Posts by Carlos_Pfitzner

1) Message boards : Cafe Rosetta : Free Games to play online (Message 30496)
Posted 2 Nov 2006 by Profile Carlos_Pfitzner
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 Profile Carlos_Pfitzner
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 Profile Carlos_Pfitzner
Post:


June 21, 2006
Our recommended memory requirement has been reduced to 256MB due to recent improvements in the memory footprint of our application.


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 Profile Carlos_Pfitzner
Post:
MCDN has opened account creation again to expand from 500 to 2000 members. Get 'em while they're hot!

Account creation page.

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 Profile Carlos_Pfitzner
Post:
G'day hawkeyefan

Welcome to Rosetta@Home.

To merge computers they have to be exactly the same, this includes the Operating System. So these computers will not merge.




D'OH! well anway I'll be running mostly on the Vista installation

thanks for the clarification and the welcome


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 Profile Carlos_Pfitzner
Post:
Carlos,

If Rosetta wasn't using your CPU time, what was?? Sometimes another program gets stuck and steals all the cycles. Another thing that has happened to me once or twice is that the system idle process takes the cycles, and BOINC makes no move to use them. When this happens, I shut down BOINC, and then restart it (ie give it a kick in the pants)... that almost always gets it going again.

Good luck!


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 Profile Carlos_Pfitzner
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 Profile Carlos_Pfitzner
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 Profile Carlos_Pfitzner
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 Profile Carlos_Pfitzner
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"


2006-06-10 23:38:34 [rosetta@home] Message from server: Your computer has only 254119936 bytes of memory; workunit requires 245880064 more bytes


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 Profile Carlos_Pfitzner
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 Profile Carlos_Pfitzner
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.

The new version soon to appear on ralph will also have a fix Rom put in for graphics problems; as reported on the boards, a good fraction of the errors seem to be associated with the graphics (I suspect the fact that they consume lots of memory is part of the problem), and in the new versions graphics related errors should abort the graphics but not disrupt completion of the Rosetta calculation.


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 Profile Carlos_Pfitzner
Post:
...

Recent progress in the BOINC world is towards awarding credits based on real work done (which I expect to upset some people accustomed to ultra-high benchmarks fitting in L2 cache, as in the case of real science apps accessing memory, often 3GHz and 2GHz PCs might actually doing roughly the same amount of real work per unit of time).


I do hope that Rosetta moves towards this model soon :-) I have two PCs, one AMD, one Intel, both are roughly similar in speed, but the AMD appears to get twice the credit (on Rosetta) that the Intel does. The other projects I crunch for (CPDN, Seasonal, BBC/CCE) all give points based on the work unit rather than the benchmarks, which I think is a 'good thing'.

Incidentally, I noticed that the credits per work unit have gone up by 50% or so on the Intel box since 5.16, which makes things fairer I feel. I haven't run Rosetta on the higher-scoring AMD recently so can't compare, since it's currently dedicated exclusively to a 3 month work unit...


-----


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 Profile Carlos_Pfitzner
Post:
http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=210800

http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=210798

http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=210801

http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=213206

http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=210805

http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=210806

Here's 6 of them, this individual is scaming the credit system bigtime!!!!




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 Profile Carlos_Pfitzner
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?


Sooner. Absolutely without question. Just make it fair.


Please make the benchmark balanced between windows & linux.


*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 Profile Carlos_Pfitzner
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 Profile Carlos_Pfitzner
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 Profile Carlos_Pfitzner
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 Profile Carlos_Pfitzner
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 Profile Carlos_Pfitzner
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


Next 20



©2023 University of Washington
https://www.bakerlab.org