Posts by Martin P.

1) Message boards : Number crunching : OS-X BOINC Client "Freeze" (Message 61230)
Posted 16 May 2009 by Martin P.
Post:
Avoid 6.6.20 like the plague ... 6.6.29 has some additional fixes in though it is not addressing your issue. I have never seen this ... are you running the screen saver? Or do you look at the graphics?


Paul,

On one of my computers I run the screensaver, on the other one I don't. It does not make a difference. I do not look at the graphics. Most often it happens when I quit e.g. Firefox or Thunderbird.
2) Message boards : Number crunching : OS-X BOINC Client "Freeze" (Message 61226)
Posted 16 May 2009 by Martin P.
Post:
Well, good news is that Charlie Fenton is working in this area still ... we should see a couple minor improvements in 6.6.30 though I don't know if they will for sure affect the problems or not ...

Only time will tell. WHich version of BOINC?


6.6.20 and 6.6.29
3) Message boards : Number crunching : OS-X BOINC Client "Freeze" (Message 61224)
Posted 16 May 2009 by Martin P.
Post:
Sorry, double-post.
4) Message boards : Number crunching : OS-X BOINC Client "Freeze" (Message 61223)
Posted 16 May 2009 by Martin P.
Post:
From time to time it happens that the Rosetta app will appear in the dock and will not disappear until BOINC is terminated. In this case it will also "hang" BOINC: BOINC becomes the front-most application and I cannot select any other applications unless I quit BOINC.

This happens on both my Mac Pros, an early 2008 Octa-Core Xeon (3 GHz) and a brand new Nehalem Octa-Core (2.66 GHz).

However, I suspended Rosetta anyway because it grants just 20-25 credits/hour while all other BOINC projects grant 40-50 credits/hour to Macs.
5) Message boards : Number crunching : Major problems with granted credit (Message 58595)
Posted 7 Jan 2009 by Martin P.
Post:
I experience major problems with credits granted. On 2 occasions claimed crdit was 48.9 (http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/result.php?resultid=217748955) and 90.4 (http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/result.php?resultid=217572433) while the granted credit was only 2 and 8. Run-times are in line with previous, correct work-units. What is going on?
6) Message boards : Number crunching : Stats - Not being exported? (Message 55961)
Posted 22 Sep 2008 by Martin P.
Post:
As you can see here there was no export for 3 days:


7) Message boards : Number crunching : Stats - Not being exported? (Message 55960)
Posted 22 Sep 2008 by Martin P.
Post:
As you can see here there was no export for 3 days:

[img]http://boincstats.com/charts/chart_uk_rosetta_project_new_credits.gif[img/]
8) Message boards : Number crunching : Major problem with credit (Message 53075)
Posted 15 May 2008 by Martin P.
Post:
Any news on this problem? Are they lost?
9) Message boards : Number crunching : Major problem with credit (Message 52950)
Posted 9 May 2008 by Martin P.
Post:
I just returned a work unit (Task ID: 160597003) that validated o.k. However, this work-unit took a little over 10,000 seconds (which is in line with my usual results), it claimed 70.68 credits (which is also in line with the other results) but it only received 3.7 credits! How can that happen???

10) Message boards : Number crunching : Why do I receive much less credit than my client claims? (Message 40643)
Posted 10 May 2007 by Martin P.
Post:
In the end, the amount of credits you receive is the sum of all these variables. If your machine is always getting less than the 'credit claimed', it's because of the Boinc benchmark not taking the type of work Rosetta is doing into account for your system.


Ethan,

thanks for the explanation. My current benchmark results are (BOINC client 5.8.17):
Measured floating point speed: 1083.84 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed: 3446.62 million ops/sec

Using the optimized BOINC client 5.4.9 my benchmarks go up by the factor of 3 i.e. appr. 3,000 FPU and 10,000 Integer. However, granted credit remains the same although claimed credit goes up significantly. Therefore the granted credit must be completely independent from the benchmarks.

...it will get the same number of credits regardless of how long it takes. With all other things being equal, a 2ghz machine will take twice as long (and get 1/2 the credits/hour) as a 4ghz machine (same cpu, just changing frequency)


Now we come a little closer to the issue I tried to explain for days now (and nobody wants to understand): 2 computers with the same specifications should take the same amount of time to perform a certain number of calculations and therefore should claim and receive the same amount of credits. This it true for ALL projects that offer clients for different platforms, except for Rosetta@Home. In all other projects the differences in credits/time are in a range of ±10% between comparable computers, even for different architectures and operating systems. However, in Rosetta@Home the differences are bigger than 100% between Windows-based systems (compare the hosts I linked to here: Message ID 40399) and MacOS X machines with PowerPC processors - and this is simply due to very bad programming/optimization of the science application (they even admitted this: Message ID 26330). This has NOTHING to do with the BOINC client or benchmarks!

11) Message boards : Number crunching : Why do I receive much less credit than my client claims? (Message 40607)
Posted 9 May 2007 by Martin P.
Post:
However, there must be something else going wrong here because most results I sent receive much less credit than the client claims and there is no other computer that did the same WU, so there is also no consensus like in other projects (3 results required, the middle claimed credit granted to all 3).

The consensus is from the other computers that did the same Work Units - although they start from different points, all tasks within a particular WU will take a similar amount of time and resources (there are exceptions, but it's a pretty good system). The other computers that crunched the same WUs as you must have claimed less credit than your machine - hence your granted credit being reduced.

I don't know of a way to filter the results to show all the jobs within a WU so you can compare your scores - i did it by downloading all the info into Excel and filtering that way, but that was a while ago now.

The xenon (and CellBE) use a form/subset of altivec so maybe/hopefully the dev team will work on improving this.

