New Rosetta 4.82

Author	Message
FluffyChicken Send message Joined: 1 Nov 05 Posts: 1260 Credit: 369,635 RAC: 0	Message 11020 - Posted: 20 Feb 2006, 18:48:47 UTC - in response to Message 11010. Why? Why not? ;-) Team mauisun.org ID: 11020 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Astro Send message Joined: 2 Oct 05 Posts: 987 Credit: 500,253 RAC: 0	Message 11022 - Posted: 20 Feb 2006, 18:55:26 UTC - in response to Message 11020. Why? Why not? ;-) Thats my name pronounced backwards.....Y NOT... tony OK,... This post is OT and can be deleted now by any moderator. LOL ID: 11022 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Moderator9 Volunteer moderator Send message Joined: 22 Jan 06 Posts: 1014 Credit: 0 RAC: 0	Message 11033 - Posted: 20 Feb 2006, 20:22:38 UTC - in response to Message 11031. Are there any plans to allow a much finer adjustment for Target CPU time, like adjusting to 1/10s of an hour rather than 2 hours, which is rather coarse? No. the tim will always be some multiple of the time it takes to run a model Moderator9 ROSETTA@home FAQ Moderator Contact ID: 11033 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Scribe Send message Joined: 2 Nov 05 Posts: 284 Credit: 157,359 RAC: 0	Message 11074 - Posted: 21 Feb 2006, 6:57:35 UTC I note that in the Max CPU Exceeded thread there are a couple saying that they are getting this failure before they have even reached the time set for the Max CPU...how can this happen? ID: 11074 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Rebirther Send message Joined: 17 Sep 05 Posts: 116 Credit: 41,315 RAC: 0	Message 11091 - Posted: 21 Feb 2006, 9:13:19 UTC Last modified: 21 Feb 2006, 9:24:19 UTC I must say the new application is useless, so many errors I haven`t seen here at the beginning. For better support make the WUs smaller to solve many of the existing problems. Iam unhappy about to have lost 18h yesterday for nothing. Hmm bad WUs or a worse 4.82? The one ralph WU that I have finished was successful, thats crazy... need better testing? I wanna back 4.81 :p ID: 11091 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Scribe Send message Joined: 2 Nov 05 Posts: 284 Credit: 157,359 RAC: 0	Message 11096 - Posted: 21 Feb 2006, 10:45:51 UTC Had about 30 WU's with 4.82 without a single error....... ID: 11096 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

gpcola Send message Joined: 31 Dec 05 Posts: 8 Credit: 361,118 RAC: 0	Message 11128 - Posted: 21 Feb 2006, 17:24:50 UTC - in response to Message 11096. Had about 30 WU's with 4.82 without a single error....... Out of the 6 WUs one of my machines has completed so far only 2 completed successfully. 2 gave me 'max cpu time exceeded' and the other two 'computational error'. This is on a machine that was very infrequently generating errors prior to 4.82. ID: 11128 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

David E K Volunteer moderator Project administrator Project developer Project scientist Send message Joined: 1 Jul 05 Posts: 1018 Credit: 4,334,829 RAC: 0	Message 11145 - Posted: 21 Feb 2006, 19:43:57 UTC Last modified: 21 Feb 2006, 20:13:35 UTC Can those of you who are getting more errors than the previous 4.81 app version set your target cpu run time preference to 2 hours? I believe computers that were prone to errors are more likely to hit one with the new app because the run time is longer than before, so reducing the run times may reduce the errors. In the mean time, we will be testing for the actual cause of the exception errors. The same app was giving very few errros on our test server, but the default run time is set to 1 and not 8 hours. ID: 11145 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Moderator9 Volunteer moderator Send message Joined: 22 Jan 06 Posts: 1014 Credit: 0 RAC: 0	Message 11147 - Posted: 21 Feb 2006, 19:48:11 UTC - in response to Message 11128. Had about 30 WU's with 4.82 without a single error....... Out of the 6 WUs one of my machines has completed so far only 2 completed successfully. 2 gave me 'max cpu time exceeded' and the other two 'computational error'. This is on a machine that was very infrequently generating errors prior to 4.82. Please see this post on the Max time issue Moderator9 ROSETTA@home FAQ Moderator Contact ID: 11147 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Ron Peterson Send message Joined: 6 Oct 05 Posts: 23 Credit: 4,268,694 RAC: 0	Message 11241 - Posted: 23 Feb 2006, 12:54:02 UTC Bleah. I'm still crashing results on pauses. Even with leaving results in memory. Guess it's back to manually suspending other projects. I hope this bug gets fixxed soon. ID: 11241 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Beezlebub Send message Joined: 18 Oct 05 Posts: 40 Credit: 260,375 RAC: 0	Message 11260 - Posted: 23 Feb 2006, 16:34:32 UTC I am running 3 mach (1 P4 2ghz, 1 AMD 2800 2.1ghz 1 P D820 2.8ghz)on Rosetta, Seti, Einstein all running 24/7. With 91 total Rosetta results only 2 were unsuccessful due to download problems (server I think). I believe the people with multiple failures need to check out their hardware and stability (overclocking, heat, antivirus, etc.)BEFORE complaining about the program itself. I'm not attacking anyone, I'm just pointing out the fact that my mix of machines and others who posted "no problems" point to something OTHER than the 4.82 being the problem. e6600 quad @ 2.5ghz 2418 floating point 5227 integer e6750 dual @ 3.71ghz 3598 floating point 7918 integer ID: 11260 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote