None of my machines can get to the scheduler either. Although I can connect to the scheduling server it is not issuing my computers any new tasks. "Scheduler Request Succeeded: got 0 new tasks", has been that way since 1330 EST yesterday and I received three tasks right before that and they completed almost instantly.

I apologize Forza. I wasn't clear on what your observations were. Perhaps it has changed with the 6.6 version as well.

Which WCG project checkpoints every 7 seconds?

Paul, see the third post to this thread. I've found the checkpoint debug messages report the attempts to checkpoint, not the physical flush to disk.

As I said, the messages report when the application called the API to checkpoint. They do not indicate when data was written to disk. Some checkpoints store multiple files. So, between having multiple files, and having several checkpoints buffered into a single write, that may explain why you see "A whole swat of files gets written..." at once.

What have you set for your write at most setting? Are you expecting the C drive of a Windows PC to go idle and spin down to save power? In my experience, that will never happen, whether BOINC is running or not.

What BOINC version are you running?
What operating system are you using?

Apologies if you already know this, but in case not, there's an option to run only when the screensaver is showing

Where is this option to run only when the screensaver is showing? I can't find it anywhere...


Best

In BOINC manager Go to the Advanced Menu and then click the Preferences Option. On the Processor Usage Tab, uncheck while computer is in use and then set the "only after computer has been idle for" box to whatever your screensaver time out is or some time like 5 or 10 minutes probably would work as well.

Brian

Anyway, the point is, is your application asking the core client for permission?

I believe it is. I am not a Rosetta coder to know for certain. This was posted during the testing on Ralph. I believe that the end of a model might be the only exception. I believe that is not really a checkpoint per se and that a write will always occur when the task reaches that point.

What are you seeing for file revision times in your slots directory?

I wanted to discuss this topic in more detail, so opened this new thread.

Could you describe how you are confirming when a checkpoint is taken? I've found that the cc_config checkpoint_debug message are misleading. It shows every time the application has requested a checkpoint, but they are actually buffered until the "write to disk at most" wait time is satisfied.

What I would suggest is review of the last change date/times on the files in the slot directory the task is running in.

Running just now two WUs with comment ''High Priority''. What is special about these?

The potential to improve the performance is there, especially by getting rid of arcane x87 code. But one will only know after trying, which hasn't been done yet. Instead, Rosetta went on to support cottage OSX/x86 systems...

Currently, the project has two types of WUs, some require 256MB memory, some require 512MB. Your machines are hidden, so I can't tell. Do you have 256MB of memory?

I for one am unclear exactly how the system handles these memory limitations. Are you getting any messages in BOINC Manager as you attempt to download work? Do you know if a WU was actually downloaded before reporting the message?

I believe BOINC is working on some enhancements to the scheduling to help better accomodate such situations and deliver work that's appropriate to the client.

At this time, i�m doing fine with TreadMaster, because my PC is second hand and the cooling fan doesn�t work well. I suppose the bearing has weared off.

My question is:
Have I also to restart my computer when I�m using BES, like I must do with ThreadMaster, to make the changes of CPU usage take effect, or can the CPU usage of BES adjusted without rebooting?

Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINESYSTEMCurrentControlSetServicesThreadMasterParametersApplications]
"SpybotSD.exe"="5"
"Ad-Aware.exe"="5"
"dfrgntfs.exe"="10"
"dfrgfat.exe"="10"
"rosetta_5.25_windows_intelx86.exe"="80"
"rosetta_5.32_windows_intelx86.exe"="80"

That makes me wonder something else then. The number-crunching that we're doing here, should there be some concern that one of these proteins, if reproduced in some of the shapes we're looking at, could cause some major problems (ie. a new disease)?

Hey, that's an interesting point! Very interesting.. It's a small possibility I suppose.

These diseases are associated w/ the insolubility of proteins in vivo, resulting in the plaques that fall out of solution and form on the various tissues. I would bet that if 'rogue molecule' would be designed that it would be really difficult w/ which to work in the lab and folks would give up on it long before it was put into any testing pipeline...

Not only that, I'd like to think that something like this would show up in the extensive testing that would be done to satisfy the FDA before any human saw anything developed here - and there is a LOT of testing that is required.

Hmm... an interesting idea though... I smell a M. Crichton book in the making... -KEL