Posts by Keith Akins

1) Message boards : Rosetta@home Science : DISCUSSION of Rosetta@home Journal (3) (Message 40463)
Posted 7 May 2007 by Keith Akins
Post:
That\'s Ok.

I guess that the main point I was making, where DNA is concerned, a number of mechanisms keep the DNA in a relatively high energy state. When a DNA containing organism dies, the DNA begins to uncoil and rapidly looses energy. It\'s almost like these mechanisms keep the cellular batteries charged and charged batteries contain energy. That\'s probably the energy of life.

That was my concern with RNA. Is RNA considered a \"living\" part of the cell? If so, then I don\'t think that the energy question can be answered by lowest energy.

Anyway I appreciate your response.
2) Message boards : Number crunching : How to running rosetta on PC without Internet connections? (Message 39951)
Posted 27 Apr 2007 by Keith Akins
Post:
If one machine has a broadband connection, then you might try an inexpensive router or router switch combo to hook them up.
3) Message boards : Number crunching : Claimed/granted credit (Message 39868)
Posted 25 Apr 2007 by Keith Akins
Post:
First of all, let me apologize to anyone I might have unintentionally offended. I was simply trying to make the point that if my RAC were somewhat stable to what it used to run, then all would be well.

If a system, by honest means, consistantly holds an RAC of 235+ since the introduction of the new credit system over several months, then there\'s no reason why it shouldn\'t hold in this range. I kept waiting for this recent drop in RAC to even out. It kept falling. This is all I was trying to say.

Again Apologies.
4) Message boards : Number crunching : Claimed/granted credit (Message 39846)
Posted 25 Apr 2007 by Keith Akins
Post:
Implying that users are somehow being pety or expecting eveness of credits over time is somehow expecting too much I think might be interpreted the wrong way by both individuals and teams who come to any project to compete.

SETI@Home established the standard for all BOINC projects by being the first to conceive and implement DC/Grid Computing. SETI saw fit to establish a fair credit system to reflect as honestly as possible a person\'s/machine\'s contribution to the project.

I think the second statement really reflects what the credit system concept is really all about.

I still beleive that Rosie is a worthy project, but it\'s not the only worthy project. I didn\'t go to QMC out of haste. I carefully researched the projects before joining QMC.
5) Message boards : Number crunching : Claimed/granted credit (Message 39819)
Posted 24 Apr 2007 by Keith Akins
Post:
This will probably be my last post on this subject. I moved to QMC less than two weeks ago and my RAC is already at 267 and clinbing. Here my RAC fell from 235+ to barely 200 with the same machine.

If there is a larger L2 cache requirement for many of the new WU\'s, then that would explain why the 1MB L2 cache machines have experienced this drop.

As to Intel vs. AMD, my machine is an Intel P4 running at 2.8GHZ, 1MB L2 Cache with 1GB 333MHz Dual Channel DDR ram.
6) Message boards : Number crunching : Got error 134 from storage engine (Message 39241)
Posted 10 Apr 2007 by Keith Akins
Post:
Is there a major domain name server in that area? West Tennessee lost something this morning as URL\'s could not be resolved. IP addresses would attempt to connect but failed. The power surge may have been rather wide spread.
7) Message boards : Number crunching : Claimed/granted credit (Message 39088)
Posted 6 Apr 2007 by Keith Akins
Post:
The most memory used by rosetta on my \"Task Manager\", on the docking units, was about 120MB. I don\'t think that you would be hitting the celing on ram.

Oh, I just remembered something. When the new credit system was tested on RALPH last year, someone commented that P4\'s would do much better on scores. P4\'s got seriously short changed on the benchmark system. I don\'t know how claimed credit is calculated, but the claimed credits looked about the same under the new system. So it would be reasonable that P4\'s would be granted about 20% or higher average granted credits under the new system.

I finally see my system getting back above 200 RAC now. Maybe, for me, these inefficiencies get worse the longer a WU runs. 4 hour \"Target CPU Time\" seems to be working.
8) Message boards : Number crunching : Claimed/granted credit (Message 39085)
Posted 6 Apr 2007 by Keith Akins
Post:
greg_be, According to David Kim\'s post, I think that the team is leaning in that direction. They\'re running many more UW types than usual. Coupled with the side-chain linking which can take up to three minutes on the Fold-Dock units and the units probably don\'t work as efficiently as before. Some machines are noticing this more than others.
9) Message boards : Number crunching : Claimed/granted credit (Message 39072)
Posted 6 Apr 2007 by Keith Akins
Post:
That\'s alright Michael. Don\'t feel bad bringing up honest concerns. I\'m going to let it ride for a while. David Kim is trying to optimize the sidechain problem and make the WU\'s more efficient (According to his post).

The AMD users appear to be taking the biggest hit and I hope that they stay for a while.
10) Message boards : Number crunching : Claimed/granted credit (Message 39068)
Posted 5 Apr 2007 by Keith Akins
Post:
Am I the only single core Intel P4 on the project?

