Posts by Nemesis

21) Message boards : Number crunching : Problems with Rosetta version 5.59 (Message 39631) Posted 20 Apr 2007 by Nemesis Post: No one is going to look into this are they? Validate state Valid Claimed credit 93.0845086817385 Granted credit 8.09930888889199 application version 5.59 This one of those OH Well Too Bad.. I though the new and improved credit system was supposed to give credit for work done. Can someone please explain to me how a Operton with 1meg cache work on a wu for over 6hrs and get awarded 8 credits? The way I understand it, you get the average of everyone running the same group of WUs (SEARCH_PAIRINGS_-1dhn-blah-blah-blah....). It certainly isn't fair when a statistically abnormal WU comes along in the group, as you found out. I doubt you'll ever get enough significantly shorter-than-normal WUs to ever make it up. I think this falls into the "Sorry, Charlie" category.
22) Message boards : Number crunching : WU run times out of whack (Message 39589) Posted 19 Apr 2007 by Nemesis Post: The project client needs to honor the Run Time Preference as vigorously as any other BOINC or project preference, such as memory or disk usage, keep in memory, work while busy, or any of the others. I provided a detailed methodology on how to accomplish this in a previous thread, but it's obviously been ignored and has not been implemented. So - they'll just have to live with a few hundred WUs aborted every time I see them sending my DCF through the roof and the estimated run times exceeding 1:00:00.
23) Message boards : Number crunching : WU run times out of whack (Message 39559) Posted 18 Apr 2007 by Nemesis Post: I ont know whats your point on posting here. PPl are giving you input & opinions, and you go aggressive on them. Seems your only reason to post is to whine a bit. Bet your running a 200 MHz PII and wondering why 1 model is exeeding 1 hour CPU time. rofl. -1 for these posts, now stop whining or make some constructive posts. I totaly agree with Feet1st, nobody really needs 1 and 2 hours target time, just remove these options. I'm posting to let the project know they still have not fixed the problem of exceeding the run-time preferences. I'm not asking for input from people who don't have "Developer" or "Programmer" or "Scientist" next to their name. I've been in Distributed Computing far longer than most of them. I don't run projects that have long work units. Period. FWIW (and I don't know why it's any of your business), the PCs that I crunch with are all high end AMD or server-class multi-cpu Intel Xeons. Edit: Sailor, you're now the first in my plonk file.
24) Message boards : Number crunching : WU run times out of whack (Message 39555) Posted 18 Apr 2007 by Nemesis Post: ...and of course, he hides his machines, so we can't see if his 3600 second preference is exceeded by 100 seconds or 1000 seconds. Just FYI, I've not seen anything indicating they are working on any "fix" for your problem with your 1hr runtime preference. Just that they are working on better checkpointing. But I can suggest an EASY fix! They stop allowing a preference less then 3 hours. It would really have a number of advantages all around. It would be nice roundish 10000 seconds. It would reduce bandwidth on the servers and number of tasks to track throughout all the databases. It would make the initial WUs downloaded match their presumed initial time adjustment factor. It would make the scheduler better able to judge how many tasks to ask for to keep your queue filled to the desired level, and it would really be simple to just eliminate 1 and 2 hour preferences from the dropdown list. A. More than 2000 seconds. Hiding my machines is my valid choice, and none of your business. I didn't ask for your help. B. You just have to read this thread (message 39213 in case you need help) C. See B. No need. The client just needs to honor the cruncher's wishes, set via preferences.
25) Message boards : Number crunching : WU run times out of whack (Message 39551) Posted 18 Apr 2007 by Nemesis Post: More WUs over my run-time preference today. I think it's time to abort the lot and wait for this to get fixed.
26) Message boards : Number crunching : WU run times out of whack (Message 39219) Posted 10 Apr 2007 by Nemesis Post: My main consideration for wanting short runtimes in this project is the lack of checkpointing within a model. I don't want to have a machine go off and lose 2, 3, 4 hours of work. I also strongly believe that distributed computing in general needs to keep WUs short. The current trend of ever-increasing times (not just in this project) is counter to the idea of distributing small units of work to many machines. Also, within the BOINC framework, task switching between projects becomes easier and safer with shorter WUs. There is much less risk of a large WU held in memory becoming corrupted or lost and wasting hours of CPU cycles. The "pre-created tasks here with a consistent runtime" (your words) should give the server the option to not issue long WUs to users with short runtime preferences. If I have a 10 day queue and suddenly the WUs are much larger, the remainder of the WUs in the queue are in danger of missing deadlines. Suddenly increasing DCFs also don't play nice with large work queues. This is a BOINC problem, since all WUs from the same project get the same estimated time to complete applied to them. If my estimates jump from 1 hour to 2.7 hours as they did today, but only a few of those are long, my queue is no longer filled to 10 days, but considerably less.
