Posts by Rifleman

1) Message boards : Number crunching : Report long-running models here (Message 60428)
Posted 1 Apr 2009 by Rifleman
Post:
http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/result.php?resultid=239774765

19 credits? Just because this unit was more difficult to generate a decoy? Pretty rough for 12 hours work.
2) Message boards : Number crunching : Minirosetta v1.47 bug thread. (Message 58592)
Posted 7 Jan 2009 by Rifleman
Post:
I have 3 finished WUs that don't seem to upload to the server---is that because of the problems today?
3) Message boards : Number crunching : Minirosetta v1.47 bug thread. (Message 58591)
Posted 7 Jan 2009 by Rifleman
Post:
I have 3 finished WUs that don't seem to upload to the server---is that because of the problems today?
4) Message boards : Number crunching : Report long-running models here (Message 58406)
Posted 3 Jan 2009 by Rifleman
Post:
If a fast CPU runs flat out for 28 hours and generates one decoy------there must have been a hell of a lot of work done to figure the decoy out? I have had over a week of these difficult units and credit for them is abysmal compared to what earlier WUs were awarding. It's almost like folks with long runtime preferences are being penalized for it.
I am new to the project and distributed computing in general but increasing my hydro bill by significant amounts there should be closer attention to the way these credits are awarded.


I've seen something somewhere about someone measuring the electricity used and calculating its added cost. The results indicated that few of the machines used will need even 50 cents (US) worth of extra electricity a day, even if the machine is running 24 hours a day.

According to tests done by Tom's Hardware my Phenom system running 24 hours a day loaded will use 285 Euros a year in hydro. That works out to roughly 600 in Canadian dollars. And that is just one machine. Your AMD 3600 is using 198.69 euros a year. Here's the link for most AMD processors.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-power-cpu,1925-16.html
5) Message boards : Number crunching : Report long-running models here (Message 58384)
Posted 2 Jan 2009 by Rifleman
Post:
...for those concerned about credit and fairness and what smells and what doesn't... please read the original post of this thread. Models that are taking significantly longer then average will receive significantly less credit then claimed. That's how an average works. The large claim goes in to the average, but only for one model, as compared to 1000s of others. So, it ups the average, but how much depends on how common the models run long.

That is one of many good reasons to work to eliminate these long-running models. Another is that if long-running models can be eliminated, then the estimated runtimes will be more reliable and work fetch more predictable.

The new approaches being used to study the proteins seem to have a higher variability between models then we are all used to. The team has reviewed the information in this thread and is working on some approaches to addressing the long-running models, and to studying them further.


If a fast CPU runs flat out for 28 hours and generates one decoy------there must have been a hell of a lot of work done to figure the decoy out? I have had over a week of these difficult units and credit for them is abysmal compared to what earlier WUs were awarding. It's almost like folks with long runtime preferences are being penalized for it.
I am new to the project and distributed computing in general but increasing my hydro bill by significant amounts there should be closer attention to the way these credits are awarded.
6) Message boards : Number crunching : Report long-running models here (Message 58333)
Posted 1 Jan 2009 by Rifleman
Post:
http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/result.php?resultid=218071526
Same task mentioned in my last post is now 28 hours in on 1st decoy and stuck at 99 percent with 10 minutes to go. I now have the choice of aborting-----for 0 credit or letting watchdog abort it in another 10 hours for very little credit.

Task ID 218071526
Name 1nkuA_BOINC_MPZN_with_zinc_abrelax_6130_113811_1
Workunit 198586483
Created 31 Dec 2008 15:42:51 UTC
Sent 31 Dec 2008 16:03:51 UTC
Received 1 Jan 2009 21:18:15 UTC
Server state Over
Outcome Success
Client state Done
Exit status 0 (0x0)
Computer ID 948562
Report deadline 10 Jan 2009 16:03:51 UTC
CPU time 101439.9
stderr out <core_client_version>6.4.5</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<stderr_txt>
# cpu_run_time_pref: 43200
======================================================
DONE :: 1 starting structures 101440 cpu seconds
This process generated 1 decoys from 1 attempts
======================================================

