So what's up with the credits for the task? I read it here somewhere here I think but can't find it.

Latest tasks only credit for 6-8 points. Older tasks were 100-300....

Is this something being looked into? Any comments on this? Wondering when this will be solved...

TIA

I see the same with my machines.
It's only with the COVID wu's
Maybe it's a virus ;-))

I still running them though.....

---

I just noticed that my tasks are taking almost twice as long as the ETA says. The time is either standing still with 1-2 seconds either way or counting *up*... I don't think I've tinkered with any settings and boinc is using all its cores fully. Is this normal? What's going on?

https://i.imgur.com/3uwyfAU.jpg

You are a rather new user here. I've noticed that for each new version of any of the applications, about the first ten tasks on a computer using that version is likely to give a large mismatch between the expected time the task will run, and the time it actually runs. If all of your computers were connected since the last version change of each application, all of the versions in use are either new to your computers or recently have been.

If the actual time is much larger than the initial expected time, it is normal for the expected time to completion to be going up instead of down.

We'll have to see one of 'em report back in to see for sure, but it sounds like you may have changed the Preference for the workunit runtime from the 8 hour default up to 12 or 24 hours. The watchdog will keep an eye on them for you if they run too long. I suggest letting them run to completion.

I've got the same thing occurring with my present Rosetta Mini v3.78 Tasks.
I checked my preferences, and "Target CPU run time" is still "not selected." The current group of Tasks have been going for 12hr 20min with 3hr 45min estimated time to completion.


Has the project's default "Target CPU run time" been changed with the newly released applications? (although the very few Rosetta v4.12 windows_x86_64 & Rosetta v4.12 windows_intelx86 processed Tasks i managed to pick up ran for the desired 8hrs. This seems to be affecting just the Rosetta Mini 3.78 applications; previous work i did with these applications ran to Target time OK).

---

Grant
Darwin NT

I've run a few 4.12 tasks overnight (around 80), first impressions are that it runs each decoy approx 4* as long, my preference is set for an hour, and my threadripper is quite quick, but it's taking between 3-4 hours to run one decoy if it starts with rb, under 4.07 I would hit 1 decoy in under an hour 99% of the time. The design task has run the same speed but only given 2 points credit per decoy.

4.12 is not looking productive from my end as an end user. It would take my slower processors in laptops etc nearly 8 hours or more for 1 decoy going by results by far.

I've just been sent a further 60 tasks with rb prefix so ill see how they run. these are a different batch.

https://imgur.com/a/gr9UJlr

I am getting continuous "Scheduler request failed:HTTP gateway timeout" errors for the last week. This is on my Windows10 machine, while funnily enough my home imac is happily crunching and reporting tasks.
I have tried clicking 'update' under the projects tab, 'reset' and i have even 'remove' the project and BOINC and reinstalled but the error persists.
Also I am seeing more 'computation error' under the tasks tab.

I know the scheduler is getting hammered but that doesnt explain why my other machine is working well through all this.

Normal web browsing, reset project and downloading tasks works fine on the Windows 10 machine, but it just errors when reporting or requesting new tasks.

Any ideas?

I've just been sent a further 60 tasks with rb prefix so ill see how they run. these are a different batch.

No new work here for over 12hrs now.

My Rosetta Mini Tasks are on target for running twice a long as the Target time (16hrs instead of the default 8hrs).

---

Grant
Darwin NT

https://imgur.com/a/gr9UJlr

I am getting continuous "Scheduler request failed:HTTP gateway timeout" errors for the last week. This is on my Windows10 machine, while funnily enough my home imac is happily crunching and reporting tasks.
I have tried clicking 'update' under the projects tab, 'reset' and i have even 'remove' the project and BOINC and reinstalled but the error persists.
Also I am seeing more 'computation error' under the tasks tab.

I know the scheduler is getting hammered but that doesnt explain why my other machine is working well through all this.

Normal web browsing, reset project and downloading tasks works fine on the Windows 10 machine, but it just errors when reporting or requesting new tasks.

Any ideas?