27) Message boards : Number crunching : WU run times out of whack (Message 39211) Posted 10 Apr 2007 by Nemesis Post: I KNOW that - my point is why do I get sent work that is outside my stated run-time preference, and not just by a little, but many multiples of the preference setting? The server knows that number, so it shouldn't send long WUs.
28) Message boards : Number crunching : WU run times out of whack (Message 39209) Posted 10 Apr 2007 by Nemesis Post: My runtime preference is set to 3600 seconds - 1 hour. Now I'm getting all these WUs that want to run waaaay in excess of that, like this one: 1gidA_BOINC_RNA_ABINITIO_RNA_CONTACT_RNA_LONG_RANGE_CONTACT_RNA_SASA-1gidA-_1634_628_1 Not only is this thing taking 2 and a half hours at least, it's also driving up my DCF which in turn limits downloads by artificially increasing run time estimates for ALL WUs. I'm going to let this one finish, but abort anything else in my queue that looks vaguely similar.
29) Message boards : Cafe Rosetta : Tell us about ESL (Message 38952) Posted 4 Apr 2007 by Nemesis Post: Well, and it's not just Benedikt, or Germans, or ESLians that are concerned about privacy... Just look at the response that I received from the BOINC boards when I suggested they take a simple step to make it easier for people to offer assistence when new users post messages about having problems. I mean if it is easier for people to get help, then it makes BOINC easier, ...at least to that person, right? NOT at the expense of privacy. There's way too much ceding of privacy going on now.
30) Message boards : Cafe Rosetta : Last one to post here wins! #2 (Message 38940) Posted 3 Apr 2007 by Nemesis Post: Posting 20 quote levels deep is very annoying and not needed, not to mention the huge screen real estate it takes to scroll endlessly. Makes the horizontal screen stretching seem benign.
31) Message boards : Cafe Rosetta : Moderator contact thread archive (Message 38918) Posted 3 Apr 2007 by Nemesis Post: the filter part of things does not work properly, as is the case in word link where the user posted and still shows up in the forum. all i have done there is to add the user to the ignore list which seems not to work. i have not changed any filter settings as of yet, i will go check those a bit later. So you can see a post from your filtered user, without this text (regardless of the rating score) and you can see the text of their post? This post has been filtered (rating: 0) and the user is on your ignore list, press [color=blue]here[/color] to view this thread without filtering Remember, you can still see that the filtered user has posted - it doesn't become invisible.
32) Message boards : Cafe Rosetta : Moderator contact thread archive (Message 38894) Posted 2 Apr 2007 by Nemesis Post: The description of the ignore feature made it sound like someone on the ignore list would have to get positive ratings high enough to hit the emphasis rating to show up. But they show up at 0 for the default settings, which makes the setting - pointless. I guess you should set your emphasis level higher.
33) Message boards : Cafe Rosetta : Moderator contact thread archive (Message 38892) Posted 2 Apr 2007 by Nemesis Post: The ratings system (+/-) is independent of the manual user filter process in the Forum Preferences. Two different things. You can put a user number in your filter list in Forum Preferences and it should block the message body content of all of their posts on this site. You will still see the header (the post number, date, user nick, etc.) and possibly the signature. So - you can see that they posted but you don't have to read their content unless you wish to. You can also set your rating (+/-) filter level to filter the content of post that have ratings outside of your preferences, such as all posts with ratings worse than -5, or -25. The instructions in Message Board Preferences do lead one to believe that messages with a high ratings level (many +s) will override the manual filter list. Questions about that functionality would be best asked over on the BOINC message boards, as that is where those that program the forum software hang out. The ratings system is a means for people to anonymously rate the content of a post, and has been the topic of much - umm - controversy in the BOINC community. Ratings wars were common at SETI.
34) Message boards : Cafe Rosetta : Word link 8 (Message 38872) Posted 2 Apr 2007 by Nemesis Post: Angus Bounty, and the Pitcairn Island HMS
35) Message boards : Cafe Rosetta : Moderator contact thread archive (Message 38865) Posted 2 Apr 2007 by Nemesis Post: So - what's the issue/problem? It sounds as if it's working OK. The post doesn't disappear completely - just the message text is hidden until you click "here". This is what I see This post has been filtered (rating: -1), press here to view this thread without filtering When a user is in your filter list, you should see something like this any time they post: This post has been filtered (rating: 0) and the user is on your ignore list, press here to view this thread without filtering ...is that not what you are seeing? ========= A negative rating indicates that a user has clicked the pink minus sign under the message. In fact, a -1 indicates that of all the users that have voted on that message, one user more pressed the minus sign(-) then pressed the plus sign(+). Check your message board preferences. You have the option of setting a rating filter. It is called "Filter threshold". If a post receives more negative votes then your prefernce, then it will be filtered as well as the users in your list.
