Posts by MattDavis

21) Message boards : Number crunching : DUPLICATED WUapplication Rosetta Beta (Message 48387)
Posted 5 Nov 2007 by MattDavis
Post:
I think that's one of those annoying times when someone doesn't finish their work on time, so a unit is sent out again. Only then the late guy returns the work and the guy who got it fair-and-square on the rebound crunches for nothing.

People who don't return their units on time should get 0 credit instead of the people that get the unit on the rebound.
22) Message boards : Number crunching : Most of my Granted credit is lower than Claimed (Message 47627)
Posted 12 Oct 2007 by MattDavis
Post:
It's a problem of lack of transparency.

There is nothing a user can look at to confirm that they are getting a proper amount of credit.


It's not a conspiracy.
23) Message boards : Number crunching : Welcome Back! (Message 45771)
Posted 9 Sep 2007 by MattDavis
Post:
Does this mean the project lost a lot of the information that we have crunched?
24) Message boards : Number crunching : My protein fell apart :( (Message 45197)
Posted 20 Aug 2007 by MattDavis
Post:
Is this normal?

25) Message boards : Number crunching : Claiming 30 cred and getting 9200 granted? (Message 45195)
Posted 20 Aug 2007 by MattDavis
Post:
I got this message once many months ago.

<core_client_version>5.4.9</core_client_version>
<stderr_txt>
# random seed: 3378452
# cpu_run_time_pref: 14400
No heartbeat from core client for 31 sec - exiting
# cpu_run_time_pref: 14400
WARNING! error deleting file .aat331.out
======================================================
DONE :: 1 starting structures built 0 (nstruct) times
This process generated 1701603686 decoys from 12015648 attempts
0 starting pdbs were skipped
======================================================


BOINC :: Watchdog shutting down...
BOINC :: BOINC support services shutting down...

</stderr_txt>
26) Message boards : Number crunching : two upgrades to R@H needed (Message 45104)
Posted 18 Aug 2007 by MattDavis
Post:
If you have remote machines running FIFTY projects, many of them alpha... isn't that sort of asking for trouble?
27) Message boards : Number crunching : Benchmark error (Message 44062)
Posted 22 Jul 2007 by MattDavis
Post:
What do you people make of this?

7/21/2007 11:46:49 PM||Running CPU benchmarks
7/21/2007 11:46:49 PM||Suspending computation - running CPU benchmarks
7/21/2007 11:51:49 PM||[error] CPU benchmarks timed out, using default values
7/21/2007 11:51:49 PM||[error] Benchmark: FP unexpectedly zero; ignoring
7/21/2007 11:51:49 PM||[error] Benchmark: int unexpectedly zero; ignoring
7/21/2007 11:51:49 PM||Benchmark results:
7/21/2007 11:51:49 PM|| Number of CPUs: 1
7/21/2007 11:51:49 PM|| 2151 floating point MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU
7/21/2007 11:51:49 PM|| 3970 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU
28) Message boards : Number crunching : Are Results pages not working? (Message 43668)
Posted 14 Jul 2007 by MattDavis
Post:
Mine sometimes loads and sometimes doesn't load. It varies from day to day.

Hope that helps.
29) Message boards : Number crunching : Let's stand up to the -1 moron (Message 42688)
Posted 27 Jun 2007 by MattDavis
Post:
It's a shame that the project has to change its operating procedure because of a couple of morons.
30) Message boards : Number crunching : Let's stand up to the -1 moron (Message 42425)
Posted 21 Jun 2007 by MattDavis
Post:
We obviously have a sad, pathetic individual that is trying to create a negative mood by giving a -1 vote on every single post.

We should stand up to him and do something he cannot affect.

Everyone who wants to should post something positive here, and we should all +1 each others' posts. That sad little person with the -1s won't be able to affect that!

