Sorry, I leave this projet.
Admin publish information as links. Nice to be informed about . The latest is three years old !!!
The only recent (16july19 by admin) is about "audacious projects". Nice, but is not a part of Boinc.
And this link send us to donation requests !

And about projects who has nothing to do with sciencetific research, as educating people, sexual abuse,...
Of course there are also very important subjects, but
Does we think they not need the computing power of Boinc ?

But what they do to solve the problems of a lot of users ? Abnormal running, app crash,......
Nothing ! Or even good as nothing.Never answer about technical problems. The admin fully ignare the Boinc cruncher.
They just ignore us !

Well, you can't execute the benchmark since that are all your completed WUs. Whatever you did, will sort itself out with time.
You can force 64-bit only with <no_alt_platform> in cc_config.xml, but I would wait with that and see if the 64-bit application is really faster than the 32-bit, that's not always the case. Just watch the GFLOPS values. If it really is faster, the server will send most WUs to that application anyway, so no really need to do anything.

I was surprised to see that Rosetta 4.08 is the only 64-bit binary for Linux. Both copies of Minirosetta are 32-bit.
The 32-bit binaries end up with a smaller code footprint and pass parameters on the stack. The parameter list quickly spills to the stack, but they will be in the L1 cache which has a 1-cycle access time.

A 64-bt version will always be faster if compiled properly, unless you aggressively inline functions. The larger code footprint is causing front-end icache miss stalls.
I want to see how hard it is to modify the source to redefine their 3-dimensional "vector" object into a 4-dimensional vector so they can use packed SSE or AVX. Right now all Rosetta computation uses scalar operations.

thanks again.

I might throttle back to maybe 75% or 24 hyper-threads. See what happens. I went out and bought 2x16 GBs of DDR4 memory. So the system seems to recognize all 48 GBs of memory. I do not see much of a change in BIONC usage of memory. With 32 Active simulations, my memory foot print is around 13 GBs.

I fiddled with that setting. It seems to really cut my real cpu utilization. I set in the manager under options, computing preference, use at most 50% of the CPUs. I thought that would have run close to 100% of the 16 cores, but it seems to cut the real cpu utilization in half. Makes my brain hurt. I maybe making a run to MIcrocenter soon. Will ponder more memory, but it seems to do reasonably well with 16 GBs of RAM.

• BOINC is the "managing software" that allows projects such as Rosetta@Home or World Community grid from IBM to run their Workunits (WUs)
  
• The developers of BOINC aren't necessarily involved in the projects that ruin on BOINC.
  
• Credits are simply for "friendly competition" and keeping track of how much computation you've donated.
  
• RAC is the "daily average" of credits you get. It takes around a week or two for this number to stabilize. It helps determine how "fast" you're going. Total credit is the total mileage.
  
• It's good tip to not compare credits from one project to another due to the differences in how they calculate them. Rosetta gives you credit based on the number of models you create in each WU.
  

I don't know how updated this wiki is, but here ya go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOINC_Credit_System

There are tons of teams. Just go to https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/team.php to search. Or you can join the one I manage! (click my signature icon)
Teams can be individual to a certain project or they can be BOINC-wide (as is mine)... meaning it is present in every BOINC project available.

Again, welcome aboard!

It's a beast - looks like it's getting approx 845 credits per core, per day, so that'd give 27k if it's running 24/7 but it'll take a week or so to get there. That's insane throughput for a single CPU.

D

The chip is the about the size of a business card and really requires a cooler built for it's form factor. I'm sure somebody is going to knock the power usage, but I'm 100+% solar so the sun is helping cure cancer....

There is a new article in Nature co-authored by Dr. Baker:

De novo design of potent and selective mimics of IL-2 and IL-15

TN-Grid is getting to be my go-to project when nobody else has work. It is not yet listed by BOINC Manager, as it is still relatively new.
http://gene.disi.unitn.it/test/

There haven't been many posts in here. Sorry for the dead thread post and all...

The Ryzen 2600X is producing about 10,500 credits per day.

What seems to matter a lot are RAM speed and timings. I'm testing those now on the AMD systems. Going from 2133Mhz CL 16 to 2666Mhz CL16 produced almost a 5% gain in average credits over a 9-day period. I'm testing 3000Mhz at CL 15 now.

The Intel 6700k with 3000Mhz 15CL RAM is doing around 8,750 per day.

Since many of you seem interested, and mystified by the credit system at R@h, I'll try to clarify a few points. Some other projects simply use CPU seconds, or FLOPS of a task to issue credit. The problem with such a system is that it doesn't reward machines that achieve more work per second due to CPU cache, and memory available. It also depends upon the BOINC Manager to track and report the FLOPS expended on a task, and so some users began to falsify the FLOPS benchmarks and thus the FLOPS of their reported results.

To avoid these problems and design a credit system that would work going forward through new generations of hardware and capabilities, a system was adopted whereby credit granted is based on what OTHER user's machines have claimed for how difficult it is to complete each decoy (or model) of a task. The average of the results reported before you is used, rather than an arbitrary benchmark. So the credit granted does not favor a specific CPU type or operating system. It truly is based on completed work. Some tasks use different algorithms to compute their results. Assessing the effectiveness of a variety of algorithms is how the science progresses. This results in variations on computing resources required to complete them. Each type of task self-adjusts the credit it awards.

This makes a credit system that is great at reflecting the value of work to the Project Team, but makes it more difficult to benchmark your own machines. To do that well, you would have to run the same task, from the same starting seed for each benchmark run, and then compare CPU and wall-clock time, as well as the number of decoys produced. The BOINC Manager doesn't have a means of easily supporting this type of usage. Running tasks for other projects or a different class of proteins only tells you about those things. One machine might be faster than another at one type of work, and not with another type. The R@h credit system reflects the value of the outcome, without bias.

If that's the case than you should not run this project using a 16 core, 32 thread Threadripper as it is a waste of money and energy because it is being outperformed by a factor of 2 by a single 2 core Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU G1620 @ 2.70GHz [Family 6 Model 58 Stepping 9].

As you can see here this host https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=3391974 is ranked at 45 and is producing slightly more in Rosetta than a 22 core, 44 thread Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2696 v4 @ 2.20GHz [Family 6 Model 79 Stepping 1]


Thank you for the clarification.