Posts by Max DesGeorges

1) Message boards : Rosetta@home Science : DISCUSSION of Rosetta@home Journal (5) (Message 70290) Posted 8 May 2011 by Max DesGeorges Post: I took care of updating this page with some of the latest Rosetta publications.
2) Message boards : Number crunching : BOINC Pentathlon (Message 70266) Posted 6 May 2011 by Max DesGeorges Post: BOINC Pentathlon, one year later. For project administrators: expect an increase in throughput between May 11 and 16. :) Like one year ago, the teraflops should rise quite a lot, be prepared!
3) Message boards : Rosetta@home Science : DISCUSSION of Rosetta@home Journal (5) (Message 70197) Posted 1 May 2011 by Max DesGeorges Post: Thank you. Really appreciate that. :)
4) Message boards : Rosetta@home Science : DISCUSSION of Rosetta@home Journal (5) (Message 70117) Posted 25 Apr 2011 by Max DesGeorges Post: Another good idea would be to update the publications page. All the good publications of the last period are missing because the page is stuck at 2009.
5) Message boards : Rosetta@home Science : DISCUSSION of Rosetta@home Journal (4) (Message 66730) Posted 1 Jul 2010 by Max DesGeorges Post: Hello David, happy to know that almost all the publications had a contribution from volunteers. Thank you for your answer.
6) Message boards : Rosetta@home Science : DISCUSSION of Rosetta@home Journal (4) (Message 66698) Posted 26 Jun 2010 by Max DesGeorges Post: Congratulations for your results. I agree that these results should be placed in plain sight as a good example of the importance and utility of distributed computing. A suggestion: Now the publications page includes all publications of the laboratory and it is difficult to understand in which the distributed computing project was really involved and in what extent. It would be more useful to have a dedicated page of Rosetta@Home publications, with only publications in which there was a significant contribution by volunteers.
7) Message boards : Rosetta@home Science : Anyone can answer this question?Thanks a lot ! (Message 66504) Posted 7 Jun 2010 by Max DesGeorges Post: You can also look here I think..
8) Message boards : Number crunching : BOINC Pentathlon (Message 66127) Posted 15 May 2010 by Max DesGeorges Post: Please note the message here and balance of the thread. If some WUs are not returned within 18 hours of being downloaded (see thread for details) while credit is awarded, the results may not be usable. This is in spite of the deadline shown. This is a really strange request. How many users will follow this suggestion? Many even don't know where the preferences are in the BOINC manager and only a few read this forum. It wouldn't be better for the administrators to make specific default settings for the casp9 WUs? For example a deadline of 18 hours and a runtime of 12 hours? Is that possible?
9) Message boards : Rosetta@home Science : CASP9 (Message 66088) Posted 12 May 2010 by Max DesGeorges Post: Mike, if you need the casp9 WUs to be finished within a day, why you don't set for this WUs a different deadline (one day or less if possible) and send them only to users that give back results rapidly?
10) Message boards : Number crunching : New RAM demanding WUs (Message 65633) Posted 24 Mar 2010 by Max DesGeorges Post: Now I see the limits of my idea. Thank you for the answer Mod.Sense.
11) Message boards : Number crunching : New RAM demanding WUs (Message 65628) Posted 23 Mar 2010 by Max DesGeorges Post: I make the question easier: would Rosetta take advantage in having a bunch of WUs that use i.e. 1 GB of memory and has a default runtime of 10 hours?
12) Message boards : Number crunching : New RAM demanding WUs (Message 65598) Posted 20 Mar 2010 by Max DesGeorges Post: In this period Rosetta is working hard on protein interactions that require lots of RAM, 200-300 MB on average. Is the amount of RAM used a key factor in the analysis of complex interactions? If the RAM used by the WU was, let’s say, 1 GB, it would give better/more precise/faster results? I’m asking that because there is an idea that come up in my mind a few days ago… What the project developers think about having some "CPU intensive/RAM demanding” WUs, requiring lots of RAM (at least 600 MB for example)? Users will choose in the Rosetta preferences to receive this type of WUs (“allow RAM demanding WUs on your computer ") that require a lot of RAM. In this way Rosetta will have a group of high performance computers on which it could run precise simulations of big interactions. At the same time, users that today receive sometimes problematic monster WUs (up to 800 MB of RAM), will be excluded from such a weight. In my idea, another characteristic of this special WUs would be to have an increased default runtime, for example 12 hours, so that the load on Rosetta servers will be partially lightened. LINK What the Rosetta developers think about that? I’m sure that there are a lot of hardware enthusiast guys around, ready and happy to receive this monster WUs, and a lot of users that really want to give the best they can to contribute on scientific project like Rosetta@home. What the other users think? I hope I had a good idea. :)
13) Message boards : Number crunching : minirosetta 2.05 (Message 65248) Posted 9 Feb 2010 by Max DesGeorges Post: Hi Manuel and P.P.L. The large memory requirements are a once-in-a-while occurrence, but not something entirely unexpected. These jobs occasionally find a very interesting possible solution and spend a lot of resources testing it. I had submitted these jobs with the requirement for 512 MB RAM allocated for boinc. But based on your observations, I'll increase that requirement to 1 GB in the future. Thanks very much for the reports! This is a good idea, but I think the specific WU I mentioned had another problem. It continued to take memory until the maximum available was reached. So maybe it tooke more RAM if I would have more in my PC. So far I'm the only one that notice this problem, maybe it is only one case.