BOINC :: Watchdog shutting down...
BOINC :: BOINC support services shutting down...
called boinc_finish

</stderr_txt>
]]>


Validate state Valid
Claimed credit 392.681268578232
Granted credit 37.8765655196635
application version 1.47
Thanks for the credit.
7) Message boards : Number crunching : Report long-running models here (Message 58332)
Posted 1 Jan 2009 by Rifleman
Post:
http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/result.php?resultid=218071526
Same task mentioned in my last post is now 28 hours in on 1st decoy and stuck at 99 percent with 10 minutes to go. I now have the choice of aborting-----for 0 credit or letting watchdog abort it in another 10 hours for very little credit.
8) Message boards : Number crunching : Report long-running models here (Message 58310)
Posted 31 Dec 2008 by Rifleman
Post:
http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/result.php?resultid=218071526
This WU is 5 hours and 18 minute in out of 12 hour runtime and is still on the first decoy.
Running BOINC 6.4.5
Rosetta Mini 1.47
Running Vista with AMD quad 9500 Phenom, 3 gigs RAM
I have been getting lots of WUs where I have been getting maybe 1 to 3 decoys out of 12 hours CPU time and very little credit for the invested time. The last 3 or 4 days have been so bad credit wise my RAC is dropping.
9) Message boards : Number crunching : Minirosetta v1.47 bug thread. (Message 58193)
Posted 28 Dec 2008 by Rifleman
Post:
Hi Robert. Yeah----it stopped at about 10 minutes to go-----and stayed that way for 25 hours---lol. Watchdog terminated it.
I aborted another after 18 hours in. It was the same type protein as the first one. I have 2 more being crunched at the moment and am watching to see how they do after 12 hours in.
Task ID 216862173
Name 1nkuA_BOINC_MPZN_with_zinc_abrelax_6130_17673_0
Workunit 197639536
Created 25 Dec 2008 6:09:31 UTC
Sent 25 Dec 2008 7:37:31 UTC
Received 27 Dec 2008 5:01:41 UTC
Server state Over
Outcome Success
Client state Done
Exit status 0 (0x0)
Computer ID 948562
Report deadline 4 Jan 2009 7:37:31 UTC
CPU time 134234.2
stderr out <core_client_version>6.2.19</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<stderr_txt>
# cpu_run_time_pref: 43200
**********************************************************************
Rosetta is going too long. Watchdog is ending the run!
CPU time: 134233 seconds. Greater than 3X preferred time: 43200 seconds
**********************************************************************
called boinc_finish

</stderr_txt>
]]>


Validate state Valid
Claimed credit 561.58588373264
Granted credit 117.029798631356
application version 1.47
10) Message boards : Number crunching : Minirosetta v1.47 bug thread. (Message 58188)
Posted 27 Dec 2008 by Rifleman
Post:
I am having problems with another WU that ran fine up to 99 percent and gets stalled. I let one run for 37 hours until watchdog terminated it. I have preferences set for 12 hours so that is fine. The granted credit is what bothered me. : http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/result.php?resultid=216862173
I am debating cancelling the WU that is presently doing the same thing as wasting all that CPU time for 2 decoys seems like--well---a waste!!
http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/result.php?resultid=217161601
11) Message boards : Number crunching : Minirosetta v1.45 bug thread (Message 57670)
Posted 7 Dec 2008 by Rifleman
Post:
I have had 3 WUs error out on me but seems to be much more stable than it was:
http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/result.php?resultid=212602945
Client error
Client state Compute error
Exit status -1073741819 (0xc0000005)
Computer ID 948562
Report deadline 16 Dec 2008 20:17:24 UTC
CPU time 18577.93
stderr out <core_client_version>6.2.19</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<message>
- exit code -1073741819 (0xc0000005)
</message>
<stderr_txt>
# cpu_run_time_pref: 28800


Unhandled Exception Detected...

- Unhandled Exception Record -
Reason: Access Violation (0xc0000005) at address 0x007FA877 read attempt to address 0x1F59DCA6

Engaging BOINC Windows Runtime Debugger...



