I'm not sure we have an ENTIRELY AV problem here: of the two problems I reported with mini-Rosetta, one WU was rerun successfully; the other, WU 135123822, says it's still rerunning - which is odd because all the tasks showing in BOINC manager are Rosetta 5.95. Also, I'm not running ESET (whatever that is) - I have ZoneAlarm Internet Security Suite with the Kaspersky anti-virus, and it hasn't reported any problems with any of the Rosetta programs.

smaller work units are always better.

when they crash, you lose less crunching time.

is there an advantage to have one WU work for longer time?
or better yet.. whats better... longer WU or shorter WU?

But then more computers is needed to get same amount of "decoys".

with shorter task run-times a computer will produce fewer decoys per task but will run more tasks so you'll end up with the same work produced either way.

As Angus says, shorter tasks reduce the impact of failures, but longer tasks reduce the upload/download overhead to the user and the project.

smaller work units are always better.

when they crash, you lose less crunching time.

is there an advantage to have one WU work for longer time?
or better yet.. whats better... longer WU or shorter WU?

Like others who have recently reported -- Minirosetta looks to be recognized as being a virus -- as I reported a couple of months ago, for me this is with the latest definitions from NOD32. So it looks like the loop wasn't closed (on one side or the other) either with the ESET folks or the coding folks at Rosetta.

Is their any way to configure at our end to specify we don't want the Minirosetta work units? If I am not at a workstation to clear it, it stops BOINC for ALL projects. In that context, rather than loose processing for all projects, I believe the approach would be to put them on hold outbound at the server. Elsewise, I will need to suspend Rosetta on my workstations pending a fix.

Thanks

Barry

I noticed I'm getting more Mini jobs..how far out is a graphics version? Any time lines?

I have gotten several Minirosetta's today with no warnings from my AV so I am guessing they fixed it.

use avg free, just as good or better and none of these errors
ive seen things that Avg picks up on that NOD won't virus wise
avg makes for virus free operations and smooth running for rossie no matter what the program

AVG sucks. It takes more ram, is slower and in tests has more false positives on average then NOD32 does.
In this test AVG catches 25% of the stuff while NOD32 catches 71%
http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2007_11.php
In the pure Virus test they come out neck and neck (except Polymorphic Virus' in which AVG misses a lot):
http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2007_08.php

And again at another 3rd party AV testing site NOD32 out does AVG:
http://www.checkvir.com/index.php?CN=30.3.69&CIE=0

And again NOD32 outdoes AVG in another 3rd party AV tester as well (to see any of the detailed results requires free registration):
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/index

I can go on. I did a lot of research before buying a AV. NOD32 is hands down the BEST AV out there when compared as a whole package (ram usage, speed, false positives, catches, cleaning, etc...).

This is the first time I have ever had a false positive with NOD32 and have been using it for about a 8 months now. Wouldn't go back to AVG even if they gave it away for free. Wait, they do! Still would rather pay $40 for NOD32. You get what you pay for.

The burden of proof is upon the person making the claim. You made the claim that: "But they did comment,in various threads,thay said why it was not possible". And I could make the claim that the moon is made out of green cheese. If you can't support your claim with evidence, I suggest that you withdraw your claim.

You likely used same or similar keywords as I.That is why we easly could missed that.

Why don't we learn the comment to that statement from Doc Baker, when he commented over 0.75 years ago

"But they did comment,in various threads,thay said why it was not possible."

Why don't we learn the comment to that statement from Doc Baker, when he commented over 1.25 years ago

Only projects with huge staff and money or with relativly slowly changing code can afford porting.

WOW, TWO POSTS FROM THE DOC HIMSELF, STATING THAT A PORT TO A GAMING CONSOLE IS POSSIBLE. TOO BAD THE MOST RECENT OF THE TWO IS NEARLY 9 MONTHS OLD.



Why would I bother posting there?

And finally have you tried to post in thread "Moderators Contact Point"?Don't remember seen any post by you there...

Thanx for your response, but I note the following:

(1) Post #1 is from "Admin" in the capacity of a Message Board Moderator cleaning-up a thread that was getting off-topic.

(2) Post #2 is from DB, and only mentions the code being made smaller, and now potentially ready for sse optimization. No discussion about parallelization, or potential memory limits of the ps/3.

(3) Neither of these threads addressed the question that was asked: Would you kindly link to any posts from the Project staff that explains why a port to the ps/3 is not possible?

(4) You likely "missed" the post where it was allegedly "stated quite clearly" because iirc no such post exists.

(5) Even if you did "have time to search for that", imho you would be searching for something that does not exist.

(6) Ergo, I respectfully disagree with your original statement: "But they did comment,in various threads,thay said why it was not possible."

(7) I would be very happy for someone to prove me wrong. I've searched, again, and can't locate what you claim exists.

Most probably i missed post,where it was stated quite clearly,but I do not have time to search for that.

This may, or may not, be true for Rosetta code. Let's first determine if it is even theoretically possible to run Rosie code on ps/3 and gpu. Then, and only then, we can start discussing potential issues of code maintainence.

And then with such amount of changes to app,it is not possible to properly maintain ports.

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.

http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/workunit.php?wuid=92147057

From your signature:

Win98se, P4 3.0e (Prescott) 1gig Ram, ATI 128mb agp 8x card.
Win98se, P4 2.8e (Prescott) 1gig Ram + Nvidia 128mb agp 8x card.

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!

Is the deal between Rosetta and Intel going to put AMD machines at a disadvantage, or maybe even phase out AMD machines in the future?

Hmm, using ICC10 should speed up computations on both Intel and AMG CPUs. Althrough ICC is known to have some anti-amd rountines (causes program to run not at full speed on AMD). But 1. Maybe in version 10 this problem does not occur 2. There are patches that cause programs to run on full speed on AMD CPUs.

Anyway ICC is worth trying !

Peter