Posts by tng*

1) Message boards : Number crunching : Anyone using Dell Mini9 or Atom CPU? (Message 61485)
Posted 31 May 2009 by tng*
I just got a Dell Mini9 netbook...Atom processor with 1gig ram and Windows XP.

Anyone have any stats on what I should expect if I run BOINC on it 24x7? Any computers that you have that I can look at...RAC stats?

I see the netbook industry as crushing the traditional laptop industry by end of 2010 if not sooner (yes there will always be people who want a high powered laptop but for most of the public, they just want a nice thin laptop to check email, surf, upload some photos).

Anyway, any stats or help would be greatly appreciated!


Here's a Mini 9. It's been crunching rosetta exclusively for a while. About 100 credits/day on rosetta is what I'd expect.

I'm going to be taking this system off of BOINC -- can't justify the power expended for the results.
2) Message boards : Number crunching : Problems with version 5.90/5.91 (Message 49965)
Posted 23 Dec 2007 by tng*
3 boxes running CentOS now -- plan to convert more (all except the laptops, and maybe them too). How many do you need on Ralph?

Hi: Here's a partial explanation. On ralph, nearly all the workunits for a full day had returned and come back as "successes", typically a very good sign -- but the linux issue, as you correctly pointed out, leads to delayed responses from clients (rather than a bunch of immediate WU errors that tell us to go track down the problem). Since there are very few RALPH linux users we didn't notice a drop in the overall return rate of successes. The only sign that things were wrong were from a message board posting there (later bolstered by your and others' posts) and here ...

So, thanks for posting -- it did help us catch the problem relatively quickly -- and please accept our apologies. We'll certainly pay closer attention to this in the future, and do tests for, say, at least two days. if you could recruit some more Rosetta@home linux users to give a fraction of their CPUs to ralph and occasionally post errors in the message boards, that would also help!
3) Message boards : Number crunching : Credit not granted for reissued tasks (Message 41084)
Posted 17 May 2007 by tng*
i looked at the wrong task - my bad! But tng's task does say:

Report deadline 24 May 2007 1:28:45 UTC

which hasn't been reached yet, but it also says

Validate state: Workunit error - check skipped

On the workunit display it says:

errors Too many total results

I'm presuming that this is the "Workunit error" referred to, and relates to the

max # of error/total/success results 1, 2, 1

line just above it. What's annoying is that I'm using a 24-hr runtime on my
machines, in order to spare the project servers frequent updates and hopefully increase the amount of real science by reducing the overhead, but this would seem to have resulted in my machine's work being discarded.

I don't know what the project's exact requirements are, but I would think that
a delay in reissuing results which miss deadlines might prevent this sort of
thing. Up to the project to make such decisions, of course.
4) Message boards : Number crunching : Credit not granted for reissued tasks (Message 41047)
Posted 16 May 2007 by tng*
I hope this doesn't mean my results will not contribute to the science here:

Workunit 69100041

If I understand things correctly, the first result errored out, the second missed the deadline and was
reissued to my machine, the second was then returned,
then my machine's result was returned, but was discarded due to the limit on total results.

If it hadn't been for the limit on total results, I suppose it would have been
discarded due to the limit on success results.

Please don't interpret this as a plea to have my credits granted -- I've got plenty already. It just seems a shame to discard that work.
5) Message boards : Number crunching : Problems with Rosetta version 5.46 (Message 37041)
Posted 21 Feb 2007 by tng*

Got a couple of compute errors on a system that's been crunching just fine:



Anybody else seeing problems with these, or do I need to check my system?
6) Message boards : Number crunching : Low credit from PSH_ wokrunits... (Message 31935)
Posted 2 Dec 2006 by tng*
This is being carried to the point of being absurd on one of my machines.This workunit was granted only 4 credits for a claimed 120 (31k CPU secs on an X2 4800+; this machine is usually granted slightly more than it claims).

This PSH workunit run on a Xeon 5150 doesn't get such an absurdly low credit, although it is lower than other workunits run on that machine.

Any ideas what is going on?
7) Message boards : Number crunching : Miscellaneous Work Unit Errors (Message 11395)
Posted 25 Feb 2006 by tng*
For people having many work Unit Errors!!

I have received an e-mail from Dr. Baker with information for any of you who are having a lot of Work Unit errors.

"Could you help us to recommend to people having problems with lots of WU to set the target run time to a smaller value like 2 hours. We think there aren't any new bugs, just with longer run times it is more likely for a WU to have problems."

So if you are having a lot of errors please reset your Time setting to 2 hours and see if that helps.

Having received half a dozen errors on 4.82 on two machines that I don't believe have had that many errors in three months, I did this. Within hours,
another error:


(edited to show the correct result -- oops)

Not the same as the earlier ones, but there still seem to be problems with a
two-hour setting.

The machines having problems are Dell Dimension 9100s, Pentium D 820, 1 gig,
XP SP2 with all critical updates, Boinc 5.2.13 (updated from from 5.2.2, but
that didn't seem to fix anything).

My athlon 4000+ laptop has had no problems -- maybe something with multi-CPU systems.
8) Message boards : Number crunching : 2.90% complete? (Message 6904)
Posted 20 Dec 2005 by tng*
11 hours I would not think is normal however...

Is the graphics moving?

Seemed a tad long to me. The graphics are moving.
9) Message boards : Number crunching : 2.90% complete? (Message 6901)
Posted 20 Dec 2005 by tng*
10) Message boards : Number crunching : 2.90% complete? (Message 6896)
Posted 20 Dec 2005 by tng*

I currently have a result(4421863 that has consumed almost eleven hours of CPU and is now at 3.00% complete (just changed from 2.9). I've never seen Rosetta report a percentage like this. A special
workunit, or a problem?

Also, does that percentage relate in any way to the
actual time this will take? May have deadline trouble if it does (and this is a Pentium D 820).
11) Message boards : Number crunching : Problem with WU? (Message 2105)
Posted 2 Nov 2005 by tng*
This is one of the larger WUs. Give it another hour and if it is still stuck email me the stdout.txt file to dekim at

It finally finished (6:16:47 CPU, at least 1:45 at 100%). Next time I'll know
to be more patient.
12) Message boards : Number crunching : Problem with WU? (Message 2095)
Posted 2 Nov 2005 by tng*
See this thread

Leave in memory is set.
13) Message boards : Number crunching : Problem with WU? (Message 2081)
Posted 2 Nov 2005 by tng*
Happened to notice that a WU has used almost 5 hours
of CPU time (as opposed to a previous maximum of about 2) and has spent at least 1/2 hour at 100% complete. On inspection, I see that I was reissued this one after another machine missed the deadline.

I tried exiting BOINC and restarting it, but still the

Here's the WU:


Machine is a 1 GHz P3, XP SP2, BOINC 5.2.2.

New to this project, but from what I can tell this isn't normal, and the fact that somebody else has already missed deadline on this one causes me some
concern (although that host has only completed 1 WU,
the user's hostlist leads me to believe that one of
his systems could be stuck on the same WU for a month
and be overlooked).

If it's like the other WU issued to that machine at the same time, this will be longer than the others my
machine has run, but I'm still concerned.

Would appreciate feedback on whether this sort of behavior is normal, and if not should I just kill
that WU or let it go so somebody can investigate?

©2021 University of Washington