Posts by Angus

1) Message boards : Cafe Rosetta : Last one to post here wins part 3 (Message 55313)
Posted 27 Aug 2008 by Profile Angus
Post:
Huh. Not closed.
2) Message boards : Number crunching : RAC Total Flawed (Message 54729)
Posted 29 Jul 2008 by Profile Angus
Post:
RAC is based on average credit over a 7 day period, plus some projects have tasks larger then that and so they use an expoential formula to graduate the peak and valley of a single task being reported. Note the 604800 seen in the formula is the number of seconds in a week. So it takes a full 14 days for RAC to be fully reflected.

In your question, you provided about 1 day of data. Not enough information to compute your RAC.


I did not want to flood the text box with data, but you can look at my profile to see ALL the tasks that were processed and their totals. Typically I get something like 7-10 points more than claimed. So on that basis I expect my RAC to climb at a steady rate and not this zig zag pattern I have seen lately. The RAH RAC differs in its pattern than the http://boincstats.com/stats/user_graph.php?pr=rosetta&id=85645 graph which does show a steady climb with barely descernable valleys, which is what I figured RAH to be doing. What gets my attention is that for 2 days in a row the RAC of RAH has dropped (according to the local machine graph. their (BS) graph shows for the past 2 days a steady increase in RAC vs a drop according to RAH.

So I would gather from this difference that two different formulas are being used by each group to compute RAC vs one agreed upon standard.


Boincstats does not use the BOINC RAC formula.
3) Message boards : Number crunching : RAC Total Flawed (Message 54710)
Posted 28 Jul 2008 by Profile Angus
Post:
A 20 point dip in RAC is hardly "dropping like a stone".

RAC is meant to provide a smooth "average" over a long period, measured in weeks, not hours of days.

It was shown a long time ago that sporadic and grouped reporting of results has a negative effect on RAC. Those that are rabid about their RAC should attempt to report every result as it is finished, and not wait for a number to be reported at once. If I remember right (and I'm not looking it up for you in the wiki), one of the factors in the RAC computation is "time since last report". Reporting in groups makes that almost 0:00 for all but one of the results reported. The "report results immediately" feature in some of the 3rd party clients eliminates that issue.
4) Message boards : Cafe Rosetta : FoldIT game releasing personal emails ? (Message 54018)
Posted 26 Jun 2008 by Profile Angus
Post:
There were no PMs from whomever this was, so this was not an email notification of a PM. It was a direct email. I have the email address of the sender, but won't post it here for obvious reasons.

I don't believe there are any options for opt-in or opt-out of email notifications on FoldIt, but that doesn't even apply in this situation.



I receive EMail notification from Rosetta when a PM is sent as well. It does not mean my EMail address has been disclosed to anyone.

Players are invited to teams either by EMail address (which noone would have in your case) or by user name. So, obviously you user name was used.

You should request the ability to opt out of being invited to join groups, and perhaps PM the owner of the group and express your displeasure with their recruitment efforts. But there's no security exposure here.



I would this is as relevant as any of the other FoldIt posts in Science. (FoldIt 404 ?) It seems to be the only place it's being discussed.

This is not a science topic, nor really a computing topic, so I've moved this thread to the cafe.
5) Message boards : Cafe Rosetta : FoldIT game releasing personal emails ? (Message 54003)
Posted 26 Jun 2008 by Profile Angus
Post:
I registered on FoldIt with an email account that has only been used once before, anywhere.

I have now started getting emails directly to that account with requests to join a group (team) on foldIt.

This is a serious privacy and security issue that needs attention. PMs to the Admin on the FoldIt site on this topic have not been answered.

6) Message boards : Number crunching : Beyond newbie Q&A (Message 53708)
Posted 15 Jun 2008 by Profile Angus
Post:
Just abort the broken minis.
7) Message boards : Number crunching : Minirosetta v1.28 bug thread (Message 53638)
Posted 12 Jun 2008 by Profile Angus
Post:
Hung WU at 100%, after 3:09:42 of processing time shown, on a one hour run time preference.
CPU time not incrementing. Graphics would not open.

After restarting BOINC, these messages. CPU Time reverted to 0:00:00, and Progess started over at 0%.
6/11/2008 6:19:59 PM|rosetta@home|[cpu_sched] Starting d110a_BOINC_CASP8_ABRELAX_main_t405_IGNORE_THE_REST-S25-10-S3-9--d110a-_3740_4259_0(resume)
6/11/2008 6:19:59 PM|rosetta@home|Restarting task d110a_BOINC_CASP8_ABRELAX_main_t405_IGNORE_THE_REST-S25-10-S3-9--d110a-_3740_4259_0 using minirosetta version 128


BOINC 5.10.20 Win2K SP4 AMD XP2600

Basically, the box sat idle most of the day. I think I will abort all Mini WUs until (if?) they become stable.
8) Message boards : Rosetta@home Science : First impressions on Fold It game (Message 53635)
Posted 11 Jun 2008 by Profile Angus
Post:


What good is a "game" without scores? Useless!


this game is not about scores, it's about science... at least for me... i never been in any puzzle higher than 4 place and i was very happy when i did a good prediction not when i was among the high ranked scores...

