Posts by [B@H] Ray

61) Message boards : Number crunching : Controlling new work (Message 10610) Posted 10 Feb 2006 by [B@H] Ray Post: Mikus When you got the first 7 day deafline units did it go into EDF part way through crunching the 28 day units? It should have done the first downloaded first, which if you had a lot of the 28 day units could have put you into EDF as the new ones got closer to the deadlines. I imagine that happened to some who we don't here from over here on the boards, mine came close but not quite. I sure wish that they cut if back to 14 days rather than 7 days. I was going to get an older system that I am not using loaded up with them (when they had the 28 day units) and bring it to a storage unit to run on there power. Than every week to 2 weeks pull the HD to bring home and turn them in and get new ones. But the 7 day units are not good for that. Cheers Ray
62) Message boards : Number crunching : Controlling new work (Message 10116) Posted 28 Jan 2006 by [B@H] Ray Post: Mikus I have had Rosetta do the same when set to NNW, this is the only program that dues not obey the NNW command. Have you tried setting the connect time in your preferences to a shorter time like .5 days when you have work left and you don't want new work? You have to update that from another program or Rosetta will request more before it updates your connect time. Ray
63) Message boards : Number crunching : Shorter WU deadlines (Message 10094) Posted 28 Jan 2006 by [B@H] Ray Post: I faially had to suspend Rosetta to get the system back to doing CPDN till I get up in the morning. Ray
64) Message boards : Number crunching : @ Dave Baker (Deadlines causes EDF) (Message 10093) Posted 28 Jan 2006 by [B@H] Ray Post: Dave Any chance of the deadlines going to 2 weeks like most other projects? This LINK goes to the Shorter WU deadline thread about how easily some users were put into EDF with the one week deadlines. Ray
65) Message boards : Number crunching : Internet traffic and necessary data (Message 10092) Posted 28 Jan 2006 by [B@H] Ray Post: In how many Countries besides Russia do people have to pay by the bandwidth used for there internet access? Could an ISP there be a bit lax on billing if they knew what you were using tha bandwidth for?
66) Message boards : Number crunching : Shorter WU deadlines (Message 10091) Posted 28 Jan 2006 by [B@H] Ray Post: Dave Any chance of making the deadlinc 2 weeks or even 10 days rather than 7 days? That short deadline sent one of my systems into EDF and it only has 3 Rosetta units. Summery of other units on that system: SETI: 6 units with deadlines of Feb. 9, 2006 SETI BATA: 1 unit with a deadline of Mar. 7, 2007 (2007 is correct) CPDN: 1 Sulpher unit with a deadline of Dec. 18, 2006 Just the 3 Rosetta units with a deadline of Feb. 2 and Feb. 3 sent it into EDF, but of course that is good for Rosetta getting the time when in EDF until someone suspends it to get some other work done. What surprised me was when the Rosetta units I had were almost finished it called for more and got two more while in EDF. Currently the cache is set for 3 days. Ray Brown
67) Message boards : Number crunching : huge WU (Message 9861) Posted 25 Jan 2006 by [B@H] Ray Post: I have one of those running on the other system, now at 7:18:46 and 12.50% estimated time left by BOINC is 9:27:45. Ray CPDN took a turn on the CPU, now this WU, production_abinito_2acy-250_2206_0 is up to 10:26:05 and still at 12.5%, almost tempted to kill it. If the percent even went up to 15% I would know that it is going. Ray
68) Message boards : Number crunching : huge WU (Message 9827) Posted 25 Jan 2006 by [B@H] Ray Post: I have one of those running on the other system, now at 7:18:46 and 12.50% estimated time left by BOINC is 9:27:45. Thought I had gone longer between turning unuts in, that one will do it. WU name production_abinito_2acy-250_2206_0 And another waiting in the que production_abinito_1who_250_2203_0 But they are good for the credit as long as they finsih correct. Ray
69) Message boards : Number crunching : No work, no explination (Message 9438) Posted 20 Jan 2006 by [B@H] Ray Post: Answered in THIS THREAD. Ray
70) Message boards : Number crunching : Can BOINC damage my hardware? (Message 9430) Posted 20 Jan 2006 by [B@H] Ray Post: Marios Are you still with up? Just checked your stats and looks like you are slowing down. Running this should not harm your system but things above do apply, keep the system clean, ect. Too little memory can cause it to use the swap file on the hard drive wareing it out. Many people running Rosetta have less than the recommended 512 megs, but all on Rosetta should have 512 or more. Less memory is used for other programs. Ray
71) Message boards : Number crunching : Can BOINC damage my hardware? (Message 9429) Posted 20 Jan 2006 by [B@H] Ray Post: Marios Are you still with up? Just checked your stats and looks like you are slowing down. Running this should not harm your system but things above do apply, keep the system clean, ect. Too little memory can cause it to use the swap file on the hard drive wareing it out. Many people running Rosetta have less than the recommended 512 megs, but all on Rosetta should have 512 or more. Less memory is used for other programs. Ray