36) Message boards : Cafe Rosetta : Massive Censorship at Predictor Boards! (Message 38404) Posted 26 Mar 2007 by Nemesis Post: Click here to vote for my Predictor profile! :-) Vote recommend and vote often! Join the Banned for Life team! This may be the only time I vote for something of Misfit's.... Great profile - are you banned yet? :)
37) Message boards : Number crunching : Why can't Rosetta checkpoint more often (compared to WCG)? +feedback (Message 38186) Posted 23 Mar 2007 by Nemesis Post: I realize that.. I don't think my question of why Rosetta doesn't checkpoint more often, why Rosetta resets timer (maybe everything also) has been answered.. Someone said it's because of "dumping memory" (for timer reset) but WCG is also set to "dump memory" but it doesn't reset time. Because Rosetta doesn't checkpoint until the end of the model, if it's stopped it has to start over from the last completed model, or if in the first model from the beginning, and the clock starts over as well if in the first model. I've never run WCG, but it sounds like it does a checkpoint and saves the crunching time info when you stop it. That's totally up to the science app programmers and how they decide to do it.
38) Message boards : Number crunching : Why can't Rosetta checkpoint more often (compared to WCG)? +feedback (Message 38184) Posted 23 Mar 2007 by Nemesis Post: Rosetta, 1st credit, invalidated after many hours. WCG, "finished", not updated on website, I quit distributed computing for a while (couple days). Then I come back to WCG to see if it updated.. and it did! Whoo, after many hours, it didn't reset, the timer or the checkpoint (at least not significantly)... I'm wondering. Can anyone explain the process of Rosetta processing vs WCG FightAidsAtHome/Genome Comparison (the only two I've done/doing)? Why those two can checkpoint at good intervals, while Rosetta goes for hours at 1%, I exit, then I have no idea if I start it again, timer resets to 0, I don't know if "actual" % is 1 or 4 hours worth. For example, Rosetta processing is like a house of cards in the face of the wind, it must always need your "shielding".. Or with a PC, when your "shield" or RAM goes away, house of cards goes away. That would be my example of why Rosetta is quirky? === "Q: Progress Percent not advancing? A: Rosetta recomputes the progress percent at the end of each model." Ok... why does WCG's seem to know "how much" is total/needed/done? Can someone explain the differences in the workloads.. Q: "To completion" time is going UP! Answer is not normal.. Come on, 1 second increments? How about recalculating it every ~10 minutes or something so that you won't have the randomness of download managers but still... a guesser that makes sense. You're singing my song! Maybe this will become my personal crusade - to get the 1% and Completion Time problems fixed. Right now, there has been no acknowledgement that the Rosetta programmers are working on it, or that they intend to work on it. BTW, there is an entire thread devoted to this topic.
39) Message boards : Number crunching : 1 percent status and Time to Completion (Message 38104) Posted 21 Mar 2007 by Nemesis Post: Well as we can see here, the IT people would rather scrape with a person than take on the job of fixing the problem. I don't work for the project, genius. No one would imagine that you did work for the project. If you're not the "IT people", then he obviously wasn't talking to or about you.
40) Message boards : Number crunching : 1 percent status and Time to Completion (Message 38103) Posted 21 Mar 2007 by Nemesis Post: Time to Completion obviously needs to be adjusted and set at DL time based on the client Run Time preference. Now you are missing the fact that the runtime preference can be changed AFTER the download occurs. Then the Time to Completion should be adjusted in BOINC Manager when the user changes it after download (How does this happen? It's not an option in MY version of the Manager.) I point this out not to "scrape with" you. I'm simply pointing out that this issue is not as trivial as you paint it to be. Well you're neither the "IT People" nor am I the one who used "scrape with", so how is this pertinent? Please take some time, define how the user interface SHOULD look when a reasonable human estimate is 3 hrs for 1 model, and your preferred run time is 1hr. And what should be done when your preference is 8hrs, you crunch for 5hrs and then change your preference to 3hrs. Then post your ideas to this thread, as the entire topic is not specific to 5.54 and that is the topic of this thread. If the real runtime estimate (as tested on Ralph) is 3 hours for one model, and the user has a Run Time Preference of 1 hour, then that WU should not be downloaded to that client, otherwise the user will see a WU go significantly beyond the desired run time preference. In your second case, the WU should end as soon as the current model finishes. It does no good to design this type of model/run time preference scenario into the client and then not support it in the user interface.

Previous 20 · Next 20