14) Message boards : Number crunching : minirosetta 2.05 (Message 65225) Posted 7 Feb 2010 by Max DesGeorges Post: I have an “igfhum ProteinInterfaceDesign” that takes from 280 MB up to 1,2 GB of memory!! Is that normal? If it is, I think that in future most of the people will not have enough memory to run Rosetta anymore… The name of the WU is: igfhum_looprefine_placestub2_2dsrI_1B6E_ProteinInterfaceDesign_2Feb2010¬_17660_331_0 After 45 minutes I restarted BOINC and the WU restarted from zero. Now, after 2 hours, the properties show me that the CPU time after checkpoint is still without any number (“---“), like the WU has worked for a few minutes. Looking at the task manager it seems that the WU asks continuosly more memory, until it reaches the limit set in the preferences. Then it decreases rapidly to 280 MB and again increases up to around 1,2 GB. Vista 32 bit, Core Duo T7250, 2 GB DDR2, BOINC 6.10.29 UPDATE: The WU finished without errors. Looking at the graphic I noticed that when the WU freeze in the “request memory loop”, it was always in the “kic_refine_r2” stage and the accepted energy didn’t vary. I hope this info are useful. :)
15) Message boards : Number crunching : minirosetta 2.05 (Message 65223) Posted 7 Feb 2010 by Max DesGeorges Post: I have an “igfhum ProteinInterfaceDesign” that takes from 280 MB up to 1,2 GB of memory!! Is that normal? If it is, I think that in future most of the people will not have enough memory to run Rosetta anymore… The name of the WU is: igfhum_looprefine_placestub2_2dsrI_1B6E_ProteinInterfaceDesign_2Feb2010¬_17660_331_0 After 45 minutes I restarted BOINC and the WU restarted from zero. Now, after 2 hours, the properties show me that the CPU time after checkpoint is still without any number (“---“), like the WU has worked for a few minutes. Looking at the task manager it seems that the WU asks continuosly more memory, until it reaches the limit set in the preferences. Then it decreases rapidly to 280 MB and again increases up to around 1,2 GB. Vista 32 bit, Core Duo T7250, 2 GB DDR2, BOINC 6.10.29
16) Message boards : Number crunching : minirosetta 2.05 (Message 65221) Posted 7 Feb 2010 by Max DesGeorges Post: I have an “igfhum ProteinInterfaceDesign” that takes from 280 MB up to 1,2 GB of memory!! Is that normal? If it is, I think that in future most of the people will not have enough memory to run Rosetta anymore…
17) Message boards : Rosetta@home Science : DISCUSSION of Rosetta@home Journal (4) (Message 62061) Posted 2 Jul 2009 by Max DesGeorges Post: Thank you for the reply! I'm really happy to see that publications comes out thanks to crunchers like me. Keep us informed, in particular for the publication on Nature! :)
18) Message boards : Rosetta@home Science : DISCUSSION of Rosetta@home Journal (4) (Message 61885) Posted 22 Jun 2009 by Max DesGeorges Post: Any news about the seven papers you were writing?
19) Message boards : Number crunching : Beyond newbie Q&A (Message 61642) Posted 9 Jun 2009 by Max DesGeorges Post: I want to run my own protein structure predictions on Rosetta, is this possible? Yes. link :)
20) Message boards : Rosetta@home Science : Rosetta@home Web Site Translations (Message 61356) Posted 25 May 2009 by Max DesGeorges Post: http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/translate.php Could somebody tell me the steps in order to send you a correct version of the document? I guess i could do the work in a few days.

Next 20