Hi,

I've been a long time SETI cruncher, but I'm relatively new to Rosetta.

I've crunched a little bit of Rosetta while SETI was down, but now am thinking about continuing to devote to Rosetta even after SETI gets back online.

- Is there a consensus on an optimized time for the length of time to allow WU's to run? I currently have it set to the default.

- Are there optimized Rosetta@home applications, built for specific processors?

Thanks!

---

Not a bad idea :)
Welcome aboard...

1/ If your pc is running 24/7, you can set the length a bit higher. A higher length, will mean less network traffic.

2/ There aren't optimized applications for Rosetta@home

---

Member of Dutch Power Cows

Hi Free

There is no scientific benefit to changing the run-times, but longer tasks have the advantage of reduced load on the R@H servers.

Bring all the power you can - it'll be put to good use, and i bet R@H will get results before S@H does!

---

Hi,

Thanks for the replies! I'm reading now on how the science behind Rosetta works. Interesting stuff!

Sounds good. I plan on crunching 24/7 as Boinc runs as a service on my computers. I'll extend the WU time to help take some of load off the R@H servers...

Thanks again!

(That is cool that the R@H application is already "optimized" also.)

---

I've briefly looked at the cr/hour stats on a very small sample of wus run at 3hrs vs 24hrs. it seemed to me that 24 gave a more stable result than the 3 hour ones. However, the sample was small, and it was looked at on different hosts. I've run 8 days at 3 hours, and switched last nite to 6 hours, then I'll go to 12 and finally 24 hours. I'm hoping for a similar number of samples per pref. This however will require many weeks to do. I might just dedicate a month or so to it, then give the results.

Hmmm, 100 results @ 3hrs plus 100 @ 6 hrs plus 100 @ 12 hrs plus 100 @24 hours = 4500 hours or 187.5 days. Hmmm, getting a medium to large sample seems like a bad idea now. rethinking ongoing plan.

I've briefly looked at the cr/hour stats on a very small sample of wus run at 3hrs vs 24hrs. it seemed to me that 24 gave a more stable result than the 3 hour ones. However, the sample was small, and it was looked at on different hosts. I've run 8 days at 3 hours, and switched last nite to 6 hours, then I'll go to 12 and finally 24 hours. I'm hoping for a similar number of samples per pref. This however will require many weeks to do. I might just dedicate a month or so to it, then give the results.

Hmmm, 100 results @ 3hrs plus 100 @ 6 hrs plus 100 @ 12 hrs plus 100 @24 hours = 4500 hours or 187.5 days. Hmmm, getting a medium to large sample seems like a bad idea now. rethinking ongoing plan.

Hi,

Thanks... Yeah, those would be interesting numbers when you are done!

After reading a bit on the science involved here (can't say I really understand all this protein stuff yet), I'm thinking about permanently sticking with Rosetta even after SETI comes back to life. I'm such a small drop in the SETI ocean, which already has more than enough users. This protein stuff seems like it could be beneficial in the relatively near-term. E.T. may have an answer on how to cure diseases, but asking E.T. and waiting for the reply would take milleniums. :^)

The Rosetta community over here is also very warm and friendly. (Not that the SETI community isn't, but it seems much more so over here.)

Cheers 'n beers!

then welcome to rosie ;)

---

Welcome Free!

---

Hi Free,

I just want to welcome you to Rosetta! It's a great project with HUGE scientific and medical potential. I hope you'll stick around and help us :)

---

Free,

I definitely am more inspired by Rosetta@Home as well. If we can use computers to get biology to a predictive science (like chemistry is now), we could make some major advances that will improve people's lives in the near term. I think Rosetta also has more potential than Folding@Home, but I'm no expert. I think they are working to solve different problems.

I think SETI@Home has too much power for what they need. Don't they have 4-5 computers crunch the same data? I would think two would be enough unless you get a discrepancy. Maybe their computing need will grow with the new multi-beam receiver; nevertheless I think medicine is more important for now. Just my opinion though.

---

Hi,

I've been a long time SETI cruncher, but I'm relatively new to Rosetta.

I've crunched a little bit of Rosetta while SETI was down, but now am thinking about continuing to devote to Rosetta even after SETI gets back online.

- Is there a consensus on an optimized time for the length of time to allow WU's to run? I currently have it set to the default.

- Are there optimized Rosetta@home applications, built for specific processors?

Thanks!

Me too. I think I might quit SETI. this is for a better cause.

---

I think SETI@Home has too much power for what they need. Don't they have 4-5 computers crunch the same data? I would think two would be enough unless you get a discrepancy.

The validation quorum was recently reduced from three results to two, and the initial replication accordingly from four to three. I don’t think the quorum was ever as high as four.

I think SETI@Home has too much power for what they need. Don't they have 4-5 computers crunch the same data? I would think two would be enough unless you get a discrepancy.

The validation quorum was recently reduced from three results to two, and the initial replication accordingly from four to three. I don’t think the quorum was ever as high as four.

That's still one computer that crunch for the sole purpose of making the pending credits as low as possible. In other words, roughly 33% of the computing power is used to only satisfy those, who cannot wait 1 week to get their beloved credits.

That's one of the reasons why I like Rosetta. No waste in duplicate work. I know it's quite unique you don't need two computers to validate the data, but at least you should never make the initial replication larger than the quorum needed.

---