1)
Message boards :
Cafe Rosetta :
Free Games to play online
(Message 30496)
Posted 2 Nov 2006 by ![]() Post: Cause my site had changed url, I am posting again my free games I would had preferred editing my previuos post to change url However on boinc forums seems that this is not possible -:( There are actually four games http://roberto.webhop.biz/games.html First and Second, nice to 28800 bps connections Third, plays better on a 56 kbps connection The fourth works on above connections speeds too, however at these speeds, delay some minutes to start playing my site traffic ![]() Have 10mbit of spare bandwidth on your Internet link ? Join my team , FaDBeens , on this DC project. (run it togheter with boinc) http://www.majestic12.co.uk/projects/dsearch/stats.php Visit our team Forum http://www.fadbeens.co.uk/phpBB2/index.php and join FaDBeens on all projects we crunch for, BOINC and standalone. Happy online play |
2)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Orphan/Ghost WUs
(Message 19344)
Posted 27 Jun 2006 by ![]() Post: YES -This problem of Ghost / Phantom WU(s) is a BOINC problem and this problem cost many teraflops to projecs / science I have seen this occuring with regular frequecy in about all projects I crunch for. To not end-up with lots and lots of pending credits, the projects are forced to use Initial replication 3 , when only 2 would suffice. A REAL WASTE OF COMPUTING POWER ! Either the boinc server software running here is too old, -or- this problem was never fixed by boinc developers. However seems that Einstein@home is using a custom scheduler hack which resends the results already assigned to the host, if host asks for more work and does not list them in "already have" list. They call it "lost results". You could ask them for the patch - I'd say it's rather useful feature. I wonder why this hack is not default behavior of BOINC and why until today this remains "unfixed" on boinc server side software -:( |
3)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Is this true ?
(Message 19342)
Posted 27 Jun 2006 by ![]() Post:
I keep seeing this message on the log_file of my computers with 256 MB of physical RAM, plus a Gigabyte of swap space -:( rosetta@home 6/26/2006 10:57:18 PM Message from server: Your computer has only 254119936 bytes of memory; workunit requires 245880064 more bytes Well, for now, is only more one message filling up log files disk space requirements. May be, tomorrow, the server stops sending work -:( If this happens, dont worry, join my team, http://www.malariacontrol.net/create_account_form.php?teamid=106 and Let's help the Africans -:) |
4)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
MalariaControl accounts available.
(Message 19341)
Posted 27 Jun 2006 by ![]() Post: MCDN has opened account creation again to expand from 500 to 2000 members. Get 'em while they're hot! Yes! join my team there, http://www.malariacontrol.net/create_account_form.php?teamid=106 and Let's help the Africans -:) |
5)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Can't merge computers
(Message 19340)
Posted 27 Jun 2006 by ![]() Post: G'day hawkeyefan In other projects, I was allowed to merge hosts, even with different host names, different-OS(s) different RAM and different CPU type However thats not very important -:) *Only this masquerades the number of computers I have attached to the project. |
6)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Stuck at 74.101% using 0.000% CPU
(Message 18949)
Posted 19 Jun 2006 by ![]() Post: Carlos, No other program was using my CPU time In fact the CPU get cold, in a risk of cracking silicon an rendering my PC innoperant Overall system response was then, very quickly (fast) After aborting this one, the next crunched OK -:) |
7)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Can't merge computers
(Message 18917)
Posted 19 Jun 2006 by ![]() Post: Still cannot merge these two hosts http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/host_edit_action.php?id_0=170243&id_1=114836&nhosts=2 They are the same hardware (dual boot) On configuring DNS servers domain at the root of the forest, I made a mistake, what resulted in two equal hosts with different names carlos.cp3 and carlos And now, they don't merge -:( Thanks, |
8)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Stuck at 74.101% using 0.000% CPU
(Message 18916)
Posted 19 Jun 2006 by ![]() Post: Thus, manually aborted, after 3 hours of CPU IDLE ! http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/result.php?resultid=24659040 Rosetta 5.22 Windows -:( Thanks, Hi! mod, the thread of stuck & aborted WUs is getting 10 minutes to download on my 28800 bps dialup ! So, I started this new one, to report WUs stuck at 74.101% with 0.000% of CPU usage -:) I hope this new one will be keept small ! |
9)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Report Problems with Rosetta Version 5.22
(Message 18913)
Posted 19 Jun 2006 by ![]() Post: stuck at 74.101% Rosetta 5.22 Windows 0.0000% of CPU usage Thus, aborted by hand after 3 hours of IDLE time! http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/result.php?resultid=24659040 Thanks |
10)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Report Problems With BOINC SERVER UPGRADE