72) Message boards : Number crunching : Wiki Navigation (Message 9428) Posted 20 Jan 2006 by [B@H] Ray Post: 1) The link works good now, at least for me. 2) The sidebar works good also. Ray
73) Message boards : Number crunching : No work, no explination (Message 9427) Posted 20 Jan 2006 by [B@H] Ray Post: For the last day one of my systems has tried about one time per hour but can not get work. The other system has had no problem with getting work. Below are messages from AM and PM. 1/19/2006 10:41:31 AM\|rosetta@home\|Requesting 345600 seconds of work, returning 0 results 1/19/2006 10:41:32 AM\|rosetta@home\|Scheduler request to http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta_cgi/cgi succeeded 1/19/2006 10:41:32 AM\|rosetta@home\|No work from project 1/19/2006 11:33:14 PM\|rosetta@home\|Requesting 172800 seconds of work, returning 0 results 1/19/2006 11:33:14 PM\|\|request_reschedule_cpus: project op 1/19/2006 11:33:15 PM\|rosetta@home\|Scheduler request to http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta_cgi/cgi succeeded 1/19/2006 11:33:15 PM\|rosetta@home\|No work from project All times are UTC -5 Any one else still having this after the outage yesterday? The other computer has sucessfully gotten work 3 times today. Cheers Ray
74) Message boards : Number crunching : intel3.2dc versus intel 3.8 (Message 9423) Posted 20 Jan 2006 by [B@H] Ray Post: The P4 3.8 has HT allowing it to run 2 units at a time, a bit faster than the duel core 3.2, but if you get the Pentium D Extreme Edition you have HT on each of the cores and can run 4 units at a time. They would each run slower than on the P4 3.8 HT, but with running 4 at a time you do more in a day. You were probably looking at the regular Pentium D (no HT on it) as the Extreme Edition chip alone is over $1,000 US. That should be dropping by this summer as I here that Intel plans on releasing 3.4 and 3.8 Extreme Edition chips by the fall. When it is out the 3.8 Extreme Edition should really fly, about the same as having two P4 3.8 HT chips. Ray
75) Message boards : Number crunching : is 512MB RAM really needed? (Message 8127) Posted 1 Jan 2006 by [B@H] Ray Post: I wass running Rosetta on Win 98 with no problem for a while. (512 megs of ram) I started with 256 megs, but increased that for things other than the projects. When I increased the ram to 512 megs the times went down quite a bit, only a little improvement going to 1 gig of ram. Some units do use more than 256 megs of ram, and will use the swap file for extra memory. This is bad for the hard drive and will cause it to ware out faster. Ray
76) Message boards : Number crunching : Please abort WUs with (Message 8066) Posted 1 Jan 2006 by [B@H] Ray Post: 226 also has some bad ones, check this one, runs 5 to 8 hours before errering out. INCREASE_CYCLES_10_1ogw_226_937 That one does have _some_ problem... but it's not the same as the DEFAULT_xxxx_205's. They error out because of maximum_cpu_time_exceeded. And I've had a number of those "INCREASE_CYCLES" WUs that completed just fine, although on my PC they ran about 4 hours instead of 2. I have had other "INCREASE_CYCLES" units that ran good also, but as you say they took a lot longer, between 3 and 6 hours. I don't mind them running longer as long as they finish up. Ray
77) Message boards : Number crunching : Please abort WUs with (Message 8059) Posted 31 Dec 2005 by [B@H] Ray Post: 226 also has some bad ones, check this one, runs 5 to 8 hours before errering out. INCREASE_CYCLES_10_1ogw_226_937 Reason: Access Violation (0xc0000005) at address 0x006047A8 write attempt to address 0x08567DA4 Exiting... Cheers Ray
78) Message boards : Number crunching : Bad WU;s comming through today (Message 7038) Posted 21 Dec 2005 by [B@H] Ray Post: Sorry about the new thread on the subject. A lot of the bad ones today were from other types of units like this one: 1ogw__topology_sample_207_9095 All 11 copies of that one sent to 11 diferant computers crashed very early. Many others like that, not the "DEFAULT_....._205_...." units. Looks like someone else was typing up a message about these at the same time so we did not see each others before submitting them. Cheers Ray
79) Message boards : Number crunching : Bad WU;s comming through today (Message 7010) Posted 21 Dec 2005 by [B@H] Ray Post: I recieved 50 WU's on one system today, (4 at a time) all ended with computation errors. Checked them on the web site and all 4 copies had the same error. Message from them is below: <core_client_version>4.68</core_client_version> <message> - exit code -1073741819 (0xc0000005) </message> <stderr_txt> *UNHANDLED EXCEPTION** Reason: Access Violation (0xc0000005) at address 0x00656358 read attempt to address 0x29716928 Exiting... </stderr_txt> Just happened to get up and see that, others could run for hours that way. Ray Brown
80) Message boards : Rosetta@home Science : Top Predictions Page (Message 6750) Posted 19 Dec 2005 by [B@H] Ray Post: Dues anyone know if updates are planed for the Top Predictions page? Last updated Oct. 12, 2005 Cheers Ray

Previous 20 · Next 20