HTH
Danny


Danny,

please click the links I provided!!! NO other computer crunched the same work-unit, that's the problem! I was THE ONLY ONE who crunched these work-units and still I receive less credit than I my client claims. That's what this whole thread is about.


12) Message boards : Number crunching : Why do I receive much less credit than my client claims? (Message 40484)
Posted 7 May 2007 by Martin P.
Post:
Yes, I run HT. So, I guess what we've proved here is that Pentium D is faster then P4 HT. Yes, I leave tasks in memory. Yes, I crunch 24/7 and only crunch Rosetta and Ralph.

So, seems my benchmarks accurately reflect the work produced and the credit I receive.

Martin, rereading your original post, you stated that Mac receive half the credit for the "same amount of work done". Do you understand how Rosetta defines "work done"? Or did you mean to say for the same amount of runtime? Since all credit is issued based on work done, it would not be possible for anyone to receive half of what anyone else gets for the same work done.

Issues like preempting, and running multiple projects do not really effect your credit for a given task. They pertain more to how much of a 24hr day gets reported back as meaningful results, which impacts your RAC.

My machine benchmarks similar floating point ops per second to yours, with the same size L2 cache, yet you received more credit per second then I did. You have a Mac, I have an Intel. Different operating systems, etc. What I'm trying to get back to, was your original question. You seem to feel that Macs are singled out and treated unfairly. But I don't see it.


Feet1st,

in most other BOINC projects credit is based on the number of calculations done, regardless how much time a computer needs to do that. SETI and Einstein staff found that the calculation of credit based on benchmarks is B$ and only provokes cheating and therefore changed that. The problem is that the Mac science application for Rosetta is extremely inefficient due to bad programming. Therefore a PowerPC-based Mac needs twice as long to crunch a work unit than a comparable Intel or AMD processor based machine.

However, there must be something else going wrong here because most results I sent receive much less credit than the client claims and there is no other computer that did the same WU, so there is also no consensus like in other projects (3 results required, the middle claimed credit granted to all 3).

13) Message boards : Number crunching : Why do I receive much less credit than my client claims? (Message 40409)
Posted 6 May 2007 by Martin P.
Post:
Sorry, double post.
14) Message boards : Number crunching : Why do I receive much less credit than my client claims? (Message 40408)
Posted 6 May 2007 by Martin P.
Post:
I didn't mean to imply that 1000s of users are wrong, nor that you are wrong, nor that I am correct. I'm just trying to explain what I know, learn what you think and see if there is an explaination for your observation.

If you could point me to a hostID or two that would support your assertion, I'd be more inclined to accept your conclusion. And in the big scheme of things, it averages out, but if possible it would be most pertenant if you could show me another host that crunched that same task that you and I did. That was what I was doing for you, to bring you truely comparable numbers.


Feet1st,

your host requires 608 seconds for each credit (85750 divided by 141).
Here are a few comparable Pentium D hosts, some a little faster others a little slower than yours (taken from the Rosetta host stats page): http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=441048, http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=347756, http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=306640, http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=324688, http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=283508, http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=265888.

These hosts require 310, 421, 339, 318, 277, 429 seconds/credit. Pay special attention to the results of this host: http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/results.php?hostid=306640. It is a Genuine Intel(R) Pentium(R) D CPU 3.00GHz that takes appr. the same amount of time per work-unit but receives an average of 245 credits/WU (those are the big WUs).
15) Message boards : Number crunching : Why do I receive much less credit than my client claims? (Message 40384)
Posted 5 May 2007 by Martin P.
Post:
I think you are confusing RAC, with credit. If I did not leave applications in memory, and preempted to work on some other project (only other project I crunch is Ralph :) and was losing work, then my RAC would decline. However, my number of CPU seconds to complete the work I did would be nearly identical to, well indentical to the same machine configured in any other way.

If I've got 100min. in to a task, and then preempt it and force it out of memory, then upon restart I will see the CPU seconds drop back to the last checkpoint. Let's say back to 90min for example. So my total CPU recorded, and credits claimed would only be based on the 90min of work that survived. I will grant you that there are about 100 seconds expended in reinitializing a task after a full stop, and so I might report 100 seconds more then otherwise. But that's a 1% scale change. And so clearly not what we're talking about.

Are you confusing time on my wristwatch with CPU time? BOINC is reporting everything in actual CPU time. If my machine is configured to use 80% of CPU for example, you would never be able to see that in my credits for any specific work unit. This is because you would not know how many hours or days of time it took me to muster the 24hrs of CPU time reported. However, you WOULD see my RAC come down. But your question was not about RAC.

Yes, my settings are to crunch for 24hrs. That's my preference. And so we have to scale your information in to my runtime to account for that.

I think you probably have some other misconceptions about how credit works and I'd be glad to try and clarify things for you. Perhaps if you could explain how you concluded that my machine SHOULD have been able to do as many models in 30,000 seconds then I would better understand where you are coming from.


Feet1st,

if you compare your results to all the other computers with comparable CPUs you will learn what I mean. I have not found any other P4 running at 3 GHz that took so much time for that little amount of credit. It is as simple as that: Your computer receives less than half the amount of credit/time as any other Intel or AMD CPU of comparable speed. Probably several thousand users are wrong, but I tend to believe that YOUR settings are way off.
16) Message boards : Number crunching : Why do I receive much less credit than my client claims? (Message 40358)
Posted 5 May 2007 by Martin P.
Post:
I had a very detailed review all prepared and got some error about the link timing out, and lost it all. But let me just throw this out there. I found a task that you crunched on your Mac, and I crunched on a Windows Intel. