Posts by Jack Shaftoe

1) Message boards : Number crunching : Problems with version 5.96 (Message 53976) Posted 24 Jun 2008 by Jack Shaftoe Post: I've got three more of these t434_ all have failed on other hosts, what a waste. pete. Rosetta Beta 5.96 t434 is doing terrible on my hosts too. Ugh. I remember when I first joined 2 years ago - I could let my hosts go for weeks without checking on them. Now I feel the need to make sure they are ok twice a day, and will be suspending Rosetta while I leave for vacation this weekend! What a tragic shame...
2) Message boards : Number crunching : Anonymous Account Credits - NOT a merge situation (Message 53933) Posted 23 Jun 2008 by Jack Shaftoe Post: Maybe we can ask this anonymous person to send their credit to me instead... :)
3) Message boards : Number crunching : Minirosetta v1.28 bug thread (Message 53730) Posted 16 Jun 2008 by Jack Shaftoe Post: http://boinc.bakerlab.org/workunit.php?wuid=155644697
4) Message boards : Number crunching : Vista and failed workunits (Message 53686) Posted 14 Jun 2008 by Jack Shaftoe Post: I've noticed a problem on my Windows Vista box recently. When minirosetta crashes on a workunit (happens about once every other day), a popup window arrives that says: minirosetta has encountered a problem and must close. Fair enough, the problem is that until I click the "Close this application" button, the core that was crunching that workunit sits idle. If it fails at 8:30am, I might not notice until much later that evening when I get home from work. Some days I don't even check my crunchers, just assuming they are ok. Does anyone know of a way to automatically close stuff like this? I'll take a screenshot next time it happens to help illustrate. Edit for clarification: It is not the Send/Don't Send window that reports the failure to MS.
5) Message boards : Number crunching : Computer array crunching? (Message 53440) Posted 29 May 2008 by Jack Shaftoe Post: What stepping of the Q6600? B3 or G0? On my B3, I really have to over voltage to get it going. On my G0, it requires far less. You need not make the jump directly to 333. Start with 269, 279, 289 and 299 and unlink your memory. I have one unit with some high priced 800MHz RAM that just will not overclock much. I had to uncouple the RAM and CPU to get things going. You will find lots of information on overclocking on several websites but don't feel like you have to make 1 jump to 3GHz. Start small and document your bios configs. You will find it is fun stuff to push those chips a little harder. good luck! How do I unlink my memory? Not sure I understand this. G0 Q6600 is what I am working with. I am sure unlinking is different for each MB, but what do you typically see this setting described as? Thanks Paul,
6) Message boards : Number crunching : Computer array crunching? (Message 53377) Posted 27 May 2008 by Jack Shaftoe Post: What settings are you trying and on what machine? GA-EX38-DQ6, Q6600, 2GB OCZ DDR2 800. I tried changing the FSB to 333 MHz, which should give me around 3GHz, but it won't boot. If I can figure that one out, I also have a GA-G33M-S2L board with a Q6700.
7) Message boards : Number crunching : Computer array crunching? (Message 53311) Posted 24 May 2008 by Jack Shaftoe Post: All you do is increase the motherboard's FSB, and the CPU's speed inceases proportionally with it. Run Prime95 (free download) for 6hrs or so to check that it's stable and then you're done. If it's unstable, you can either reduce the overclock, or increase the voltage. I have always wondered: why use Prime95 instead of BOINC? Does it give you lots of info about stability that a failed WU or a system crash won't? I've been itching to OC as well, but each time I try I get blue-screen or system freezes which I can't figure out how to resolve so I go back to stock.
8) Message boards : Number crunching : Lots of workunit failures... (Message 53167) Posted 19 May 2008 by Jack Shaftoe Post: I think I found a solution. I dropped my runtime from 24 hours down to 4 hours and didn't get a single failure last night. After a few days if things continue to remain stable I will increase to 6 hours.
9) Message boards : Number crunching : Lots of workunit failures... (Message 53129) Posted 18 May 2008 by Jack Shaftoe Post: http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/result.php?resultid=163455882 <core_client_version>5.10.45</core_client_version> <![CDATA[ <message> The system cannot find the path specified. (0x3) - exit code 3 (0x3) </message> <stderr_txt> # cpu_run_time_pref: 86400 </stderr_txt> ]]> The thing that is frustrating about these path errors, is that they open a C++ error window, and the workunit just continues to use CPU until you hit OK. One of them failed at like 4 am, and didn't stop until I checked the machine 10 minutes ago - I hit OK, the workunit fails and then starts another one. Grrr.... If this continues, I'm going to have to go back to my other projects.
10) Message boards : Number crunching : Lots of workunit failures... (Message 53128) Posted 18 May 2008 by Jack Shaftoe Post: http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/result.php?resultid=163455869 <core_client_version>5.10.45</core_client_version> <![CDATA[ <message> - exit code -1073741819 (0xc0000005) </message> <stderr_txt> # cpu_run_time_pref: 86400 Unhandled Exception Detected... - Unhandled Exception Record - Reason: Access Violation (0xc0000005) at address 0x005C3030 write attempt to address 0x00000004 Engaging BOINC Windows Runtime Debugger... ****************** BOINC Windows Runtime Debugger Version 6.3.0 Dump Timestamp : 05/16/08 15:01:41 LoadLibraryA( dbghelp.dll ): GetLastError = 8 * Dump of the Process Statistics: * - I/O Operations Counters - Read: 28146, Write: 0, Other 6765 - I/O Transfers Counters - Read: 0, Write: 38294, Other 0 - Paged Pool Usage - QuotaPagedPoolUsage: 44156, QuotaPeakPagedPoolUsage: 44156 QuotaNonPagedPoolUsage: 5688, QuotaPeakNonPagedPoolUsage: 5688 - Virtual Memory Usage - VirtualSize: 2144301056, PeakVirtualSize: 2144301056 - Pagefile Usage - PagefileUsage: 1021972480, PeakPagefileUsage: 1029021696 - Working Set Size - WorkingSetSize: 1023954944, PeakWorkingSetSize: 1031032832, PageFaultCount: 23105986 * Dump of thread ID 1876 (state: Waiting): * - Information - Status: Wait Reason: UserRequest, , Kernel Time: 1477656192.000000, User Time: 294476873728.000000, Wait Time: 16713152.000000 - Unhandled Exception Record - Reason: Access Violation (0xc0000005) at address 0x005C3030 write attempt to address 0x00000004 * Dump of thread ID 3036 (state: Waiting): * - Information - Status: Wait Reason: ExecutionDelay, , Kernel Time: 0.000000, User Time: 0.000000, Wait Time: 16713148.000000 * Dump of thread ID 900 (state: Waiting): * - Information - Status: Wait Reason: ExecutionDelay, , Kernel Time: 0.000000, User Time: 0.000000, Wait Time: 16713100.000000 * Debug Message Dump ** * Foreground Window Data *** Window Name : Window Class : Window Process ID: 0 Window Thread ID : 0 Exiting... </stderr_txt> ]]>
11) Message boards : Number crunching : Lots of workunit failures... (Message 53127) Posted 18 May 2008 by Jack Shaftoe Post: Been attached for all of about 24 hours and already 3 failed workunits. Frustrating. http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/result.php?resultid=164381455 <core_client_version>5.10.45</core_client_version> <![CDATA[ <message> The system cannot find the path specified. (0x3) - exit code 3 (0x3) </message> <stderr_txt> # cpu_run_time_pref: 86400 </stderr_txt> ]]>
12) Message boards : Number crunching : CASP8 (Message 53104) Posted 17 May 2008 by Jack Shaftoe Post: Thank you Dr. Baker for the announcement on the homepage. I set all my other projects to "No New Work" and will be running Rosetta exclusively for the remainder of the CASP8 competition. I hope many other BOINC members will join us. I look forward to hearing how Rosetta is doing in the competition. Good luck!
13) Message boards : Number crunching : Increase TFLOPS during CASP 8 by utilizing RALPH (Message 53050) Posted 14 May 2008 by Jack Shaftoe Post: And noone should be running Ralph exclusively and not Rosetta. I don't support the idea of CASP8 being run on RALPH, but I also don't agree with this statement at all. I have run RALPH exclusively many times while the bulk of my crunching time is spent on other projects and have reported RALPH errors when they happen. Are you saying you would like me to disconnect from the RALPH project?? I don't understand this at all. Isn't it our choice which projects we want to run?
