Posts by [B@H] Ray
|
41)
Message boards :
Cafe Rosetta :
Word link 2
(Message 19646)
Posted 1 Jul 2006 by  [B@H] Ray
Post: communications (3 main types, telaphone, telavision and tellawomen) |
|
42)
Message boards :
Cafe Rosetta :
Old Geezers Club
(Message 19645)
Posted 1 Jul 2006 by [B@H] Ray
Post: I started on an IMB 360 60 back in 72, after donateing time to the country for the war in Vietnam, but with some good luck I never went there. In 1977 switched from private companies to the Govt. and stayed there. Companies have many advantages over working for State Govt. but I got to retire with a good penson at the age og 55. Figure I should go out while the health is good and enjoy it, than take something part time later. |
|
43)
Message boards :
Cafe Rosetta :
Word link 2
(Message 19643)
Posted 1 Jul 2006 by [B@H] Ray
Post: |
|
44)
Message boards :
Cafe Rosetta :
Word link 2
(Message 19640)
Posted 1 Jul 2006 by [B@H] Ray
Post: marathon |
|
45)
Message boards :
Cafe Rosetta :
Welcome to BOINC Synergy!
(Message 19639)
Posted 1 Jul 2006 by [B@H] Ray
Post: Go Boing Synergy. Everyone knows it is the best team in the world. |
|
46)
Message boards :
Cafe Rosetta :
Word link 2
(Message 19637)
Posted 1 Jul 2006 by [B@H] Ray
Post: Vancouver |
|
47)
Message boards :
Cafe Rosetta :
Word link 2
(Message 19501)
Posted 29 Jun 2006 by [B@H] Ray
Post: Old |
|
48)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Largescale WU horror
(Message 13857)
Posted 15 Apr 2006 by [B@H] Ray
Post: I have nothing to do anymore. Because i'm not a 24/7 user my engine couldn't handle these workunits. The ones I tried were still busy [already nine hours on 1.4%] with Model ONE[1]when I have to power off. And no way I start all over again with 'these creatures.' Looks like you have one of those that get stuck at 1.4%. If you have your run time set at 2 or 4 hours they will finish in that time unless thay get stuck like these. Quite a few of the bad units were issue a few days ago, all cancelled now. You have your computer hidden so we can not see if that is one of them but would bet it is. Dues the hidden compters mean that you are using one from work which you should not run this on? Can't think of any other reasion to hide the system. |
|
49)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Report stuck & aborted WU here please - II
(Message 13805)
Posted 15 Apr 2006 by [B@H] Ray
Post: I just aborted WU TRUNCATE_TERMINI_FULLRELAX_1b3aA_433_20_2 as this was still at 1.04% at close to 10 hours (CPU time= 35,419.17 seconds). When I checked the graphics a few times in the last hour nothing was hapening there also. Ray |
|
50)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Run time question
(Message 11796)
Posted 8 Mar 2006 by [B@H] Ray
Post: Moderator9 Good answer so if a WU can produce 100 models with the operations being performed by running it longer to less often it will be sent out with a new starting point. Well not exactely but works like that. So I think I will keep the longer run times and give them more on the protiens that I work on. Shorter times will give fewer models per protine but more protines analized. Best is getting 10 times more houst on the project and most running longer times. That would give them more of both, protines analized and number of models per protine. Now if everyone gets on a recrutement drive with there friends, family and co-workers that can be done. I don't wory about the bandwidth used on my internet connection but longer times helps those who do. Ray |
|
51)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Run time question
(Message 11788)
Posted 8 Mar 2006 by [B@H] Ray
Post: One more point, wife dues not like me running this, says I should work on one looking for a cure for diabetes. I don't know but I can not think of whare DC could help on diabetes. |
|
52)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Run time question
(Message 11787)
Posted 8 Mar 2006 by [B@H] Ray
Post: Just saw the default run time was canged to 2 hours. I just set mine to 4 hours, hope that the project gets more out of the extra time. If Dr. Baker could give us a little info on his page about weather he gets more from longer run times that may be appreciated by a lot of people. Ray |
|
53)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Run time question
(Message 11786)
Posted 8 Mar 2006 by [B@H] Ray
Post: When we can set the targrt run time for work, will Rosetta get much more science if it is set to something like 10 hours or 1 day? More accurate in finding things like the low energy point? If on another system that gives Rosetta less time will the project louse much if it is changed from the default 8 hours down to 6 hours? I know that we were allowed to change these but was wondering about the benifit (or loss) by changeing to a longer or shorter time. EDIT: But longer run times would be easier on the servers. END EDIT For those who have been looking for optomized App's. on Rosetta the time spent would be the same. But may get a lot more out of the unit if they get more info as if longer a run time. Ray |
|
54)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Help us solve the 1% bug!