I'll make the same challenge I have repeatedly made for BOINC:

Take away the points/scoring/credits and prove how many people are really in it for the science, and how many are in it for the competition.

But no one will do that, because they KNOW that it's the scores/points/credits that drive the participation. Take away the stats sites from BOINC, and watch it wither away to almost nothing.
9) Message boards : Rosetta@home Science : First impressions on Fold It game (Message 53622)
Posted 11 Jun 2008 by Profile Angus
Post:
Any advantage has been hugely minimized by releasing the tool to everyone before the end of the one and only puzzle where it provided any noticible advantage by pointing you to a solution that scores well, but isn't correct.


Is there a second definition of "everyone" that I don't know about?
Since you used the past tense - "...has been minimized..." - that would imply that everyone (inclusive of ALL registered users) already had the special tool. I will grant that you didn't specify the particular puzzle, so perhaps that puzzle is still running, and you were expecting it to be released before it ended. Which puzzle was this?

There is no point in anyone trying to compete on the personal level if the team members are still allowed to migrate the team solutions for personal gain.

The organizers should reverse all the bogus scores gained this way, and reassign points based on personally developed solutions.
10) Message boards : Rosetta@home Science : First impressions on Fold It game (Message 53612)
Posted 10 Jun 2008 by Profile Angus
Post:
[quote]There evidently are also special folding tools available only to a chosen few that lets them have a hugely unfair advantage over the general population of folders. These chosen few are allowed to compete with those that don't have the access. I would consider that cheating.


Ironic, isn't it? That those "chosen few" are ALL of the folks that started via the Rosetta@home early release... which you evidentally chose not to participant in.

And you evidentally don't have the new tool in question and so are making a huge presumption that it provides some "hugely unfair advantage". Any advantage has been hugely minimized by releasing the tool to everyone before the end of the one and only puzzle where it provided any noticible advantage by pointing you to a solution that scores well, but isn't correct.

The tool in question - something called "rebuild" - is not and was not available when I joined the game on June 03. So - who has this tool? Not anyone joining recently, I would guess. Why isn't the same software made available to everyone who joins? Only reason I can think of is to give the "chosen few" an unfair advantage, and of course THEY wouldn't want it to be released. I can't imagine why feet1st thinks everyone has it.

It might be of some limited scientific interest, but as a competitive game, until those problems are fixed it isn't worth the cycles.


Scoring, ranking, and teaming aside, the reason the project was undertaken was the scientific interest. Scoring, ranking and teaming have no scientific interest and so, understandably are still being developed. And you don't need scoring, ranking and teaming to learn to how to reach higher scores with the available tools. Indeed, if you do not play now, you score no points towards player ranking and it will take you longer to catch up to others that have given it a try.


What good is a "game" without scores? Useless!

Oh, and the profiles don't work either. And there are numerous unaddressed software problems like 404 errors every time you try to connect.


I haven't seen a 404 error since about day 3 of the public announcement when the site was being pounded by 20,000 new folders. If there are specific problems, they should be posted on the Fold.it forums.


The game presents a 404 error every time I log in, as well as some message about a missing .csv file. This is with pretty vanilla equipment and standard MS W2KSP4.
The "My Page" (profile I would guess) is completely blank. There is no documentation to tell what is supposed to be there, but I assume it's on the menu for a reason.

We're all entitled to our first impressions of the game, but I hope you don't let the impressions posted by Angus jade you. Indeed, there's nothing in his comments that imply he's done anything more then read comments posted to the chat box that is incorporated into the game, or can be attached to with an IRC client.


All of my comments come from joining the game and attempting to play it and understand the web site.

Let's not even get into the CRAZILY UNFAIR practice of allowing teams to work on puzzles, and then the members get to take the team solution back to the personal competition and dominate the top ranks. Totally NUTZ. There is NO HOPE of a single user ever competing against that. Don't waste your time.
11) Message boards : Rosetta@home Science : First impressions on Fold It game (Message 53576)
Posted 7 Jun 2008 by Profile Angus
Post:
Until the fix the "sharing" & "special tools" (cheating) problems, I wouldn't bother.

They have implemented a group thing that lets a group work on a puzzle. People can join the group, grab the best solutoin the group has, and take it back with them to the individual competition and leap-frog over all those that are trying to compete as pure individuals. Groups also close membership so only the individuals on that team can have access to the shared solution and use it to increase their own individual ranking.

