 10 credits/hour, then results should look like the following for one hours work: 10 10 7 13 5 15 9 11 so that they average out to 10. What I'm seeing now is that they average out to something higher than "claimed credit". Of course my sample has a small number of points and they should have a better "big picture" than I see. |
|
14)
Message boards :
Current tests :
New crediting system
(Message 2103)
Posted 16 Aug 2006 by Astro
Post: I'm confused too, I thought they were discussing changing work done at Rosetta back to February to the "work done" system, not here. Maybe we need some clarification??? I don't know if that's eliminating the old sytem, or simply augmenting rosetta with the addition of "work done" credits and the displays that go with it, so that's there'd be two credit systems in play one showing the old rosetta credits and one using the new "work done" system. I just don't know. |
|
15)
Message boards :
Current tests :
New crediting system
(Message 2095)
Posted 16 Aug 2006 by Astro
Post: Poorboy, dcdc has many attached computers to Rosetta as of a month ago. Although, I agree that anyone with zero credit has little at stake in this decision, and that always makes it easier. 
|
|
16)
Message boards :
Current tests :
New crediting system
(Message 2094)
Posted 16 Aug 2006 by Astro
Post: Unless I'm mistaken this new credit system has developed in three stages. The 2 credits/model stage, some calculated credit method stage used until roughly 14 August, and now some calculated credit method with a correction factor after that one. If you want to compare the 2 CR/Model stage my chart is here for the same puters as below. All are from standard boinc clients. From what I see, this new system needs to go through yet another stage prior to release, as my credit is still "all over the map", although is is closer to cross project parity than previous stages. I've changed the colors between stages two and three for easier viewing. 
|
|
17)
Message boards :
Current tests :
New crediting system
(Message 2036)
Posted 13 Aug 2006 by Astro
Post: Here's the latest. Hope it's visible as it was shrunk a great deal. All results are from boinc 5.5.11 (standard). All results in green are from the 2cr/model run, results in black are from this latest run. 
|
|
18)
Message boards :
Current tests :
New crediting system
(Message 2029)
Posted 13 Aug 2006 by Astro
Post: The result listed by tralala is from 5.5.0 for windows and since Boinc never made a 5.5.0 for windows, it must be optimized/third party. The result he called out "http://ralph.bakerlab.org/result.php?resultid=242756" is from an optimized/third party boinc client. |
|
19)
Message boards :
Current tests :
New crediting system
(Message 2024)
Posted 12 Aug 2006 by Astro
Post: Looking only at the new credit, not the 2cr/model stats. I have set my puters to run ralph with priority so I can get more samples. With one result in on 4 of my five puters, they all are granted from 33% to %300 more than the claimed credit (based upon stock boinc app/clients). I'll have more later. |
|
20)
Message boards :
RALPH@home bug list :
Host venues corrupted?
(Message 2021)
Posted 12 Aug 2006 by Astro
Post: nope, all my hosts are just peachy now. Resource share is now correct on one, and team affiliation correct on all. thanks |
Next 20
©2024 University of Washington
http://www.bakerlab.org