Been getting a lot of "Error while computing" .. any ideas?

1368411905 1223049590 3762578 16 Apr 2021, 3:30:47 UTC 19 Apr 2021, 3:30:47 UTC In progress --- --- --- Rosetta v4.20
windows_x86_64
1368412201 1223049691 3762578 16 Apr 2021, 3:30:47 UTC 19 Apr 2021, 3:30:47 UTC In progress --- --- --- Rosetta v4.20
windows_x86_64
1368411956 1223049690 3762578 16 Apr 2021, 3:30:47 UTC 19 Apr 2021, 3:30:47 UTC In progress --- --- --- Rosetta v4.20
windows_x86_64
1368439181 1223043013 3762578 16 Apr 2021, 3:15:54 UTC 16 Apr 2021, 3:30:47 UTC Error while computing 11.44 0.66 --- Rosetta v4.20
windows_x86_64
1368405455 1223044982 3762578 16 Apr 2021, 3:15:54 UTC 19 Apr 2021, 3:15:54 UTC In progress --- --- --- Rosetta v4.20
windows_x86_64
1368349706 1222978824 3762578 15 Apr 2021, 23:27:49 UTC 16 Apr 2021, 3:15:54 UTC Error while computing 13.48 1.27 --- Rosetta v4.20
windows_x86_64
1368349731 1222979313 3762578 15 Apr 2021, 23:27:49 UTC 16 Apr 2021, 3:15:54 UTC Error while computing 15.68 1.30 --- Rosetta v4.20
windows_x86_64
1368349734 1222978857 3762578 15 Apr 2021, 23:27:49 UTC 16 Apr 2021, 3:15:54 UTC Error while computing 17.60 1.31 --- Rosetta v4.20
windows_x86_64
1368349744 1222979328 3762578 15 Apr 2021, 23:27:49 UTC 16 Apr 2021, 3:15:54 UTC Error while computing 10.28 0.45 --- Rosetta v4.20
windows_x86_64
1368349790 1222977672 3762578 15 Apr 2021, 23:27:49 UTC 16 Apr 2021, 3:15:54 UTC Error while computing 13.33 0.86 --- Rosetta v4.20
windows_x86_64
1368349791 1222977708 3762578 15 Apr 2021, 23:27:49 UTC 16 Apr 2021, 3:15:54 UTC Error while computing 13.87 1.47 --- Rosetta v4.20
windows_x86_64
1368349794 1222978833 3762578 15 Apr 2021, 23:27:49 UTC 16 Apr 2021, 3:15:54 UTC Error while computing 17.14 1.30 --- Rosetta v4.20
windows_x86_64
1368349835 1222979346 3762578 15 Apr 2021, 23:27:49 UTC 16 Apr 2021, 3:15:54 UTC Error while computing 16.59 1.33 --- Rosetta v4.20
windows_x86_64
1368350094 1222979334 3762578 15 Apr 2021, 23:27:49 UTC 16 Apr 2021, 3:15:54 UTC Error while computing 10.88 1.36 --- Rosetta v4.20
windows_x86_64
1368349655 1222975659 3762578 15 Apr 2021, 23:27:49 UTC 16 Apr 2021, 3:15:54 UTC Error while computing 14.67 1.00 --- Rosetta v4.20
windows_x86_64
1368196147 1222901173 3762578 15 Apr 2021, 18:38:10 UTC 15 Apr 2021, 19:39:22 UTC Error while computing 10.29 1.22 --- Rosetta v4.20
windows_x86_64
1368196171 1222901217 3762578 15 Apr 2021, 18:38:10 UTC 15 Apr 2021, 21:35:32 UTC Completed and validated 7,162.74 7,143.45 95.46 Rosetta v4.20
windows_x86_64
1368196189 1222901253 3762578 15 Apr 2021, 18:38:10 UTC 15 Apr 2021, 21:35:32 UTC Completed and validated 7,162.58 7,142.48 95.46 Rosetta v4.20
windows_x86_64
1368196191 1222901257 3762578 15 Apr 2021, 18:38:10 UTC 15 Apr 2021, 21:35:32 UTC Error while computing 11.75 1.36 --- Rosetta v4.20
windows_x86_64
1368196035 1222901252 3762578 15 Apr 2021, 18:38:10 UTC 15 Apr 2021, 23:27:49 UTC Error while computing 7,269.21 7,262.73 --- Rosetta v4.20
windows_x86_64

[/quote]

It also helps (a massive amount) if you have a SSD and not a HDD.