Are you running any 3rd party AV/ Anti-malware software? It wouldn't be the first time such a programme has taken exception to BOINC and the programmes that make use of it.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Are you running any 3rd party AV/ Anti-malware software? It wouldn't be the first time such a programme has taken exception to BOINC and the programmes that make use of it.

Good thought. It would be unusual to allow some communication on port 80 but block reporting and requesting of new tasks?

I am running webroot but it didnt cause a problem 2 weeks ago when I first started working on Rosetta@home. This timeout only started 1 week ago. I managed about 20 000 credit before the PC stopped reporting.
The AV software is centrally managed by sysadmin so I cant place an exclusion on BOINC.

¯_(ツ)_/¯

Hello, I have just joined this project but it seems there is no work to do at the moment. Is this a common state of affairs or have I struck a bad moment to join?

Stephen

?

I've run a few 4.12 tasks overnight (around 80), first impressions are that it runs each decoy approx 4* as long, my preference is set for an hour, and my threadripper is quite quick, but it's taking between 3-4 hours to run one decoy if it starts with rb, under 4.07 I would hit 1 decoy in under an hour 99% of the time. The design task has run the same speed but only given 2 points credit per decoy.

4.12 is not looking productive from my end as an end user. It would take my slower processors in laptops etc nearly 8 hours or more for 1 decoy going by results by far.

I've just been sent a further 60 tasks with rb prefix so ill see how they run. these are a different batch.

You've just run 80 tasks overnight and received 60 more
You have 2500 tasks available to run on your threadripper which has 64-cores and 132Gb RAM running 1hr tasks

What is it about 4.12 that isn't looking productive from your pov?
Because after several days with very few tasks available at all I'd kill for any of the problems you're currently having
Quite astonishing.

---

I've run a few 4.12 tasks overnight (around 80), first impressions are that it runs each decoy approx 4* as long, my preference is set for an hour, and my threadripper is quite quick, but it's taking between 3-4 hours to run one decoy if it starts with rb, under 4.07 I would hit 1 decoy in under an hour 99% of the time. The design task has run the same speed but only given 2 points credit per decoy.

4.12 is not looking productive from my end as an end user. It would take my slower processors in laptops etc nearly 8 hours or more for 1 decoy going by results by far.

I've just been sent a further 60 tasks with rb prefix so ill see how they run. these are a different batch.

You've just run 80 tasks overnight and received 60 more
You have 2500 tasks available to run on your threadripper which has 64-cores and 132Gb RAM running 1hr tasks

What is it about 4.12 that isn't looking productive from your pov?
Because after several days with very few tasks available at all I'd kill for any of the problems you're currently having
Quite astonishing.

The tasks in progress is incorrect, I reset the project twice this week due to multiple downloads failing so they arent really there as discussed in a different thread.

I'm saying it doesn't look productive because the decoys are taking approximately 4 to 6 times longer to process. If you watch the graphics, it gets to a certain number of steps and then almost stops, taking 30-60 minutes for each additional step.

Half last night before I went to bed stopped at step 24600, then took 30 mins to do step 24601 etc.

So that's what I mean, it is taking 4-6 times longer to process the same work, so it appears.

The latest batch which are rb 04 01 20235 19963 ab t000 robetta cstwt... Are currently on 2 hours 49, 56% on first decoy. Looks like 5hrs to run. 4.07 was running very similar tasks under an hour.

Hello, I have just joined this project but it seems there is no work to do at the moment. Is this a common state of affairs or have I struck a bad moment to join??

Work being done has increased by 500% over the last 2 and a bit weeks, so there's not much work available as demand is far exceeding supply.
More work is meant to be coming, but apparently it takes quite a while to prepare it for release, so it will take a while before work production comes close to matching the present demand.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

I can give a little further info also, my cpu is currently 99% utilised. boinc is running 60 cores, 2 are running gpus for folding, 2 spare for overhead. normally when boinc is running with all cores running the clock speed is approx 3.2ghz, and it will pull as many watts as i let it (doubling the power with an overclock only get me to 3.55ghz) , at the moment it's pulling 15% less power, and the clock speed is up at 4.2ghz for all cores. If each core was being run hard it would be impossible for it to run this speed. This is the speed it normally runs with say 3 or 4 cores loaded.

