Problems with Rosetta stable version 5.69 and beta version 5.77
Message boards : Number crunching : Problems with Rosetta stable version 5.69 and beta version 5.77
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
 David E KVolunteer moderator Project administrator Project developer Project scientist Send message Joined: 1 Jul 05 Posts: 1480 Credit: 4,334,829 RAC: 0 |
Please post any bugs regarding rosetta_beta_5.77 and/or rosetta_5.69. |
Feet1st Send message Joined: 30 Dec 05 Posts: 1755 Credit: 4,690,520 RAC: 0 |
What exactly is meant by calling one version "stable" and the other version "beta"? I thought beta testing was all done on Ralph. When you originally went to running two applications at the same time, we were told that the "beta" in the name would be changed to something without the word beta in the name. Add this signature to your EMail: Running Microsoft's "System Idle Process" will never help cure cancer, AIDS nor Alzheimer's. But running Rosetta@home just might! https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/ |
|
David E K Volunteer moderator Project administrator Project developer Project scientist Send message Joined: 1 Jul 05 Posts: 1480 Credit: 4,334,829 RAC: 0 |
The beta version is the latest and greatest, and is used to test new science but since it is constantly under development, it is less stable in regard to the science and experiments. For example, a researcher may add new code to hopefully improve design, but may inadvertently add a bug in structure prediction. This "beta" version is what gets tested on ralph first to make sure it runs okay and doesn't crash on people's computers, then the beta app gets put on R@h for experiments (for example, to see if design is improved). Also, some experiments need to use the same application version to ensure that the results stay consistent so we have a "stable" version that does not get updated as frequently. The "beta" in the name is used for convenience. For windows, the name is in the binary to reference the symbol store for debugging so if we had to change the name of the app for R@h, we'd have to recompile it. |
|
anders n Send message Joined: 19 Sep 05 Posts: 403 Credit: 537,991 RAC: 0 |
This Wu showed as running but no CPU time was counting and I could not look at grafics. It was like this for 7,5 H. Anders n Edit After restarting Boinc 5.10.18 the Wu started normal. |
|
Karel Send message Joined: 18 Aug 07 Posts: 1 Credit: 21,277 RAC: 0 |
Both Accepted energy and RMSD graphs are sometimes horribly distorted:  This happened on Rosetta 5.69 but I think 5.77 has the same issue. Disclaimer: Sorry if this has already been discussed somewhere, I'm new to this project and this message board and this place looks like the right place that I can use to post a bug. I know it's only a visual issue and it doesn't affect the science under the project in any way, but well... |
|
Marcel Koopmans Send message Joined: 4 Aug 06 Posts: 8 Credit: 1,134,689 RAC: 0 |
On my Mac's Core 2 Duo and G5 I get 5.77 jobs that hang after 2 seconds. The only thing I can do is abort them. with kind regards, Marcel |
|
Mod.Sense Volunteer moderator Send message Joined: 22 Aug 06 Posts: 4018 Credit: 0 RAC: 0 |
Karel, yes, there are still some issues with the autoscaling on the energy and RMSD graphs. As higher and lower values are reached, the chart is to automatically scale and include the new range of values (perhaps you've seen this autoscaling as a new model is starting). So, it is something the Project Team is aware of and working to address. Yes, you are correct that the science work is still progressing well. It's just a quirk with how the graphs are shown. Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Sense |
|
Ian_D Send message Joined: 21 Sep 05 Posts: 55 Credit: 4,216,173 RAC: 0 |
|
|
Mod.Sense Volunteer moderator Send message Joined: 22 Aug 06 Posts: 4018 Credit: 0 RAC: 0 |
Moved Ian's post here, he's wondering why that task got validation errors. Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Sense |
|
P . P . L . Send message Joined: 20 Aug 06 Posts: 581 Credit: 4,865,274 RAC: 0 |
I've returned this one and it's still pending i,m the second to do it any idea why. Was done with 5.69. https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/workunit.php?wuid=92147057 
|
mdettweiler Send message Joined: 15 Oct 06 Posts: 33 Credit: 2,509 RAC: 0 |
I've returned this one and it's still pending i,m the second to do it From your signature:
Last time I heard, Windows 98 SE (and 95, 98 first edition, and Me) can't use more than 96 MB of RAM. That means that 928 MB of your RAM in each of those computers is going to waste--and those processors can easily take Windows XP. I think those computers are practically begging for XP (or at the very least 2000) to be put on them! 