Peter Hucker wrote: That's a workaround, although using the SSD heavily for a swapfile will wear it out very quickly.

They are cheap nowadays, get a cheap 250gb one and just replace once it's done it's 100 thousand/million hours or what it is, the next one will be even cheaper

Replacing a disk is a nuisance when you lose files and/or have to set up the OS again. RAM is way faster anyway.

I do a disk backup everytime I setup a new hd and keep it on 2 different larger hd's just in case, so no problems replacing a drive as I just plug inthe drive with the image and restore it and voila I am working again. The only requirement is that the new drive be no smaller than the original drive which is not a problem these days with drive prices dropping. AND new SSD drives are essentially ram chips anyway so they are catching up quickly to the pc's ram.

Been getting a lot of "Error while computing" .. any ideas?

For some time now there have been huge batches of work that produce nothing but errors. We also now have some Tasks that result in Validate errors as well.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

CIA -- Thanks, for the tip. Waited approx. 15 mins., and they ran. Half w/out errors, thus far, the others failed.

jm

---

The 6.5GB problem goes away on an 8GB machine if you set it to use 100% memory. It never actually uses 100% since everything overestimates. I just changed my old Boinc-only machines [1] and Rosettas downloaded and ran

This is actually a good point.

I found 95% is usually sufficient on my laptop as it happens, but for those for whom it isn't, it's worth going the whole hog

---

when i just want to come in the forum i've got an error message " project is down " then i try to update all my tree computer and got some WU ...