Imo 4.12 is not making use of the cpu properly, it's taking 4-6 times longer to complete a decoy which ties in with the fact my cpu is running a very high clock speed which indicates the cores are doing very little work.

I'm saying it doesn't look productive because the decoys are taking approximately 4 to 6 times longer to process.

Whereas the half dozen or so Tasks i've processed so far with the new application actually got more work done in 8 hours than the previous applications did in the same time.
Early days yet, with not much work to actually see how things are going.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

Definitely an issue with Rosetta Mini target run times since the rollout of the new applications.

Finally managed to pick up some new work- a whole 2 Tasks.
1 Rosetta Mini and 1 Rosetta 4.12. Rosetta 4.12 is on target for the target CPU time (8hrs). Rosetta Mini is on target for double the target CPU time (16hrs).
Has only started since the new applications were released (as far a i can tell; did they also do a fix for the Rosetta Mini Tasks that were paying next to nothing at the same time?)


Edit-
Finally finished a few of these longer running Rosetta Minis and i've decided this isn't really a problem at all. While the Tasks take twice as long to process, they pay out 4 times more Credit than they usually do.
I can live with that.

---

Grant
Darwin NT

The tasks in progress is incorrect, I reset the project twice this week due to multiple downloads failing so they arent really there as discussed in a different thread.

I remember now - apologies. That's around 2400 'ghost' tasks showing that aren't there for you to run.
They'll be part of the 900k+ looking to be in progress tasks that aren't running down in spite of nolittle work for days.

I'm saying it doesn't look productive because the decoys are taking approximately 4 to 6 times longer to process. If you watch the graphics, it gets to a certain number of steps and then almost stops, taking 30-60 minutes for each additional step.

Half last night before I went to bed stopped at step 24600, then took 30 mins to do step 24601 etc.

Something else I missed. I don't look at the graphics to see how things are running. I'm not sure it reflects anything too much about the task - just a show. Models, yes, but not steps. Maybe I'm wrong.

Ignore me.

---

the first of the new tasks has just finished, took 4 hours to run the 1 decoy for me, these were definitely running under an hour previously. If you have your runtime to 4 hours you wont really notice the difference in time, but i'm more concerned with the actual work being done by the program. If points are an accurate indication then with 4.07 I was running at an average of 300pts per hour per core, this just finished task has returned 300 points in 4 hours, which ties in with my thinking they are not running efficiently.

Is there a mod reading who can make a comment?

edit, there are 60 of these now finishing so plenty to look athttps://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/result.php?resultid=1138591491

I can give a little further info also, my cpu is currently 99% utilised. boinc is running 60 cores, 2 are running gpus for folding, 2 spare for overhead. normally when boinc is running with all cores running the clock speed is approx 3.2ghz, and it will pull as many watts as i let it (doubling the power with an overclock only get me to 3.55ghz) , at the moment it's pulling 15% less power, and the clock speed is up at 4.2ghz for all cores. If each core was being run hard it would be impossible for it to run this speed. This is the speed it normally runs with say 3 or 4 cores loaded.

Imo 4.12 is not making use of the cpu properly, it's taking 4-6 times longer to complete a decoy which ties in with the fact my cpu is running a very high clock speed which indicates the cores are doing very little work.

That's very interesting. I also overclock on a FX8370 Piledriver, but prevent any throttling so my base 4.3GHz is running at 4.768GHz which is surprisingly stable.
But I know 8 cores is no comparison to 60-64 cores. I pay attention to people with Ryzens because that's where I'm likely to go next once I've run this one into the ground

---

This is the 3990x so 64 cores, 128 threads, I've turned off smt so only running the 64 so as to give more l3 cache per core which allows the tasks to progress very rapidly. It's a fantastic chip.

This is the 3990x so 64 cores, 128 threads, I've turned off smt so only running the 64 so as to give more l3 cache per core which allows the tasks to progress very rapidly. It's a fantastic chip.

Noted, ta. But also aware you've gone for top spec.
I'm more likely to look at 3700/3800 for the price/performance tbh. Cost is an issue. But I'll reassess at the point I'm ready to buy. Not even sure I could afford your RAM, let alone your MBCPU!

---