Posts by Warped

21) Message boards : Cafe Rosetta : Cheap way of recruiting (Idea) (Message 70585)
Posted 19 Jun 2011 by Warped
i think you should change it to what are you doing with yours

Agreed - I'm not doing anything with your PC!
22) Message boards : Number crunching : Problems with web site (Message 70446)
Posted 30 May 2011 by Warped
I have 17 tasks which seem to have disappeared. They are listed in my website account Tasks List as having been sent on 24 May, with a deadline of 3 June. However they are not in the BOINC Manager tasks list. Obviously, I cannot now abort them. It would appear that all I can now do is simply leave them and allow them to expire.
23) Message boards : Number crunching : Problems and Technical Issues with Rosetta@home (Message 70445)
Posted 30 May 2011 by Warped
Hey guys, I submitted a new job for MVH, which you can read about in the protein-protein interface thread if you're interested. This job is slightly different from the previous ones (it includes more stubs), so I wanted to do some extra checking to make sure that it wouldn't break anything.

Hopefully, I'll get some jobs for Ebola targets later this week!

Shawn, thanks for sorting out the checkpointing issue - a vast improvement.
24) Message boards : Rosetta@home Science : Design of protein-protein interfaces (Message 70339)
Posted 14 May 2011 by Warped
Thanks for the response, Mod.Sense.

I agree with you:
Changing the runtime preference really doesn't improve you odds, it just depends on whether the last model under review at the end of the runtime preference happens to be long-running.

However, what I mean is that the proportion of my total run time which did useful crunching will be higher if a longer target CPU run time were selected. If I had a 16 hour run time preference, I would waste a much smaller proportion of my crunching time if 4 hours were wasted on every work unit than would be the case if I merely used the default of 3 hours per work unit and then wasted 4 hours at the end of each one.

Should the administrators not be suggesting that we increase this run time preference if the machine is always on? In particular since it seems that there is no way of determining (or selecting) which work unit type we will receive. In my limited experience, the MV-H tasks seem to be prone to this long checkpoint issue.
25) Message boards : Rosetta@home Science : Design of protein-protein interfaces (Message 70335)
Posted 14 May 2011 by Warped
@ Sarel. It's good to see the results of our crunching being of benefit.

@ Shawn. I have a preference of 4 hours (i.e. 14400 seconds) of runtime. One of the MVH tasks (this one) ran for 21381 seconds and yielded a paltry 2.65 points credit. It completed only 5 decoys.

Another task (second one) ran for 27798 seconds and completed 12 decoys and I received 59.17 points, also well below the average rate for this machine on Rosetta.

Both of these tasks had watchdog force a shutdown. What occurred to me is that each decoy seems to take quite long to complete causing the last one to run well beyond the preferred work unit run time. It appears that the forced shutdown by watchdog is wasting valuable crunching time.

What to do about this is difficult to answer:
1. Should we increase the preferred runtime so that the proportion of time wasted when watchdog ends the unit is reduced?
2. We are not able to select different types of work units for each profile (as is the case at WCG) in order to minimise time lost. This would help.
3. Does checkpointing occur only at the end of each decoy? Is it possible to change this?
4. Is it possible to reduce the run length of the decoys?
26) Message boards : Rosetta@home Science : Design of protein-protein interfaces (Message 70320)
Posted 11 May 2011 by Warped
I am running a couple of these tasks and need to reboot my computer and do not want to lose hours of core time when there is some way of avoiding this. I cannot sit for ages checking on the task properties.

Is it possible to predict when a checkpoint will take place?
27) Message boards : Number crunching : Next Generation SAN in use? (Message 69533)
Posted 30 Jan 2011 by Warped
On the front page the news item for 7 Jan 2011 says:

"... We only need a few more weeks and then our new, next generation SAN will be ready to be put into place... I just thought the old one would last a few more week. I apologize for the hassle and appreciate your patience as we get things online again... KEL"

Am I correct in assuming that this new SAN has not yet been brought into use?
28) Message boards : Number crunching : Communication during recent downtime (Message 69470)
Posted 22 Jan 2011 by Warped
May I suggest: News on Project Outages for when the rosie boards are down?

Not bad, but I'm also aware that posts into News on the R@H front page gets propogated to boincstats front news page too.

This should be used for 'good' news as well as updowntime reports as it gets seen by Boincers who may not be aware how active the work of this project is.

Well either one or both should work.
Here is some news on the hardware front from Dr. Baker's journal: "First, I would like to thank everybody for bearing with us while we recovered from a critical server hardware failure. Over the next month or two we will be installing more powerful and more robust hardware so hopefully this will not happen again."
This quote is old news, check the date... ;-)


Looks fairly recent to me.
29) Message boards : Number crunching : Project File Upload Handler Is Missing (Message 69238)
Posted 12 Jan 2011 by Warped
Murasaki asked ...

do you mean the Chelsea we "adopted" in London about 1,000 years before the American war of independence? Or perhaps you mean another namesake?