always RB_04 wu till April

04-Apr-2021 15:24:51 [Rosetta@home] Started download of input_rb_04_04_63907_64601__t000__1_C1_robetta.zip
04-Apr-2021 15:24:52 [Rosetta@home] Started download of flags_rb_04_04_66392_64602__t000__4_C1_robetta
04-Apr-2021 15:24:52 [Rosetta@home] Scheduler request completed: got 1 new tasks
04-Apr-2021 15:24:53 [Rosetta@home] Finished download of flags_rb_04_04_66392_64602__t000__4_C1_robetta
04-Apr-2021 15:24:54 [Rosetta@home] Started download of rb_04_01_65988_64188_ab_t000__h002_robetta_FLAGS
04-Apr-2021 15:25:00 [Rosetta@home] Started download of rb_04_03_66376_64580_ab_t000__robetta_FLAGS
04-Apr-2021 15:25:30 [Rosetta@home] Scheduler request completed: got 1 new tasks
04-Apr-2021 15:26:07 [Rosetta@home] Scheduler request completed: got 1 new tasks
04-Apr-2021 15:26:09 [Rosetta@home] Started download of flags_rb_04_04_66392_64602__t000__2_C1_robetta
09-Apr-2021 08:45:01 [Rosetta@home] Started download of rb_04_08_67812_65890_ab_t000__robetta_FLAGS
12-Apr-2021 21:11:05 [Rosetta@home] Scheduler request completed: got 1 new tasks
12-Apr-2021 21:11:07 [Rosetta@home] Started download of rb_04_12_68930_66981_ab_t000__h001_robetta_FLAGS
12-Apr-2021 21:46:12 [Rosetta@home] Scheduler request completed: got 1 new tasks
12-Apr-2021 21:46:14 [Rosetta@home] Started download of rb_04_12_68931_66996_ab_t000__h002_robetta_FLAGS
12-Apr-2021 21:46:50 [Rosetta@home] Scheduler request completed: got 1 new tasks
12-Apr-2021 21:46:52 [Rosetta@home] Started download of rb_04_12_68931_66996_ab_t000__h002_robetta.200.16mers.index.gz
12-Apr-2021 21:47:29 [Rosetta@home] Scheduler request completed: got 1 new tasks
12-Apr-2021 21:47:31 [Rosetta@home] Started download of rb_04_12_68931_66996_ab_t000__robetta_FLAGS
12-Apr-2021 21:48:07 [Rosetta@home] Scheduler request completed: got 1 new tasks
12-Apr-2021 21:48:09 [Rosetta@home] Started download of rb_04_12_68931_66996_ab_t000__h001_robetta_FLAGS
12-Apr-2021 21:48:46 [Rosetta@home] Scheduler request completed: got 1 new tasks
12-Apr-2021 21:48:48 [Rosetta@home] Started download of rb_04_12_68931_66996_ab_t000__h001_robetta.200.18mers.index.gz
12-Apr-2021 21:49:24 [Rosetta@home] Scheduler request completed: got 1 new tasks
12-Apr-2021 21:49:26 [Rosetta@home] Started download of rb_04_12_68931_66996_ab_t000__h002_robetta.200.15mers.index.gz
12-Apr-2021 21:50:03 [Rosetta@home] Scheduler request completed: got 1 new tasks
12-Apr-2021 21:50:05 [Rosetta@home] Started download of rb_04_12_68931_66996_ab_t000__robetta.200.9mers.index.gz
12-Apr-2021 21:50:41 [Rosetta@home] Scheduler request completed: got 1 new tasks
12-Apr-2021 21:50:43 [Rosetta@home] Started download of rb_04_12_68931_66996_ab_t000__robetta.200.8mers.index.gz
12-Apr-2021 21:51:57 [Rosetta@home] Scheduler request completed: got 1 new tasks
12-Apr-2021 21:51:59 [Rosetta@home] Started download of rb_04_12_68931_66996_ab_t000__h001_robetta.200.17mers.index.gz
12-Apr-2021 21:52:36 [Rosetta@home] Scheduler request completed: got 1 new tasks
12-Apr-2021 21:52:38 [Rosetta@home] Started download of rb_04_12_68931_66996_ab_t000__h002_robetta.200.8mers.index.gz
12-Apr-2021 22:00:58 [Rosetta@home] Scheduler request completed: got 1 new tasks
12-Apr-2021 22:01:00 [Rosetta@home] Started download of rb_04_12_68931_66996_ab_t000__h002_robetta.200.5mers.index.gz
12-Apr-2021 22:01:35 [Rosetta@home] Scheduler request completed: got 1 new tasks
12-Apr-2021 22:01:37 [Rosetta@home] Started download of rb_04_12_68931_66996_ab_t000__h002_robetta.200.14mers.index.gz
14-Apr-2021 17:51:44 [Rosetta@home] Requesting new tasks for CPU
14-Apr-2021 17:51:47 [Rosetta@home] Scheduler request completed: got 1 new tasks
14-Apr-2021 17:51:49 [Rosetta@home] Started download of rb_04_14_69113_67165_ab_t000__robetta_FLAGS
14-Apr-2021 17:52:26 [Rosetta@home] Scheduler request completed: got 1 new tasks
14-Apr-2021 17:52:28 [Rosetta@home] Started download of rb_04_14_69113_67165_ab_t000__robetta.200.7mers.index.gz
14-Apr-2021 17:53:04 [Rosetta@home] Scheduler request completed: got 1 new tasks
14-Apr-2021 17:53:07 [Rosetta@home] Started download of rb_04_14_69113_67165_ab_t000__robetta.200.12mers.index.gz
15-Apr-2021 12:35:24 [Rosetta@home] Scheduler request completed: got 1 new tasks
15-Apr-2021 12:35:26 [Rosetta@home] Started download of rb_04_15_69279_67247_ab_t000__robetta_FLAGS
15-Apr-2021 12:36:02 [Rosetta@home] Scheduler request completed: got 1 new tasks
15-Apr-2021 12:36:04 [Rosetta@home] Started download of rb_04_15_69279_67247_ab_t000__robetta.200.4mers.index.gz
15-Apr-2021 12:36:40 [Rosetta@home] Scheduler request completed: got 1 new tasks
15-Apr-2021 12:36:42 [Rosetta@home] Started download of flags_rb_04_11_55406_66872__t000__3_C1_robetta
17-Apr-2021 09:43:40 [Rosetta@home] Scheduler request completed: got 1 new tasks
17-Apr-2021 09:43:42 [Rosetta@home] Started download of rb_04_16_69588_67734_ab_t000__robetta_FLAGS
17-Apr-2021 09:44:18 [Rosetta@home] Scheduler request completed: got 1 new tasks
17-Apr-2021 09:44:20 [Rosetta@home] Started download of rb_04_16_69675_67655_ab_t000__robetta_FLAGS
17-Apr-2021 09:44:56 [Rosetta@home] Scheduler request completed: got 1 new tasks
17-Apr-2021 09:44:58 [Rosetta@home] Started download of rb_04_16_69675_67655_ab_t000__robetta.200.19mers.index.gz
17-Apr-2021 09:45:34 [Rosetta@home] Scheduler request completed: got 1 new tasks
17-Apr-2021 09:45:36 [Rosetta@home] Started download of rb_04_16_69588_67734_ab_t000__robetta.200.13mers.index.gz
17-Apr-2021 09:46:12 [Rosetta@home] Scheduler request completed: got 1 new tasks
17-Apr-2021 09:46:14 [Rosetta@home] Started download of rb_04_16_69588_67734_ab_t000__robetta.200.18mers.index.gz
17-Apr-2021 09:46:49 [Rosetta@home] Scheduler request completed: got 1 new tasks
17-Apr-2021 09:46:51 [Rosetta@home] Started download of rb_04_16_69675_67655_ab_t000__robetta.200.12mers.index.gz
17-Apr-2021 09:47:28 [Rosetta@home] Scheduler request completed: got 1 new tasks
17-Apr-2021 09:47:30 [Rosetta@home] Started download of rb_04_16_69675_67655_ab_t000__robetta.200.17mers.index.gz
17-Apr-2021 09:48:05 [Rosetta@home] Scheduler request completed: got 1 new tasks
17-Apr-2021 09:48:07 [Rosetta@home] Started download of rb_04_16_69588_67734_ab_t000__robetta.200.7mers.index.gz
17-Apr-2021 11:15:22 [Rosetta@home] Scheduler request completed: got 1 new tasks
17-Apr-2021 11:15:24 [Rosetta@home] Started download of rb_04_16_69778_67800_ab_t000__robetta_FLAGS
17-Apr-2021 11:32:11 [Rosetta@home] Scheduler request completed: got 1 new tasks
17-Apr-2021 11:32:13 [Rosetta@home] Started download of rb_04_16_69778_67800_ab_t000__h001_robetta_FLAGS