We can show him that we're better than him, and that his -1s are only there because we have better things to than look at them. When we do decide to address them, like here, we can drown out his pathetic negativity!
31) Message boards : Number crunching : Longer target CPU settings?? (Message 42192)
Posted 15 Jun 2007 by MattDavis
Post:
I've tried to explain it several times but I don't see a more simple way to do it.
32) Message boards : Number crunching : Longer target CPU settings?? (Message 42131)
Posted 13 Jun 2007 by MattDavis
Post:
Hi MattDavis,
Right, so the science in a theoretical 48 hour WU would be greater? or just more?(either way seems good)
I'm set at 24 for all my machines, including everything from some really "old school" hardware, to a fairly sweet dual-dual core Xeon. I noticed that the amount of decoys generated by my machines vary significantly from machine to machine in relation to the computing potential of each machine. For the high end machines, I wonder if a 24 hour WU is limiting?


The science in a 48 hour WU is the exact same as 2 24 hour units, or 4 12 hour units, or 8 6 hour units, etc. etc.

A longer runtime doesn't do any more science than several smaller runtimes that equal the same longer runtime.
33) Message boards : Number crunching : Longer target CPU settings?? (Message 42129)
Posted 13 Jun 2007 by MattDavis
Post:
A 24 hour unit would do the same amount of science as 6 4 hour units, or 2 12 hour units, etc. etc.

The difference:

You would be doing all the science in one kind of unit with a 24 hour unit, while you will probably get different kinds of units if you did 6 4 hour units.

Also, you'll reduce server load on the Rosetta servers and decrease your own bandwidth usage with bigger units.
34) Message boards : Number crunching : PENDING work units (Message 42069)
Posted 11 Jun 2007 by MattDavis
Post:
Many of my results are listed as PENDING. That's odd! I don't think I've seen that on Rosetta before considering each work unit is crunched only once.
35) Message boards : Number crunching : Problems with Rosetta version 5.68 (Message 41878)
Posted 5 Jun 2007 by MattDavis
Post:
to:

Dr. Who Fan,

Nice Move, you just gave the WORLD someone's IP Address or in other words his phone number away. I Hope the person you violated has the ability to block hackers and help us as a group to continue crunching to reach a cure!

FirePage


Umm, all his sig does is show each reader his own IP and ISP. I see mine, you see yours, etc. etc.
36) Message boards : Number crunching : Anybody ever have this happen? (Message 41762)
Posted 2 Jun 2007 by MattDavis
Post:
The best advice I can give to you about BOINC: Leave it alone - it knows what it's doing :)

Often BOINC will stop crunching a work unit when it decides it needs to switch to another project to fulfill your project ratio settings. Maybe it decided it had to move on to one of your other projects at that point. BOINC doesn't complete a whole work unit at a time - it almost always stops in the middle of individual work units to switch to another project.

BOINC's behavior often looks funny if you sit there in watch it. In the long term it's doing exactly what we tell it to.
37) Message boards : Cafe Rosetta : Welcome to BOINC Synergy! (Message 41543)
Posted 28 May 2007 by MattDavis
Post:
Haha someone keeps -1ing Misfit's posts.

Sounds like another team is jealous!
38) Message boards : Number crunching : Problems with Rosetta version 5.67 (Message 41512)
Posted 26 May 2007 by MattDavis
Post:
I have a work unit that seems to be "almost" stuck at 97% complete. The % complete has been slowly increasing (by about .4%) over the last two hours. I have work units set to complete in 4 hours, and we are going over 6 with this one. It is wuid=74278854


That's a special kind of unit with HUGE decoys. That behavior is normal.
39) Message boards : Number crunching : Problems with Rosetta version 5.67 (Message 41507)
Posted 26 May 2007 by MattDavis
Post:
Bleh 3 computers had this problem -_-
40) Message boards : Number crunching : Problems with Rosetta version 5.64 (Message 41307)
Posted 22 May 2007 by MattDavis
Post:
Work Unit ID 70636999. My computer completed the work and returned the results and recieved granted credit of 0.00 for over 9228 seconds of work. Another computer received 29.25 credit granted for this workunit. What goes on ?


The person before you was assigned the unit but did not complete it within the scheduled time. As such, the unit was sent to you. However, the person before you finished it late but returned it before you returned yours, so he got the credit.


Previous 20 · Next 20



©2022 University of Washington
https://www.bakerlab.org