(Message 11784)
Posted 8 Mar 2006 by [B@H] Ray
Post: I am running BOINC 4.72 on two machines and have never had one stuck at 1%. Also I do not run P@H, could it be a Rosetta & newer BOINC problem? Or a Rosetta & P@H problem. In reading this thread I see others running BOINC 4.72 who never had one stuck at 1%. |
|
55)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Won't connect to localhost
(Message 11237)
Posted 23 Feb 2006 by [B@H] Ray
Post:
Tony Dues this mean that the BUGS will become "additional features" Ray |
|
56)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Computation Error
(Message 11236)
Posted 23 Feb 2006 by [B@H] Ray
Post: I have several machines with 256MB running Rosetta without any problems..... Really should go with 512 Meg or more for Rosetta. My HD started running hotter part the time Rosetta was running at first, increased ram from 512 to 1024 Megs and it colled off again. Run times also dropped by about 10%. 256 Megs will work but hit the swapp file to often and will burn out the HD. |
|
57)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Issues with 4.82
(Message 11235)
Posted 23 Feb 2006 by [B@H] Ray
Post: Dave No problems yet over here. Two finished in about 8 hours time each. |
|
58)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Improvements to Rosetta@home based on user feedback
(Message 11151)
Posted 21 Feb 2006 by [B@H] Ray
Post: I just got some of thses units with the 8 hr. run time and 2 week deadline. Just started running one, will be able to tell after that if it takes much longer. |
|
59)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Report stuck & aborted WU here please
(Message 10612)
Posted 10 Feb 2006 by [B@H] Ray
Post: This unit (Result ID 7393548) stuck at 10% for 10 hours. Aborted it when I got home and spotted that. Ray |
|
60)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
How about some QC on Rosetta WU's?
(Message 10611)
Posted 10 Feb 2006 by [B@H] Ray
Post: With all the ongoing complaints about WU errors, perhaps it would help if the project stated the total error rate they see in the database to put things into perspective. Judging from the ~2000 WUs I have crunched, I would guess that it must be considerably below 1% (one failed WU among 184 on my current results page). It might also be of interest to see how the error rate varies across different hosts/OS type/BOINC versions... I have to agree with you, I have only had 1 bad unit since I started in Sept. 05, aborted that at about 10 hours at 1%. Would have timed out on it's own if I let it run. And at one time when they had a batch of bad units I had a bunch crash at about 1 secound just like everyone else but the total errror rate would be less than .5% which is not bad. I have to admit that for a short while I was aborting units that were returned by other systems 2 to 4 times as bad, but than I ran some of those and had no problems with them. Guess that some systems run these better than others, but give more problems on other programs. Will be fireing up an old K6 in a while, wonder if that will run Rosetta? Think not, can onlt get 192 Megs ram in it without buying more. Cheers Ray System 1 P4 2.4 gig, 533 fsb, 1024 meg, 512K L2, Win XP, BOINC 4.68 System 2 Celeron 2.93 gig, 533 fsb, 1024 megs, 256K L2, Win XP, BOINC 4.68 |
Previous 20 · Next 20
©2024 University of Washington
https://www.bakerlab.org