seems that yesteday i got

16-Apr-2021 20:23:10 [Rosetta@home] Sending scheduler request: To fetch work.
16-Apr-2021 20:23:10 [Rosetta@home] Requesting new tasks for CPU
16-Apr-2021 20:23:13 [Rosetta@home] Scheduler request completed: got 0 new tasks
16-Apr-2021 20:23:13 [Rosetta@home] Server can't open database

and still got the memory message

-Apr-2021 11:20:23 [Rosetta@home] Scheduler request completed: got 0 new tasks
17-Apr-2021 11:20:23 [Rosetta@home] No tasks sent
17-Apr-2021 11:20:23 [Rosetta@home] Rosetta needs 6675.72 MB RAM but only 4060.49 MB is available for use.

It also helps (a massive amount) if you have a SSD and not a HDD.

Peter Hucker wrote: That's a workaround, although using the SSD heavily for a swapfile will wear it out very quickly.

They are cheap nowadays, get a cheap 250gb one and just replace once it's done it's 100 thousand/million hours or what it is, the next one will be even cheaper

Replacing a disk is a nuisance when you lose files and/or have to set up the OS again. RAM is way faster anyway.

RAM loses its data every time you turn the power off.

We were talking about where RAM should be, in a swapfile on an SSD, or in real RAM. The swapfile is not saved when you turn the power off.

It also helps (a massive amount) if you have a SSD and not a HDD.

That's a workaround, although using the SSD heavily for a swapfile will wear it out very quickly.

No, it won't. Even with a ridiculously excessive amount of swap file usage, the actual volume of writes as a percentage of the drive's total capacity will only be a small fraction of the drive's rated DWPD (Drive Writes Per Day), and as long as there is plenty of free space on the drive the drive controller's wear levelling will also significantly prolong the life of the drive even further.

Yes, after several decades the drive will fail from all those writes due to the lack of system RAM, but most people don't keep their systems in use for that length of time.

They wear faster than you think. My Crucial SSD is under 2 years old and states in the SMART data that it's used over a third of it's life. And that's without using much swapfile on it since I have loads of RAM.

It also helps (a massive amount) if you have a SSD and not a HDD.

Peter Hucker wrote: That's a workaround, although using the SSD heavily for a swapfile will wear it out very quickly.

They are cheap nowadays, get a cheap 250gb one and just replace once it's done it's 100 thousand/million hours or what it is, the next one will be even cheaper

Replacing a disk is a nuisance when you lose files and/or have to set up the OS again. RAM is way faster anyway.

I do a disk backup everytime I setup a new hd and keep it on 2 different larger hd's just in case, so no problems replacing a drive as I just plug inthe drive with the image and restore it and voila I am working again. The only requirement is that the new drive be no smaller than the original drive which is not a problem these days with drive prices dropping. AND new SSD drives are essentially ram chips anyway so they are catching up quickly to the pc's ram.

