Right, no other CPU type would have done any better with the identical task. But the low credit you received reflects that the average tasks out there for that same line of work are not as intense as you one you happened to receive. Over time, you get your share of "easy" tasks as well, and the opportunity to earn "easy" credits (think about the the 20 tasks that preceded the one you mention, and how if each were just 3% more credit then you'd otherwise expect, it offsets the problem one... it's just impossible to see the 3%).

---

Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Sense

Mod.sense - as usual, my reason for asking was a concern about a dysfunctional task burning CPU and not accomplishing much - I've wrote a few programs like that over the years.

Chris, I have noticed that the PCS_ tasks run very slow in Linux. On my 2.2 GHz Linux box they were taking 10 hours to make two models. On my 2.1 GHz Win 7 box they always seem to make at least 4 models in 6 hours.

A few days ago I was getting a ton of them so I put my Linux machines on WCG for awhile but you can look at the results for my Win 7 box and pick out the PCS tasks just by looking at the granted credit.

Edit: In fact, I have looked at a lot of other Win 7 boxes out there and all of the PCS task on Win 7 seem to be getting much higher granted credit than what was claimed. So maybe it is some kind of dysfunction?

Hey Bikerman -

Thanks for the interesting information. And here I was sitting back all smug when all the Windows guys were having all those memory problems with the miniRosetta 2.15 application - and my Linux / OS X boxes were purring along fat, dumb, and exceedingly happy.

Kind of makes you wonder if the developers spend a truckload of time looking at cross-platform issues.

Mod.sense - off the top of your head do you know which compiler (GCC??) and version they use to put the apps together and if they compile with debug symbols on? If so we can probably get a profile and see if there is a specific routine burning the cycles.

No, I do not know that level of detail. I am just a volunteer, not a member of the Project Team. But I would just say that everything is set up so that when they see a problem report such as yours, they can set up a WU locally and run the exact same models that your machine did, and therefore take their own observations under any debug environment that is appropriate.

This is why the problem reports are important. The feedback in the form of a fix or a new release or better credit or more consistent model runtimes is not generally immediate, but it does come.

---

Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Sense

Chris, I have noticed that the PCS_ tasks run very slow in Linux. On my 2.2 GHz Linux box they were taking 10 hours to make two models. On my 2.1 GHz Win 7 box they always seem to make at least 4 models in 6 hours.

A few days ago I was getting a ton of them so I put my Linux machines on WCG for awhile but you can look at the results for my Win 7 box and pick out the PCS tasks just by looking at the granted credit.

Edit: In fact, I have looked at a lot of other Win 7 boxes out there and all of the PCS task on Win 7 seem to be getting much higher granted credit than what was claimed. So maybe it is some kind of dysfunction?

Here too some "low credit" PCS_-tasks:
resultid=375503932
resultid=374981802

OS = linux
CPU = AMD Phenom II X4

AdeB

---

I've got some of those low-paying buggers as well on one computer, as on the other one other projects run as well, and the WUs are set to 20h, it will take some time yet for the one there to finish.

This one (celldivs_LL_1de2_2nn8_ProteinInterfaceDesign_26Oct2010_22394_263_0) got 0,22 credits for an hour of crunching, this one (celldivs_LPr_1de2_1v7r_ProteinInterfaceDesign_26Oct2010_22395_23_0) got 6,78, appropriate would have been ~20 per WU or hour.
And this two (PCS_2RN2_v1.frag_41-81_SAVE_ALL_OUT_22378_13_0 and PCS_CGR26A_trim_v1.frag_73-129_SAVE_ALL_OUT_22378_29_0) crunched for several hours despite the 1h limit set to the venue and got credits like it crunched just this 1h.

---

Grüße vom Sänger

I've got some of those low-paying buggers as well on one computer, as on the other one other projects run as well, and the WUs are set to 20h, it will take some time yet for the one there to finish.

OK, that one was one of the faulty ones as well. It finished tonight and got far too little credit without doing something obviously wrong.

1NKU_R2_LESSPCSCST2_BOINC_abrelax.default.v1_SAVE_ALL_OUT_22545_14134_0

3 models completed in 56635.9 cpu seconds (cpu_run_time_pref: 43200)

Looks like the first two models would have taken 4 hours or less each while the third took 7+ hours.


Best,
Snags

Me too,

AR3436A_blind_LESSPCSCST_BOINC_abrelax.default.v1_SAVE_ALL_OUT_22535_647_0

First model of this task has already taken nearly 12 hours of CPU and is still not complete. On step 177,000 with 24hr runtime preference.

---

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/