14) Message boards : Number crunching : CASP8 (Message 53026) Posted 12 May 2008 by Jack Shaftoe Post: Please put an announcement up on the Rosetta homepage when CASP8 begins. I look forward to joining the push.
15) Message boards : Number crunching : CASP8 (Message 52976) Posted 10 May 2008 by Jack Shaftoe Post: Is CASP8 running now? If not, when does it start/finish? Just found this: http://predictioncenter.gc.ucdavis.edu/casp8/index.cgi#timetable Timetable: Registration for the experiment will start in the last week of March. The first prediction targets will be released not earlier than May 5; the last prediction targets will be released not later than July 18; prediction season will end not later than August 1. The CASP meeting will take place on December 3-7, and approximately one month before that, groups with the most accurate and interesting predictions will receive invitations to give talks. There will also be discussion of predictions and methods on the FORCASP web site. Does this mean it's running now? There was no announcement on the Rosie homepage.
16) Message boards : Number crunching : CASP8 (Message 52975) Posted 10 May 2008 by Jack Shaftoe Post: Can someone please let us know when to back off Ralph and change resource share back to Rosetta. please switch back to rosetta now--thanks! David Is CASP8 running now? If not, when does it start/finish?
17) Message boards : Number crunching : Problems with minirosetta version 1.+ (Message 51323) Posted 11 Feb 2008 by Jack Shaftoe Post: Ralph does not have the same diversity of computers and active users as R@h so we have to eventually start running jobs This is something that should be published on the front page of the project, as it is a significantly different approach than almost all other BOINC projects and conflicts with what you are telling us we are doing. To quote a user from a few weeks ago: "I joined because I want to cure people, not because I want to test software. I understand that with better software, the results might improve - however I would like to stick to the real rosetta for the time being." It seems like there is no "real rosetta" per your comment above. If you need more diversity on RALPH, perhaps you should be asking for it from your contributors (us). The fact that we are here, attached, and reading the forum means that if you need specific help over at RALPH - i.e. specific OS or hardware tested - just ask. We might be able to help. Lots of people connected to Rosetta don't check the message board. If WU's start failing or acting up, they disconnect from the project and find another one. According to David E K, there was a memory issue that got through the alpha testing without being identified. There is a SAV false positive that got through alpha without being identified. There are several other quirky issues in this thread. How long was 1.07 tested on Ralph? Doesn't it seem apparent it should have seen more time? I'm not trying to be a jerk about this, I just think that you would help us immensely by being more thorough in alpha.
18) Message boards : Number crunching : Problems with minirosetta version 1.+ (Message 51317) Posted 11 Feb 2008 by Jack Shaftoe Post: I checked the result summary and the minirosetta jobs have a 90% success rate on R@h which is lower than the old rosetta app but it's not bad. From a Rosetta user's perspective, I would consider 90% to be the minimum acceptable success rate on RALPH. Anything less than 97-98% here on Rosetta is unacceptable. It sucks to realize that you got a work-unit from a non-alpha project that causes BOINC to lock up and crash. Please be more diligent with your alpha testing. What's the rush to get it here? If we want to run beta/unstable workunits, we will run them on RALPH (which I recently had to suspend on all 3 of my workstations due to mini-rosetta consistently crashing BOINC completely).
19) Message boards : Cafe Rosetta : touchy people (me included) (Message 48037) Posted 26 Oct 2007 by Jack Shaftoe Post: i agree that there is a bit to much fighting and whatever going on here on various threads by various users. Quoted for truth.
20) Message boards : Number crunching : PS3 preliminary crunching numbers (Message 41962) Posted 8 Jun 2007 by Jack Shaftoe Post: True, the "red circle of death" is a big problem for Microsoft. Maybe RCoD won't be a problem in a few years or with 360 Elite. The Elite has already been gathering widespread reports of issues unfortunately. None of the problem areas of the console were addressed in the elite. Hopefully they stick a cooler CPU into it or better parts.

Next 20