********************



http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/result.php?resultid=212495875
Client error
Client state Compute error
Exit status -1073741819 (0xc0000005)
Computer ID 948562
Report deadline 16 Dec 2008 10:40:05 UTC
CPU time 6441.172
stderr out <core_client_version>6.2.19</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<message>
- exit code -1073741819 (0xc0000005)
</message>
<stderr_txt>
# cpu_run_time_pref: 28800


Unhandled Exception Detected...

- Unhandled Exception Record -
Reason: Access Violation (0xc0000005) at address 0x004EAD47 read attempt to address 0x00000000

Engaging BOINC Windows Runtime Debugger...



http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/result.php?resultid=212434493
Client error
Client state Compute error
Exit status -1073741819 (0xc0000005)
Computer ID 948562
Report deadline 16 Dec 2008 4:04:00 UTC
CPU time 13200.43
stderr out <core_client_version>6.2.19</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<message>
- exit code -1073741819 (0xc0000005)
</message>
<stderr_txt>
# cpu_run_time_pref: 28800


Unhandled Exception Detected...

- Unhandled Exception Record -
Reason: Access Violation (0xc0000005) at address 0x004EAD47 read attempt to address 0x00000000

Engaging BOINC Windows Runtime Debugger...



********************




12) Message boards : Number crunching : Minirosetta v1.40 bug thread (Message 57292)
Posted 27 Nov 2008 by Rifleman
Post:
Check your processes running in task manager by pressing control, alt, delete. Do you show more than the normal number of tasks running?
13) Message boards : Number crunching : Minirosetta v1.40 bug thread (Message 57290)
Posted 27 Nov 2008 by Rifleman
Post:
Can someone take a quick look at my results and see if they know why I am getting massive numbers of errors and wasted time? The ones I terminated myself were still runing in task manager after retarting BOINC so I'd end up with 8 WUs vying for CPU time while only 4 showed in BOINC.
Here is my results page and thanks. http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/results.php?userid=288725
14) Message boards : Number crunching : Minirosetta v1.40 bug thread (Message 57159)
Posted 22 Nov 2008 by Rifleman
Post:
Hi all. I am new so forgive me if I am wrong here. I have 2 tasks showing up with error messages and they will soon get aborted. Too bad as they have been running 15 hours.
Strangely though if I look at the graphics for these supposedly stalled tasks------they are still chugging away fine---with the progress percentage increasing.
I have had quite a few of these "error" tasks now and maybe this can help fix the bug?
Here is one of the tasks in question. http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/result.php?resultid=209086501
15) Message boards : Number crunching : Newbie Question? Time To Complete WUs? (Message 57118)
Posted 21 Nov 2008 by Rifleman
Post:
Thanks for the replies and info guys. I DID play with the preferences so if the long time to complete the tasks are normal--I'll leave it alone. I have 3 rosetta crunching and trying to finish a SETI astropulse task-----which is going to take 80 hours or so. 31 hours in and 56 to go.
I am not too impressed with this Phenom 9500. I should have gone with the Q6600 but it does what I need it to.
16) Message boards : Number crunching : Minirosetta v1.40 bug thread (Message 57107)
Posted 20 Nov 2008 by Rifleman
Post:
I just started crunching Rosetta and have 3 tasks running for over 3 hours now with 15 hours to go. I had to abort this morning that ran for well over 18 hours.
Is this normal? I had one task finish alright but took almost 18? hours. My task managershows minirosetta consuming 165000K for each of the 3 cores it is using.
17) Message boards : Number crunching : Newbie Question? Time To Complete WUs? (Message 57103)
Posted 20 Nov 2008 by Rifleman
Post:
HI. I ust started running Rosetta. After running all night I noticed 2 tasks has stalled and errors forced me to abort.
The new tasks have been running 2 hours with 15 hours to go. Is that normal? Are my settings ok for this PC? I don't mind the long times but if I can speed things up so much the better. Thanks for any advice.






©2022 University of Washington
https://www.bakerlab.org