There evidently are also special folding tools available only to a chosen few that lets them have a hugely unfair advantage over the general population of folders. These chosen few are allowed to compete with those that don't have the access. I would consider that cheating.

It might be of some limited scientific interest, but as a competitive game, until those problems are fixed it isn't worth the cycles.

Oh, and the profiles don't work either. And there are numerous unaddressed software problems like 404 errors every time you try to connect.
12) Message boards : Number crunching : Problems with Rosetta 5.95 (Message 51950)
Posted 15 Mar 2008 by Profile Angus
Post:
It's simply amazing how a new release can be a minor bug fix on Ralph,
The Ralph executable has been updated to 5.95. This version fixes a small bug in the previous version.

but when it gets to Rosetta (after only 6 days of testing) it is a major change in process.
13) Message boards : Number crunching : small question (Message 51949)
Posted 15 Mar 2008 by Profile Angus
Post:
smaller work units are always better.

when they crash, you lose less crunching time.
is there an advantage to have one WU work for longer time?
or better yet.. whats better... longer WU or shorter WU?

14) Message boards : Number crunching : Problems with minirosetta version 1.+ (Message 51352)
Posted 12 Feb 2008 by Profile Angus
Post:
Depending on where you look on Ralph, there are 6000+ or 10,000+ WUs queued, but I'm getting "no work available" messages.
15) Message boards : Number crunching : Problems with minirosetta version 1.+ (Message 51325)
Posted 11 Feb 2008 by Profile Angus
Post:
How long was 1.07 tested on Ralph? Doesn't it seem apparent it should have seen more time?

Your answer was posted previously:
with Mini Rosetta 1.07 there is a new record for "test period": 33 minutes and 14 seconds between the time it was released on Ralph and Rosetta.
16) Message boards : Number crunching : Problems with minirosetta version 1.+ (Message 51321)
Posted 11 Feb 2008 by Profile Angus
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).



I am not aware of a work unit on R@h from mini that causes BOINC to lock up and crash. There is no real rush except for the interest of science and getting results, that is why we are slowly adding mini work units to R@h. We do however need to get mini running for CASP which is coming up this summer. Ralph does not have the same diversity of computers and active users as R@h so we have to eventually start running jobs, particularly since ralph jobs are having a similar success rate as R@h. I realize some people will have computers that don't like some mini work units as there are some computers that do not like rosetta tasks.


The list of CPUs on Ralph looks very much like the list of CPUs on Rosetta, just fewer of them.........of course it doesn't matter there are fewer CPUs on Ralph, because you don't give us enough WUs to keep those CPUs busy anyway.

What does the diversity of active users have to do with anything?

If you aren't going to use Ralph as a "real" test site, why don't you shut it down, conserve those resources and continue to test on Rosetta like you do now.

Agreed.

90% is a horrible success rate. 1 of every 10 WUs fail? How are you going to get 97-98% on Rosetta if you can only get 90% on Ralph?

I would think until you can get 99.x% on Ralph, it should never see Rosetta.

The whole point of Ralph was to get the bugs out and provide a clean debugged application and WU mix to Rosetta.
17) Message boards : Number crunching : Problems with minirosetta version 1.+ (Message 51305)
Posted 10 Feb 2008 by Profile Angus
Post:
I attached to Ralph.

There is no work to use for testing.

Nice try.

I got 9 mini 6 hour wu's today. I have had 5 of them 'freeze' around 12-18 min and then go on to the next wu. I have not had this with Rosetta before today, but I have had some do this on MilkyWay. Is there any info I can leave to help? I am using Boinc 5.10.13.


You can help by joining the Ralph@home project for alpha testing if you haven't already.

http://ralph.bakerlab.org

18) Message boards : Number crunching : Problems with minirosetta version 1.+ (Message 51263)
Posted 9 Feb 2008 by Profile Angus
Post:
Well, if it's like the last few Rosetta "releases" that have been inflicted on the users, the testing was measured in hours, and only a handful of WUs. Not exactly exhaustive testing.

Looks like nothing but trouble.

And where is the announcement about this new app?

Yes, we've been testing it on ralph for the past few weeks in small increments. All jobs that run on R@h get tested on ralph first no matter what the application is. The current version runs stable on Ralph but since R@h is a much larger project, some issues might emerge. We are going to slowly ramp up tasks making sure they run okay.
19) Message boards : Number crunching : Problems with minirosetta version 1.+ (Message 51211)
Posted 7 Feb 2008 by Profile Angus
Post:
Was this tested at all on Ralph?

No announcement? Just throw it out into the wild and see what breaks?
20) Message boards : Number crunching : Problems with minirosetta version 1.+ (Message 51198)
Posted 6 Feb 2008 by Profile Angus
Post:
What is "minirosetta" ?


Next 20



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