Message boards : Number crunching : Optimized Windows Application
Author | Message |
---|---|
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 16 Sep 05 Posts: 15 Credit: 10,292 RAC: 0 |
Could you please post something on the front page (or here) when the optimized client is available. Could you also please post a link showing what applications are being used. Thank you :-) ![]() |
![]() Volunteer moderator Project administrator Project developer Project scientist Send message Joined: 1 Jul 05 Posts: 1018 Credit: 4,334,829 RAC: 0 |
Will do. |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 17 Sep 05 Posts: 2 Credit: 39,560 RAC: 0 |
|
![]() Send message Joined: 17 Sep 05 Posts: 84 Credit: 4,948,999 RAC: 1 |
david posted in some other post that he is on vacation next week and hopes to have the optimized client out before then. -- Florian www.domplatz1.de |
![]() Volunteer moderator Project administrator Project developer Project scientist Send message Joined: 1 Jul 05 Posts: 1018 Credit: 4,334,829 RAC: 0 |
Hi all, I just updated the windows and linux app to version 4.76, still working on the mac app. The windows app should run faster and both hopefully checkpoint the total cpu time. It checkpoints after each structure is made, so at most, the time it takes to make a structure can still be lost. 12 structures are being made for the current workunits. The percent complete does not relate to the time complete. Let me know how it goes. |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 17 Sep 05 Posts: 182 Credit: 6,401,938 RAC: 0 |
Hi all, On behalf of the Mac community thank you for the update. Not to put too fine a point on this but if you could make use of altivec code in the compile it ill save you a lot of time later optimizing the Mac application. Regards and thank you for your efforts. Phil ![]() We Must look for intelligent life on other planets as, it is becoming increasingly apparent we will not find any on our own. |
RDC Send message Joined: 16 Sep 05 Posts: 43 Credit: 101,644 RAC: 0 |
Hi all, Thanks for the update. Can't wait to finish this WU up that I'm crunching now to try the new application out. |
![]() Volunteer moderator Project administrator Project developer Project scientist Send message Joined: 1 Jul 05 Posts: 1018 Credit: 4,334,829 RAC: 0 |
Hi all, I'm seeing errors. I hope there isn't a consistent problem. I guess I will know tomorrow. |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 17 Sep 05 Posts: 161 Credit: 162,253 RAC: 0 |
I'm seeing errors. I hope there isn't a consistent problem. I guess I will know tomorrow. https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/result.php?resultid=16270 seems to have worked fine with the new app. Progress meter is still giving seemingly useless information but the work unit finished in 4 hours and 6 minutes. The estimated time for a work unit still needs more work. BOINC went straight into panic mode when it got this work unit. And that's despite this machine having ample crunching power and being on 24/7. (3.4GHz Pentium 4, 1GB RAM) I know it's hard to estimate these things, but 162 hours for something that ends up taking 4 isn't even close (at least, not on a linear scale) I don't watch the progress meter all the time but I did notice that after about an hour, it was at 73.33% and a while later it was back at 1%. Time elapsed did not however go back to zero. Things are definitely looking up. *** Join BOINC@Australia today *** |
Honza Send message Joined: 18 Sep 05 Posts: 48 Credit: 173,517 RAC: 0 |
Rosetta 4.76 on AMD X2 done in about 3 hours with no errors. Got another 5 to do... |
Honza Send message Joined: 18 Sep 05 Posts: 48 Credit: 173,517 RAC: 0 |
after 35 minutes, two Rosetta WUs are in 40%, resp 66% of computing. Memory usage is still only 35MB? Anybody else has been monitoring memory usage of 4.76 Rosetta WUs? |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 17 Sep 05 Posts: 161 Credit: 162,253 RAC: 0 |
Anybody else has been monitoring memory usage of 4.76 Rosetta WUs? Not constantly, but the one WU I processed did get up to 100MB (maybe more) Running one at the moment, using 35.5MB (20% progress, 25 minutes, Athlon XP 3000+) *** Join BOINC@Australia today *** |
![]() Send message Joined: 18 Sep 05 Posts: 46 Credit: 387,432 RAC: 0 |
Anybody else has been monitoring memory usage of 4.76 Rosetta WUs? Mine's running at 99MB memory wise....for some reason, it started at 1.5hrs to completion and now has dropped back to 1% with 120+ hours but I'm not worried given the est. times are way off ![]() |
Honza Send message Joined: 18 Sep 05 Posts: 48 Credit: 173,517 RAC: 0 |
See the results there https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=434 All with error. I *think* I know how it happend: with no memory left, ALL Rosetta WUs are immediately erroing-out. I opened large files in Photoshop and run of out memory and ALL Rosetta WUs terminated - both those partially completed and those that haven't started (I assume they get to run but erroer out imediatelly). |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 17 Sep 05 Posts: 161 Credit: 162,253 RAC: 0 |
Mine's running at 99MB memory wise....for some reason, it started at 1.5hrs to completion and now has dropped back to 1% with 120+ hours but I'm not worried given the est. times are way off Mine just (at about the 58 minute mark) dropped back to 1% progress and memory usage is fluctuating wildly between 105 and 140 MB. Time elapsed is correct however (Boinc time matches CPU time on the work unit in Windows Task Manager) David, is this drop to 1% and wildly fluctuating memory usage expected behaviour (or is that a dumb question)? *** Join BOINC@Australia today *** |
![]() Send message Joined: 18 Sep 05 Posts: 46 Credit: 387,432 RAC: 0 |
Mine's running at 99MB memory wise....for some reason, it started at 1.5hrs to completion and now has dropped back to 1% with 120+ hours but I'm not worried given the est. times are way off He mentioned above that each WU is examining 12 structures....perhaps it drops back down to 0 after each one. It would make sense. ![]() |
![]() Volunteer moderator Project administrator Project developer Project scientist Send message Joined: 1 Jul 05 Posts: 1018 Credit: 4,334,829 RAC: 0 |
The app should not drop back to 1%. I have to fix that. The fluctuating memory is normal. |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 17 Sep 05 Posts: 161 Credit: 162,253 RAC: 0 |
The app should not drop back to 1%. I have to fix that. The fluctuating memory is normal. Thanks David, I thought as much. I haven't monitored it closely (and haven't crunched many work units yet) but I have seen it twice and both times memory use jumped sharply after that (from ~35MB to 100MB+). Perhaps that gives you a clue about the stage in the process where it happens. I just saw it again. I think it was showing 75% just before it went back to 1%. *** Join BOINC@Australia today *** |
![]() Volunteer moderator Project administrator Project developer Project scientist Send message Joined: 1 Jul 05 Posts: 1018 Credit: 4,334,829 RAC: 0 |
The app should not drop back to 1%. I have to fix that. The fluctuating memory is normal. The sudden increase to ~100MB and up is due to the way this current workunit is setup. It generates 10 low res models takes the best 2 scoring ones and then does hi res on them. The hi res takes more memory because it considers all atoms in the protein. |
Divide Overflow Send message Joined: 17 Sep 05 Posts: 82 Credit: 921,382 RAC: 0 |
|
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Optimized Windows Application
©2024 University of Washington
https://www.bakerlab.org