My scores have not been wobely, but have dropped consistenly for two weeks and continuing.

I\'ve had to actually lower my target CPU time and Connect To Server settings to hold my own. Maybe my RAC will get back to 200. It used to run 225+ easily.
11) Message boards : Number crunching : Claimed/granted credit (Message 39043)
Posted 5 Apr 2007 by Keith Akins
Post:
At a huge risk (and I\'m kinda paranoid bringing this up), the pervious credit discussion last year involved the BOINC benchmark credit system (benchmark & CPU Time) Where if a machine benched higher, it would score higher.

This seems to be the opposite. If your machine completes much more work than the benchmarks would indicate then you score higher. (I get it now).

If the gamming machines are getting more work done then that\'s great!

However, if your machine does the same ammount of work as it did three weeks ago, Then your scores go down instead of remaining the same.

I just hate to see anyone\'s contribution be less valued for the same amount of work as before.

Fingers crossed as I click \"Post\".
12) Message boards : Number crunching : Claimed/granted credit (Message 39023)
Posted 5 Apr 2007 by Keith Akins
Post:
I though that scores were based on what like-systems were getting on RALPH and not on what a dissimilar gamming system was scoring?
13) Message boards : Number crunching : Claimed/granted credit (Message 39020)
Posted 5 Apr 2007 by Keith Akins
Post:
I got between 70 and 80 per workunit consistenly with an RAC of 225+. I the past two weeks, these have also seen the same reduction of granted credit and RAC fell to 205. I did a complete re-install to lean the system and the down time reduced the RAC to what you see now. Downtime was three hours. (easy to loose; hard to get back)

System is visible for all to see. No hardware changes and task manager shows 99+% CPU on rosetta over a five minute period.

The Rosetta team is checking for any code inefficiencies that may be causing the lower scores.

System runs 24/7.
14) Message boards : Number crunching : Problems with Rosetta version 5.59 (Message 38994)
Posted 4 Apr 2007 by Keith Akins
Post:
Tim, I\'ve noticed that too. Did your CPU time reset or did it remain the same?

% complete by itself will not affect work completed that has been checkpointed. If this happens again, double check your CPU time and model number. That will tell the story.
15) Message boards : Number crunching : Problems with Rosetta version 5.59 (Message 38955)
Posted 4 Apr 2007 by Keith Akins
Post:
Feet1st, I\'ve noticed that along with the first three docking models completing within the first hour with model four-on taking from 45 minutes to over an hour.
16) Message boards : Number crunching : Problems with Rosetta version 5.59 (Message 38920)
Posted 3 Apr 2007 by Keith Akins
Post:
OK. I\'ve done a comlete re-install of my system and the CPU is now running a consistent 99% on task manager. Before I had some unusual background process activity eating as much as 4%.

Give me a few days to see if my RAC comes back around.

Talk about Spring Cleaning!
17) Message boards : Rosetta@home Science : How can we bring more users to the Rosetta project? (Message 38906)
Posted 3 Apr 2007 by Keith Akins
Post:
What does SETI@Home have that we don\'t? Their userbase remains quite high. Maybe we need to run some alien DNA.
18) Message boards : Rosetta@home Science : How can we bring more users to the Rosetta project? (Message 38882)
Posted 2 Apr 2007 by Keith Akins
Post:
A Pentium 4 draws probably what a 100W lightbulb draws. Replace the most used rooms with 26W curly-cue bulbs and usage is offset.

Future computers will draw less power per thread than today\'s machines, increasing energy efficiency.

There are a number of other ways to check carbon footprints and lower elecrtic bills. A tankless waterheater is a great step foward as it only heats what is used instead of what is stored.

That\'s a way to at least counter the environmental concerns.
19) Message boards : Number crunching : Problems with Rosetta version 5.59 (Message 38874)
Posted 2 Apr 2007 by Keith Akins
Post:
My problem is not any kind of errors, but with the steady drop in granted credit over the past two weeks along with a five month RAC of 225+ to 206.

I\'ve heard that these even out. However, mine appears to be a steady consistant drop.

There have been code efficiency problems in the past, and I\'m wondering if any inefficiencies exist in 5.5X.

My system goes 24/7 except for a periodic system check every two weeks (aprox..5 to 10 minutes).

I don\'t have any garbage running as I check XP\'s task manager regularly. This only started about two weeks ago.
20) Message boards : Number crunching : Problems with Rosetta version 5.54 (Message 38868)
Posted 2 Apr 2007 by Keith Akins
Post:
My problem is not any kind of errors, but with the steady drop in granted credit over the past two weeks along with a five month RAC of 225+ to 206.

I\'ve heard that these even out. However, mine appears to be a steady consistant drop.

There have been code efficiency problems in the past, and I\'m wondering if any inefficiencies exist in 5.5X.


Next 20



©2019 University of Washington
http://www.bakerlab.org