(Message 18440)
Posted 11 Jun 2006 by ![]() Post: After the "UPgrade" One of my pcs, that crunched OK before that continued crunching OK -:) Great !!! Only there is this additional message on the "log" at each "Work Request"
And then, the job cruches OK, and upload OK, without any erros ! So, the message is misleading Thanks |
11)
Message boards :
Rosetta@home Science :
CASP7 to start in April
(Message 17326)
Posted 29 May 2006 by ![]() Post: http://predictioncenter.genomecenter.ucdavis.edu/casp7/targets/cgi/casp7-view.cgi Well, in order to provide "more computing power" to casp7 I have requested "no more work" for following projects, I crunch too. Xlab, Pirates, Boinc Alpha, Prime grid, Seti, Seti beta, Leiden, Eisntein, qmc, Tampaku, Wcg, simap, hashclash. I have toughth, some doubts. 1) Should I request "no more work" to ralph too ? 2) Until what date, exactly, there will be need of that "extra crunching power?" *By reading above link, this date was not clear to me. Ofcourse, I will continue crunching some of the above listed projects, on PCs that are not able to crunch for Rosetta. eg: "Low ram" < 64 MB, "Low CPU power" < 500 mhz, "Powers on sporadically", et like Please, dont call me of "Cheater", If my RAC go above 1000 I will be crunching mostly *only* Rosetta, so, about my full "computer power" will shown up. Thanks, |
12)
Message boards :
Rosetta@home Science :
Comments/questions on Rosetta@home journal
(Message 17304)
Posted 29 May 2006 by ![]() Post: I wrote an internal benchmark for Rosetta last week, and Rom now has a version that uses this to compute credits. Rom suggests however that we wait until after CASP to deploy it because it may take a few iterations to make it acceptable to everybody. I don't know how difficult it will be to "get it right", but I'd like to start testing it on Ralph soon. How about instead of a "Internal benchmak" really counting flops and using the proper boinc interface for this case ? http://boinc.berkeley.edu/api.php Credit reporting By default, the claimed credit of a result is based on the product of its total CPU time and the benchmark values obtained by the core client. This can produce results that are too low if the application uses processor-specific optimizations not present in the core client, is compiled with different compiler settings, or uses a GPU or other non-CPU computing resource. To handle such cases, the following functions can be used. void boinc_ops_per_cpu_second(double floating_point_ops, double integer_ops); This reports the results of an application-specific benchmark, expressed as number of floating-point and integer operations per CPU second. void boinc_ops_cumulative(double floating_point_ops, double integer_ops); This reports the total number of floating-point and integer operations since the start of the result. It must be called just before boinc_finish(), and optionally at intermediate points. Why Rosetta, currently, does not use any optimization ? Using 3Dnow! (for Atlhon XP+) and (sse2 for Pentium IV & others) can shirink the CPU time required to finish a float-point WU by 6 times (1:6) So, why not ? BTW: Was that "Internal benchmark" compared with a credited benchmark program ? eg: Sisoft Sandra http://downloads.guru3d.com/download.php?det=177 ps: boinc is well know to produce very low (fantasy) benchmarks. Do u believe, that some team leader, wanting credits to place his team on top position, will crunch by standard boinc benchmarks ? *using a optimized boinc togheter with an optimized application my pc can produce 22 credits/hour *and I get this granted even on projects that do use "Quorum" and not everyone is using "optimized" boinc/application, cause I claim the *same* credits that someome else claim, using "standard" boinc/application *Only they claim that *same* credits after 6 hours crunching a WU while my pc is able to claim that *same* credits, at each hour -:) Thus, I am not cheating in any way, *and the importance of the "optimizations" ! that in the end, only causes science go a lot faster. and the CPU Hotter! Thanks, |
13)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Are these benchmarks right?
(Message 17294)
Posted 29 May 2006 by ![]() Post: ... ----- Indeed AMD produces about two times the work of a P4 clock by clock On a P4 1800 MHZ I crunch one einsten WU on 6 hours while on a AMD 1600 MHZ I crunch one einstein WU on *one* (1) hour. So, Indeed AMD must get more credits than P4 ! *More than 6 times the work done of a simimilar CPU at same clock speed ! BTW: This fact is *not* a rosetta problem. And this discussion must me moved to a AMD or a Intel Thread However, wanting that rosetta grant ths *same* credits to Intel than the credits that are granted to AMD only cause *equal* clock speed is a overkill *even* with *same* FLOPS AMD do twice the work Intel do *These CPUs do have a different overall design. So, 1 Flop AMD == 2 Flops Intel Thus, Real work done is *not* the same thing as countig "FLOPS" Simap , for example uses *only* Integer arithmetic. So, FLOPS has no value at all ! (for simap) *on 1 CPU cycle, a AMD 3DNow! instruction do more than 200 flops do -:! ps: How much Intel has payd you for this proposal ? |
14)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Is this for real???