I meant more for a PC which you use for things other than Boinc. It takes me about two weeks to get everything back the way it was. And you always lose something important you did after the last backup.

The 6.5GB problem goes away on an 8GB machine if you set it to use 100% memory. It never actually uses 100% since everything overestimates. I just changed my old Boinc-only machines [1] and Rosettas downloaded and ran

This is actually a good point.

[Double take] I made a good point?

I found 95% is usually sufficient on my laptop as it happens, but for those for whom it isn't, it's worth going the whole hog

It's a pity Boinc won't accept 150%. Which isn't as silly as it sounds, if you have an NVME for the swapfile, you might not mind it dipping into that occasionally, so you can get another task in.

They wear faster than you think. My Crucial SSD is under 2 years old and states in the SMART data that it's used over a third of it's life. And that's without using much swapfile on it since I have loads of RAM.

And there are HDDs that fail earlier than others. Their failure isn't representative of HDDs in general, and it's the same for your SSD.
SSDs don't wear out nearly as fast as you believe (just like HDDs, there are exceptions).

Many years ago The TechReport decided to test some consumer SSDs of the time until they died. Even the earliest to die lasted well beyond it's official rating, and the winner made it past it's official rating by a massive amount. Since then, while the endurance of each successive flash type has dropped, due to the increase in NAND capacity (and overprovisioning), along with improvements in wear levelling & OS recognition of SSDs, their reliability has improved.
SSD Endurance Experiment

---

Grant
Darwin NT

The 6.5GB problem goes away on an 8GB machine if you set it to use 100% memory. It never actually uses 100% since everything overestimates. I just changed my old Boinc-only machines [1] and Rosettas downloaded and ran

This is actually a good point.

[Double take] I made a good point?

I found 95% is usually sufficient on my laptop as it happens, but for those for whom it isn't, it's worth going the whole hog

It's a pity Boinc won't accept 150%. Which isn't as silly as it sounds, if you have an NVME for the swapfile, you might not mind it dipping into that occasionally, so you can get another task in.

I know you have your arsey moods, but that doesn't mean I don't take your points on their merit.
Then again, I'm probably wrong...

---

They wear faster than you think. My Crucial SSD is under 2 years old and states in the SMART data that it's used over a third of it's life. And that's without using much swapfile on it since I have loads of RAM.

And there are HDDs that fail earlier than others. Their failure isn't representative of HDDs in general, and it's the same for your SSD.
SSDs don't wear out nearly as fast as you believe (just like HDDs, there are exceptions).

Many years ago The TechReport decided to test some consumer SSDs of the time until they died. Even the earliest to die lasted well beyond it's official rating, and the winner made it past it's official rating by a massive amount. Since then, while the endurance of each successive flash type has dropped, due to the increase in NAND capacity (and overprovisioning), along with improvements in wear levelling & OS recognition of SSDs, their reliability has improved.
SSD Endurance Experiment

I've read many articles complaining that SSDs last nowhere near as long as HDDs. A few HDDs do fail unexpectedly, but SSDs wear out, because they have a finite number of writes. They cannot possibly last longer than that time.

The 6.5GB problem goes away on an 8GB machine if you set it to use 100% memory. It never actually uses 100% since everything overestimates. I just changed my old Boinc-only machines [1] and Rosettas downloaded and ran

This is actually a good point.

[Double take] I made a good point?

I found 95% is usually sufficient on my laptop as it happens, but for those for whom it isn't, it's worth going the whole hog

It's a pity Boinc won't accept 150%. Which isn't as silly as it sounds, if you have an NVME for the swapfile, you might not mind it dipping into that occasionally, so you can get another task in.

I know you have your arsey moods, but that doesn't mean I don't take your points on their merit.
Then again, I'm probably wrong...

I don't have moods, people who can't handle my facts or opinions have moods. They're usually American as they're quite soft over there. I just got banned from a forum for pointing out the fact that the average American IQ is only 98, whereas the UK is 100 and Japan is 106.

The 6.5GB problem goes away on an 8GB machine if you set it to use 100% memory. It never actually uses 100% since everything overestimates. I just changed my old Boinc-only machines [1] and Rosettas downloaded and ran

This is actually a good point.

[Double take] I made a good point?

I found 95% is usually sufficient on my laptop as it happens, but for those for whom it isn't, it's worth going the whole hog

It's a pity Boinc won't accept 150%. Which isn't as silly as it sounds, if you have an NVME for the swapfile, you might not mind it dipping into that occasionally, so you can get another task in.

