...
Try to remember that unlike most every other BOINC project, Rosetta is trying to find the correct computing approach to the protein problem while at the same time modeling the proteins. In other words they are researching the type of computing required to model proteins. This means that the application itself is part of what is being researched. In practical terms that means that the project feels more like a test environment than say SETI or Einstein. On most BOINC projects the application code required is very clear and stable. That is not the case where the research is focused on determining in part what processing must actually be performed to accomplish the goal.

This is an important point which perhaps still needs to be spelt out clearly to newcomers, and indeed to all who joined before last Xmas: By the standards of Einstein or SETI, Rosetta is a permanent Beta project. It is getting better (due mainly to using Ralph for alpha testing of new WU) and it will continue to get better for a while yet, but it will never be as reliable as Einstein or SETI.

For some users that will turn them away - especially those who seek every last credit. Fair enough - as donors you have the right to donate whereve you feel most happy. Maybe they want every last credit, or maybe they have a lot of boxes at a lot of different places and want the most reliable project going.

For other users, the science is more important than the credits and reliability is important but not absolutely critical. They'd be happier now than they were last winter.

If you want to run Rosetta code that is tested to around SETI standard of quality, and is being used for production runs on real proteins, then I'd suggest the World Computing Grid, and select the option for the Human Proteome Project. My son runs that and has not had any problems at all. They are using an older version of Rosetta - version 4.21 - maybe not so fast at solving the proteins but it does have seem to have the wrinkles ironed out.

Dr Baker is involved with both projects and has been quoted as saying that both projects are important steps towards solving the problems of protein structures.

Anyone who is still unhappy with the level of reliability here, I'd suggest going here and follow the link for people who already run BOINC. I'd also suggest checking back every couple of months as the reliability continues to improve here. I don't suggest checking back if you want the very highest reliability - stick with the production model over at the grid.

hope that helps

---

I said at the begining of this thread what my priorities are. I have no measure if the machine is doing anything useful though...For all I know its turned in nothing. LOL

I suppose that pointing out that error results are extremely useful, doesn't matter to you. Even if a WU errors out it helps to identify which WU's have bugs. As any programmer will tell you, it's impossible to fix a bug you can't find.

I've had my fair share of error WU's and as far as I'm concerned, they were useful. They did not return any scientific results, but they DID help the Rosetta team debug and improve the application.

Your assesment is correct. Workunits that error before completing a model are very useful in finding errors in the software. BUT if they finish at least one model before they fail, they are also useful for the science.

As I understand it now the problem is with boinc not rosetta. So hows an error with boinc doing any good for rosetta? Oh my primary machine uploaded some more errors for you....its XP Pro. And all my remotes are XP that keep dropping the program. They have not been added back, just to much of a pain.

Some of the issues are BOINC related, but that does not mean that the models completed in a work unit that errors out are not useful. Moreover, ANY errors that are identified (BOINC or otherwise) help improve the application. If it is a BOINC issue, in some cases the application can be modified to work around the problem. But ONLY if the errors can be examined. That is why all of the returned results are useful. Aborted by GUI results are less useful that the ones that are allowed to crash on their own, but they are all useful.

In some cases the project asks people who are having errors to connect to the Ralph project. In Ralph the application returns more detailed error results which are used to improve the application. Basically the same code, but used to find and kill the bugs.

Try to remember that unlike most every other BOINC project, Rosetta is trying to find the correct computing approach to the protein problem while at the same time modeling the proteins. In other words they are researching the type of computing required to model proteins. This means that the application itself is part of what is being researched. In practical terms that means that the project feels more like a test environment than say SETI or Einstein. On most BOINC projects the application code required is very clear and stable. That is not the case where the research is focused on determining in part what processing must actually be performed to accomplish the goal.

That is why there is no such thing as "wasted" CPU time on Rosetta. Even the errors are valuable to the research. It does result in lost credit from time to time for some users. But that is why the Rosetta team (unlike most BOINC projects) will frequently go back to award credits. They view the errors as being important to the research. In a lot of cases these awards have been to single users for a problem unique to their situation. If you read the boards from the other projects, credit awards after the fact are a very rare thing, and I have never seen credits awarded to individual users for a unique problem. That is not the case here. While there is some delay in the awards due to the time demands placed on the project team, the credit is granted in almost every case where people have asked.

Thank you very much. My background is in Physics and Electrical Engineering, I want to run just one project. I have to much of a Communication systems background to ever run Seti.....Those massive radio noise makers called stars and the vast size of the galaxy make it futile. lol
Keep up the good work...I appreciate it.

---

http://www.christianboards.org/forum.php
http://usalug.org/phpBB2/index.php

I have to much of a Communication systems background to ever run Seti.....Those massive radio noise makers called stars and the vast size of the galaxy make it futile. lol

On that at least we agree! You will see from my stats the relative importance I've given SETI ;-)

Keep up the good work...I appreciate it.

Me too - the quality of the feedback and responsiveness to users is what keep me donating time here, even tho physics is my favoured field.

---