Posts by The-Real-Link

1) Message boards : Number crunching : Client Errors (Message 73279) Posted 13 Jun 2012 by The-Real-Link Post: Hey guys, same problem here for my E5645 config. Now it's interesting, I was able to run with my old E5620 system for months without any isues at all, and then they started failing. Oddly enough though, I can't even get these new processors to complete a valid unit at all. I let the project stay detatched or a good week or so and then it did seem to fix itself by downloading my preferred workload (several days) as it queued up a few dozen units. They all appeared to be crunched successfully and uploaded, yet, on my stats page there are pages of "over" and "client errors" shown. Also running an EVGA board, EVGA GTX 680, with Windows 7 x64. I wouldn't mind crunching for this project but I simply can't get any work. Despite my log saying the work is successful and that the project was also successfully uploaded, my work queue is stuck at 8 per day (which is odd because that would be true with my old E5620s but not my E5645s) - I'd imagine I should be seeing a minimum of 12 units per day. I turn work in and yet don't see any more than the 8 come back when I should see a doubling if I understand it right. Any help is appreciated. Sorry for the rambling, just frustrated.
2) Message boards : Number crunching : AE_2 / AEty_2 Units? (Message 69605) Posted 5 Feb 2011 by The-Real-Link Post: Yep, you're right - I had Rosetta-specific settings for CPU-time set to 12 hours. Perhaps I just thought that that way it'd work on crunching Rosetta for that long before it'd switch to a Milky Way project (which I wouldn't want it to do). I didn't realize it'd make each project attempt a 12-hour run or scale to a bigger unit that'd take 12 hours. I reset it to 3 as that's been a good turnaround for my usage. I hope the 12 hour units do give a lot of credit for the time spent though! ;) I like how your 16-core server beats all of my PCs combined. I take yours runs 24/7. Hahah um, thanks? XD Nah I just wanted to rebuild this system recently into something nice - first time for me doing a lot of this stuff to be honest. I try to run Rosetta as much as I can but depends on what I'm doing each day. I do a lot of photography and some video work too so it's not always crunching science.
3) Message boards : Number crunching : AE_2 / AEty_2 Units? (Message 69599) Posted 5 Feb 2011 by The-Real-Link Post: Yep, you're right - I had Rosetta-specific settings for CPU-time set to 12 hours. Perhaps I just thought that that way it'd work on crunching Rosetta for that long before it'd switch to a Milky Way project (which I wouldn't want it to do). I didn't realize it'd make each project attempt a 12-hour run or scale to a bigger unit that'd take 12 hours. I reset it to 3 as that's been a good turnaround for my usage. I hope the 12 hour units do give a lot of credit for the time spent though! ;)
4) Message boards : Number crunching : AE_2 / AEty_2 Units? (Message 69598) Posted 5 Feb 2011 by The-Real-Link Post: Rosetta work units aim to run to match your preferred run-time. If you have a run-time of 7 hours BOINC will keep running variations of the experiment (a "decoy") for the task until it gets close to the 7 hours. At the end of a decoy BOINC will take a look at the average time recent decoys have taken and decide if there is enough time to run another; e.g. if 5 hours have passed and decoys are only averaging 1 hour each then BOINC will try another decoy, but if 5 hours have passed and decoys are averaging 2 hours each then BOINC will see you will exceed the 7 hour run-time and stop at that 5 hour mark. Sometimes the last decoy may be more complex or BOINC miscalculates the average so you could exceed your preferred run-time by up to 4 hours (at 4 hours beyond the preferred run-time the "watchdog" activates and terminates the task in case the delay was caused by an error). These factors can lead to a great variety in the times that the different tasks run for. However, taking a look at one of your recent tasks the output report says you have "cpu_run_time_pref: 43200". That means BOINC thinks your preferred run-time is 43,200 seconds or 12 hours. If you don't want Rosetta tasks to run for that long you may want to check your preferences. Thanks for taking the time to go into detail about all that. In part, I found for some reason I was experimenting and had moved my CPU cores back up to 16 so both Rosetta and Milky Way were both "fighting" over CPU time and slowing both down. As soon as I moved my settings back, all the lengthy pending tasks suddenly finished at once, though a few were already near 12 hours anyway. I guess I will have to go back in my preferences and take a look at that. So am I correct in understanding that I should set that run time pref down to say, an hour? That way I'm not losting computational time or credit?
5) Message boards : Number crunching : AE_2 / AEty_2 Units? (Message 69596) Posted 4 Feb 2011 by The-Real-Link Post: Greetings, Just noticing that I'm getting some of these newer units (I'm guessing that the project is at a new stage or trying something else). The main question I had is whereas a normal Rosetta unit completes for me in a handful of hours, these AE units seem to be around 10-12 hours each. Is that normal? If this is a duplicate thread, sorry.
6) Message boards : Number crunching : Threads and Performance Questions (Message 69314) Posted 14 Jan 2011 by The-Real-Link Post: Hi everyone! While I've been a folder for quite some time, I was recommended by a friend to give Rosetta a shot. As such (it being the only BOINC project I've run), it's been fairly easy to get going. I did have a question or two though as Rosetta obviously operates a bit differently than the flags in F@H. 1. In the SMP core version of F@H, I can simply set the flag and F@H will auto-crunch one project with as many threads and cores as you have available. I see in the task manager for BOINC that it's downloaded and working on 16 projects at once (which is right as I have 8 physical / 16 HT cores). What I'm wondering though is that much like how I can put -SMP 15 in the F@H config to allow the GPU to work on one project as well, is there a noticable benefit to have Rosetta "tone down" on how many cores or threads it runs on? Should I just leave all 16 cores cranking along? I noticed after extensive F@H testing that the calculations were working a bit faster if I kept one thread free for the GPU work. If I maxed the CPU, it'd actually have the GPU slow down the CPU and both sets of projects would take longer. Is Rosetta like this or different? Is there an "ideal" way to run Rosetta? I still want to use the GPU for folding though if possible. 2. Any particular settings that'd help Rosetta crunch faster? I'm allowing it plenty of disk space and enough RAM for all the projects it's downloaded. Is simply OC'ing enough or would tighter RAM timings help (currently at auto which I think is something like 11-11-11-36), though the RAM is fine at 8-8-8-24 or 6-8-6-24. Are there any other optimizations I can do or just let it work? Thanks for the help.