|
|
P . P . L . Send message Joined: 20 Aug 06 Posts: 581 Credit: 4,865,274 RAC: 0 |
At the moment with all background tasks and Rosetta running it's useing 340 MB, No problems go figure.
|
|
Klimax Send message Joined: 27 Apr 07 Posts: 44 Credit: 2,800,788 RAC: 68 |
I've returned this one and it's still pending i,m the second to do it Not completely correct.512MB and more is waste and any of Win9X and ME (and apps running under them) cannot address memory bigger 4GB,because of unsupported extended memory functions,which are present in NT family(at least 2000 and XP). |
|
Ian_D Send message Joined: 21 Sep 05 Posts: 55 Credit: 4,216,173 RAC: 0 |
Any reason for the Validation Error - there's a few on my account from "Lister" Wuid=92517391 * BUMP *  |
|
Mark Schuster Send message Joined: 30 Dec 05 Posts: 1 Credit: 28,158 RAC: 0 |
5.77 Beta appears to be running out of control on my Mac. Running OS X 10.4.10. Current preferences are set to run only while idle - yet the Rosetta application keeps running when the user is active. This morning, Activity Monitor showed the Rosetta app using 193.6% of the CPU processing power while user is active. |
Yank Send message Joined: 18 Apr 06 Posts: 71 Credit: 1,752,514 RAC: 0 |
Running Windows XP on a Dual core Intel 1.66 with 1 GB memory, Boinc 5.10.13 and just downloaded a bunch of Rosetta beta version 5.77 units. First two units I aborted due to the constant increasing and decreasing time to completion during a run of about 6 hours. Is there a problem with this version and if so should I delete the whole batch of them?  
|
BitSpit Send message Joined: 5 Nov 05 Posts: 33 Credit: 4,147,344 RAC: 0 |
This job hung at 100%. I restarted BOINC. It ran 3 minutes longer, generated one more decoy, but apparently lost the other 22. https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/result.php?resultid=103058570 |
|
Mod.Sense Volunteer moderator Send message Joined: 22 Aug 06 Posts: 4018 Credit: 0 RAC: 0 |
...constant increasing and decreasing time to completion during a run of about 6 hours... The time to completion is truely only updated every 5 seconds of runtime. Any change with the 5 seconds is BOINC rounding the fractional percentages and revising the estimate based on that. Let it run. It will finish normally. Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Sense |
|
Jerry Goggin Send message Joined: 7 Jun 06 Posts: 4 Credit: 226,010 RAC: 0 |
Something goes wrong with 5.77 on my machine. It gets down to saying 00:09:57 and then stays there. So for the second time I am about to abort a task. Suspect this old PC just isn't capable or something. Been chugging along with RAH for over a year, I guess, but maybe it's time to quit. |
Jmarks Send message Joined: 16 Jul 07 Posts: 132 Credit: 98,025 RAC: 0 |
I have been getting a few 5.77s errors every day since Aug 31st. 103330789 93741341 31 Aug 2007 5.77 103558967 93993526 103330789 93741341 103688571 94115743 1 Sep 2007 103712992 94138486 103558967 93993526 103688571 94115743 103712992 94138486 103825254 94243513 2 Sep 2007 103825254 94243513 103825942 94244778 Jmarks |
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Problems with Rosetta stable version 5.69 and beta version 5.77
©2024 University of Washington
https://www.bakerlab.org