Posts by Aaron Finney

41) Message boards : Current tests : CPU Run Time preference (Message 240) Posted 18 Feb 2006 by Aaron Finney Post: The Remaining CPU time is not consistant with the amount of time that SHOULD be left. I.E. A workunit that has processed for 14:30:00 SHOULD have 1:30:00 left before the end of it's processing, at 16:00:00, with a preference set of 16 hours. The time instead is reporting 2:06:00 remaining, which is 0:36:00 too much. I'm assuming that it is estimating the amount of time it will take to finish the particular model that it is on, and that is where the extra 36 minutes comes from. If that is the case, then I guess it's working as intended, but shouldn't it stop on the model that keeps it UNDER the amount specified in the preferences? IMHO, if the preference is 16 hours, it shouldn't go over 16 hours. Of course, you could always just re-word the preference to read "Approximate CPU Run time Preference", and then you can appease both sides of the fence without making any programming changes.
42) Message boards : Current tests : CPU Run Time preference (Message 238) Posted 18 Feb 2006 by Aaron Finney 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. Has that been done? Because I'm crunching some workunits right now that are up to Model # 147. 2/17/2006 11:56:59 PM\|ralph@home\|Starting result BARCODE_30_1a19A_209_15_0 using rosetta_beta version 484 That one.
43) Message boards : Current tests : February 18th, NEW APPLICATION VERSIONS (Message 230) Posted 18 Feb 2006 by Aaron Finney Post: OK.. That's great.. but what changed in them? Could we get an update on that when you update the versions? It would be nice to be able to intelligibly test whatever you guys changed...
44) Message boards : Current tests : CPU Run Time preference (Message 228) Posted 18 Feb 2006 by Aaron Finney Post: Aaron, This is probably a wrong assumption as well, but have you set a particular venue for your machine and did you then update the preferences for that venue. Obviously if you are using only the default preferences then you would have made the change correctly and it should have shown up in the messages tab. But if you have your computer set as lets say HOME for the venue and then update only the default preferences, when you update, the preferences change may not show up in the messages tab becaue they would not apply to that venue. No, this isn't what I'm talking about either, it's the work unit run time preference setting only, and all machines have the same venue for that preference. In any case there may be a problem with this area anyway. The setting that controls Work Unit run time is unique to Ralph and may not be properly recognized by BOINC as a preference change. This would be a bug, but I do not know if it could be fixed from the project side or not. There should be a way to trigger this from the Ralph application however. 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.
45) Message boards : Current tests : CPU Run Time preference (Message 175) Posted 18 Feb 2006 by Aaron Finney Post: Sorry Aaron, I misunderstood your statement above that I have placed in Bold. I read it to mean you edited the website general prefs and then clicked update at the bottom of the screen. I didn't see any mention of you updating from the "projects" tabs in the manager. Sorry. just trying to help tony Oh, heh :) well I just figured you guys would assume all that of course. I was just like.. this guy is confused? lol
46) Message boards : Current tests : CPU Run Time preference (Message 164) Posted 17 Feb 2006 by Aaron Finney Post: Aaron, did you update the project from whose website you changed the preferences? Updating the website means that your client will have to call home to see the changes. Highlight the name of the project you made the changes on and then click "update" on the projects tab of the manager. I.E if you updated the Rosetta website, then go to the Projects tab, hightlight the rosetta project (right hand box, click "rosetta" till it turns blue), then click "Update". Then look at Messages tab, you should see it. Uhm... mmciastro, this is the RALPH@Home project... why would I be talking here about other projects settings? I'm talking about changing from no setting to 2 hour setting on the Ralph@Home project preferences on this website we are on. Once I do this, and then click update in the BOINCMGR Projects tab with RALPH highlighted, it is supposed to get my new setting information. It appears to do so but does not tell me that my project preferences have been updated in the messages tab. This is the message I get... 2/17/2006 5:13:43 PM\|\|request_reschedule_cpus: project op 2/17/2006 5:13:44 PM\|ralph@home\|Sending scheduler request to http://ralph.bakerlab.org/ralph_cgi/cgi 2/17/2006 5:13:44 PM\|ralph@home\|Reason: Requested by user 2/17/2006 5:13:44 PM\|ralph@home\|Reporting 2 results 2/17/2006 5:13:49 PM\|ralph@home\|Scheduler request to http://ralph.bakerlab.org/ralph_cgi/cgi succeeded In there, is no mention that I switched my RALPH@HOME settings (on the website preferences) to crunch work units from 2 to 4 hours. - Even though the change has clearly been made and is reflected by the amount of time that workunits are now taking. (it has jumped from 2 to 4 as expected).
47) Message boards : Current tests : CPU Run Time preference (Message 159) Posted 17 Feb 2006 by Aaron Finney Post: At first, I didn't set this preference, & it appears that all of my workunits were processing for 1 hour or less. I have now changed my preference to 2 hour workunits, and clicked "Update", but it didn't give me any message in the "messages" tab of the BOINCMGR telling me that the preference had changed. Surely some kind of message letting me know that my preferences have changed should be there yeah? Some notes... Changing the preference "Mid-Work" extended the processing time on the 2 workunits in progress by an hour. Those will now apparrently complete at the end of 2 hours total processing time. With this in mind, is it safe to assume that those of us who do not set this preference have indeed defaulted to a preference of 1 hour, or was it just the luck of the draw that I got 40 1 hour workunits?
48) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Report \"failure when switching projects without keeping applications in memory\" bugs here (Message 139) Posted 17 Feb 2006 by Aaron Finney Post: We would like volunteers to test this known bug. WORKS HERE - at least when forced, using "suspend" under the projects tab. Didn't work on the old rosetta! Le Roi es mort! VivÃ¨ le roi! Now I'll let it churn for a few days and see if it does it on it's own.. hehe..
49) Message boards : Current tests : CPU Run Time preference (Message 80) Posted 16 Feb 2006 by Aaron Finney 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?
50) Message boards : Current tests : CPU Run Time preference (Message 54) Posted 16 Feb 2006 by Aaron Finney Post: It's completely up to you. The "not selected" would use a work unit specific value. The default is 1 hour on the test server and will be 8 hours on R@h, however, it may change depending on the work unit and the type of test. The only way to ensure a consistent value is to set the preference. Why not just work out 99 predictions no matter what?
51) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Time on the server (Message 24) Posted 16 Feb 2006 by Aaron Finney Post: The Server Status page isn't really updating every 10 minutes. Instead, it jumped from 5:59:07 to 6:15:09. It also reported the 6:15:09 time at appx 6:17:48, according to the official US Time clock's UTC timezone. A variation of over 2 and a half minutes. Yeah well, I signed up and can't get any workunits.. what else do you expect me to do? lol
52) Message boards : Feedback : Screensaver needs to be more fluid please (Message 23) Posted 16 Feb 2006 by Aaron Finney Post: I posted this once on the main Rosetta boards... But basically, could we get even just a slight change every few minutes in the pixel location of the grids and text? Even though screen burn-in is largely a thing of the past, it -IS- still a problem, ESPECIALLY IF I OUTPUT TO MY PLASMA TV!!!!!! SoOoOoo... if we could move the grid & text by a few pixels every couple mins that would be great. P.S. - I also realize we should be thankful there even IS a screensaver. Not to mention it looks totally awesome, and is the best BOINC screensaver by far.
53) Message boards : Number crunching : No work from project. (Message 22) Posted 16 Feb 2006 by Aaron Finney Post: :-(
54) Message boards : Current tests : CPU Run Time preference (Message 21) Posted 16 Feb 2006 by Aaron Finney 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..

Previous 20