I know you have your arsey moods, but that doesn't mean I don't take your points on their merit.
Then again, I'm probably wrong...

I don't have moods, people who can't handle my facts or opinions have moods. They're usually American as they're quite soft over there. I just got banned from a forum for pointing out the fact that the average American IQ is only 98, whereas the UK is 100 and Japan is 106.

You don't have moods?!
Not only do you have moods, sometimes they're arsey - that is, more than one.
Never mind, though. I wouldn't want you to get moody over my facts and opinions... lol

Let's go back to you making a good point - then everyone's happy

---

From Brian Nixon, 31 Mar

I've had no issues with insufficient disk space or memory.

This points to a misconfiguration of the new batch of work units, as it seems unlikely it would be the project’s intention to cut off a third of its capacity…

Look in client_state.xml for the rsc_memory_bound and rsc_disk_bound settings of the new work units: they used to be 1,800,000,000 each; to yield the errors people are reporting they must now be set to 7,000,000,000 and 9,000,000,000.

Brian, I looked at my client_state.xml file and, as you speculated(?), those are the figures showing there.

I've been in contact with Project admins and this was a deliberate change, not a misconfiguration.
It's been looked at more closely and brought down to a figure nearer 4Gb - hopefully we see the result of that soon.
I note In Progress tasks are edging up, but let's see how that pans out.

There was obviously a need for that change, but I don't know what it is.
I've asked if a brief note can be posted to explain what they're working on that requires the increase.
No idea when or if that will happen.

But small victories - thanks for your pointer. Well spotted. I didn't appreciate the significance of it at the time you posted.

---

I've asked if a brief note can be posted to explain what they're working on that requires the increase.
No idea when or if that will happen.

That will be getting blood out of a turnip. It must be their policy not to comment.
There is probably a good reason for it, but it is not entirely apparent to me what it is.

---

I've asked if a brief note can be posted to explain what they're working on that requires the increase.
No idea when or if that will happen.

That will be getting blood out of a turnip. It must be their policy not to comment.
There is probably a good reason for it, but it is not entirely apparent to me what it is.

You've been here longer than me - I can't say anything...

I speculated that the change might have been a test that got left in the defaults, so asked if it could revert back to what it was.
But it was a change for a reason, so while it could be fine-tuned it still couldn't go back all the way.

When the project started working on SARS-CoVid2 there were some big changes in the size of tasks that didn't always go through successfully, but for all the errors it threw up for us they got significant results too.
None of is have any idea what this change relates to, hence my request.
If they tell us, it'll be understandable to everyone.
I made the point that their technical posts always go down very well, so it's worth taking the time.
Whether they do or not is out of our hands. We wait.

---

From Brian Nixon, 31 Mar

I've had no issues with insufficient disk space or memory.

This points to a misconfiguration of the new batch of work units, as it seems unlikely it would be the project’s intention to cut off a third of its capacity…

Look in client_state.xml for the rsc_memory_bound and rsc_disk_bound settings of the new work units: they used to be 1,800,000,000 each; to yield the errors people are reporting they must now be set to 7,000,000,000 and 9,000,000,000.

Brian, I looked at my client_state.xml file and, as you speculated(?), those are the figures showing there.

I've been in contact with Project admins and this was a deliberate change, not a misconfiguration.
It's been looked at more closely and brought down to a figure nearer 4Gb - hopefully we see the result of that soon.
I note In Progress tasks are edging up, but let's see how that pans out.

There was obviously a need for that change, but I don't know what it is.
I've asked if a brief note can be posted to explain what they're working on that requires the increase.
No idea when or if that will happen.

But small victories - thanks for your pointer. Well spotted. I didn't appreciate the significance of it at the time you posted.

In addition, tasks with the names "miniprotein_relax8" and "_abinitio_1_abinitio_" have been deleted from the queue and another bad batch they noticed before we informed them of these two.
Hopefully we'll all see a lot fewer crashes than we have recently.
I've regularly found my own PCs have rebooted overnight due to these faulty tasks.

If any new ones arise, note the names and they can be looked into if they haven't already noticed them

---

[quote]From Sid Celery 31 Mar9 Apr

I've regularly found my own PCs have rebooted overnight due to these faulty tasks.

I've never considered that being the cause of a reboot before...hmmmmm light bulb going off icon needed!!!