Yea, now that you mention it I guess that's the one. World famous home of the Pensioners and Johnny Rotten. Nothing more than a tongue-in-cheek attempt to rag Sid a little about his heritage.

A lame attempt at keeping things light while I voiced my disagreement with his logic.

However, I did not expect you to sneak up behind me - your solid vocabulary, precise grammar, and obvious intellect had led me to assume that you were - whats the word I'm looking for - ah yes, American.


1. The less said about Chelsea (UK, Michigan or elsewhere), the better. The way my team is playing at present, I'm almost ashamed to admit that I'm a supporter!
2. I assume you mean North America as opposed to Central or South America?

30) Message boards : Number crunching : no work (Message 68421)
Posted 5 Nov 2010 by Warped
Not only no work, but also a lot of "pending credit" which is unusual in R@H. That explains the low TFlop estimate.

Indeed, just at the start of the weekend which probably means no improvement until Monday.
31) Message boards : Number crunching : minirosetta 2.15 (Message 67815)
Posted 24 Sep 2010 by Warped
The upload is only 231KB, which is insignificant.
32) Message boards : Number crunching : minirosetta 2.15 (Message 67811)
Posted 24 Sep 2010 by Warped
Thanks for the response, Mod.Sense. My concern was that I had workunits which needed to be aborted.

I have some time yet before my first 2.15 task completes as I have selected a 10-hour run time option.

I'll try to catch the upload but may miss it.
33) Message boards : Number crunching : minirosetta 2.15 (Message 67804)
Posted 24 Sep 2010 by Warped
Does this version ignore the limit of 100 models per workunit?

I have a workunit which has reached 300 models and another has done 200. Both are only about 20% complete.
34) Message boards : Number crunching : Discussion on increasing the default run time (Message 67553)
Posted 2 Sep 2010 by Warped
Thanks for the detailed response, Mod.Sense. It certainly helps me understand how best I can contribute.
35) Message boards : Number crunching : Discussion on increasing the default run time (Message 67549)
Posted 2 Sep 2010 by Warped
Am I correct in assuming that this proposal has been shelved?

Furthermore, please excuse my ignorance about the way the project works, am I correct in the following statements?:
1. Each work unit is pre-populated with 99 (or 100) models.
2. The work unit stops when the earlier of the pre-selected run time or the 99 models is run.
3. In the case that the run time causes the work unit to end, the models remaining untested are discarded and not used for future work units.
4. There are (for practical purposes) an infinite number of possible models, so, assuming point 3 to be correct, discarding the untested models is not an issue.
5. Given that the possible models are "infinite", there should never be a shortage of work units.
6. Shorter work units impact the server load but reduce the risk of crashing before completion or watchdog picking up an error.
7. Longer work units reduce the server load and reduce the risk of running out of work in the case of server issues such as we have recently experienced.
36) Message boards : Number crunching : no work units (Message 67548)
Posted 2 Sep 2010 by Warped

It would be nice to hear confirmation that everybody is receiving new work.

You can safely assume that the work flow is back to normal again:
1. As you have observed, the teraFLOPS reported has increased dramatically and is fast approaching the normal levels.
2. The server status page is reporting in excess of 20k workunits ready to send.
3. All the moans about no work have ceased.
4. Those of us who have required work and commented have received it immediately.

I trust the cause has been identified and will not recur.
37) Message boards : Number crunching : no work units (Message 67457)
Posted 30 Aug 2010 by Warped
The West Coast of the USA should be waking up and getting back to work soon. Hopefully the issue can be resolved quickly.

I suspect the make_work servers need some attention.
38) Message boards : Number crunching : Teraflops drop... why? (Message 67429)
Posted 29 Aug 2010 by Warped

The servers are all reporting as okay, but we are getting conflicting messages of "Total queued jobs: 2,090,398" on the main page but "Ready to send 1" on the server page. There must be something on the server side that is slowing down those 2 million jobs when passing through the system; some work is coming through but nowhere near as much as normal.

The messages are not in conflict. This is explained here and here.

The two make_work servers seem to be on a go-slow.

39) Message boards : Number crunching : SERVER PROBLEMS - 2. (Message 67200)
Posted 13 Aug 2010 by Warped
Is there still no news on when we can expect the servers to be back on line?

I am unable to upload completed work.
40) Message boards : Number crunching : Facebook App for milestones posting (Message 63115)
Posted 1 Sep 2009 by Warped
Thanks - that's great (nice and prominent).

You're a real wizard. The work done over at PrimeGrid (I imagine with raw data from Rytis) is also much appreciated.

Previous 20 · Next 20

©2021 University of Washington