(Message 17291)
Posted 29 May 2006 by ![]() Post: http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=210800 My Internet Link is faster than the Internet link of those above! see http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=170243 *I can block a Intercontinental backbone from operating, if I want. Have occured to you that the computers above are virtual computers running into this one computer ? (it has 20 teraflops) http://www.cray.com Probably *Anonymous cause they dont asked the supercomputer conter boss before Err .... They have made few virtual computers ... http://www.vmware.com So, the benchmarks go too high -:( *Anyway they are *not* cheating. Else, there will be impossible they crunching 101 WUs / day, on each virtual computer. Cheers, |
15)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Just a heads up for you folks.
(Message 17286)
Posted 29 May 2006 by ![]() Post: A question for members of the teams vying for dominance--Rom is currently working on an a benchmark internal to the rosetta code that will ultimately used in calculating credits. would you like to see this on rosetta@home sooner or later? *May be implement a quorum of 2 instead. Has two advantages 1) A diff can be run to verify that both results are equal ! Greater for science Integrity **(some high overclocked computers may produce wrong results) 2) Grant the average claimed. granted = (high_claim + low_claim)/2 *Prime grid actually grants credit this way May be then, askof produce a optimzed bynaries to speed up crunching *On Einsten their optimized binary reduced the crunching time *from ( 6 hours / WU ) to ( 1 hour / WU ) May be he can do the same here ? |
16)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Just a heads up for you folks.
(Message 17284)
Posted 29 May 2006 by ![]() Post: 33 TFLOPS go baby go!! I have 20 TFLOPS on one computer ! Read here technical specifications U can buy a dozen of them, and go to 240 TFLOPS , easily ! Cray Brazil Cray Computadores do Brasil Ltda Rua Dom Pedro II, 1240 - cj 405 Porto Alegre, RS, CEP 90550-141 Brasil Phone: 55-51-3337-8960 Fax: 55-51-3337-8721 ps: CEP = postal code BTW: Im starting to make a low cost, 2 TFLOPS desktop, for sale. *Verify u can pay the electric bill before buying my desktop(s) -> (1KVA) |
17)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Default computer location (rosetta preferences)
(Message 16708)
Posted 20 May 2006 by ![]() Post: There is no annoucement yet and now, with BAM creating a new host ID every hour u can use mathematics to calculate how many hosts will appears on my list by the end of the year , if merge hosts remains disabled -:( *I am not yet using BAM on rosetta cause this BAM prb and cause a potential infinite list of duplicates that cannot be merged -:( BTW: I need to set default host location to --- (blank) (null) for new hosts on rosetta preferences *The pull-down menu does not show this venue -:( So, new hosts will use my "default" general preferences -and- in case of a new duplicate created by BAM, this will not affect existing host venue ... that will continue to use the existing one, (wheater it is) until I "fix" venue of each duplicate by hand -:) Thanks |
18)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Wrong computers shown by hosts_user_php
(Message 16699)
Posted 20 May 2006 by ![]() Post: I have now 4 hosts attached to rosetta 117981 173727 170243 198436 118115 is an old duplicate of 198436 -> caused by detach/attach I want to merge 114836 is a duplicate of 170243 but have different names and don't merge This last one pair was caused by a dual boot of win2k win98 the old one carlos is the same as carlos.cp3 with diffrent O/S only I want to merge too ... now, my dual boot win2k/win98 do have exactly the same host name carlos.cp3 and the same ip too 192.168.0.1 -x-x-x-x-x-x-x- However what I was reporting as wrong computers is that http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/hosts_user.php?userid=42027 --and-- http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/hosts_user.php?userid=784 *are both showing exactly the *same* list of computers as http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/hosts_user.php So, I suspect of a misconfigured webcache on the way -:( especially cause that these URLs *only* shown the rigth list of hosts after I hit "refresh" on my browser (IE6) a dozen of times -:( Other than a misconfigured webcache, I suspect of some cookie of rosetta Thanks |
19)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Wrong computers shown by hosts_user_php
(Message 16665)
Posted 19 May 2006 by ![]() Post: Please read this thread to understand http://www.boincstats.com/forums/index.php?s=335447c52e32accf090e07b92ebb07e3&showtopic=1157 And let me know here u guess about the cause of this problem Thanks |
20)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Default computer location (rosetta preferences)
(Message 16324)
Posted 15 May 2006 by ![]() Post: On this url http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/prefs_edit_form.php?subset=project Was removed the hability of set default computer location ---- Meaning newly created computer will be created at default (global) location Now, only home school work are being allowed So, at each new host I attach I had to manually set the new host Venue to ---- (global/default) *This, after my new host crash, or is flooded by WUs -:( I do have different preferences to ---- and the others 3 , regardimg RAM usage and connect to Network ! BTW: When merge hosts will be allowed again ? Thanks |
©2023 University of Washington
https://www.bakerlab.org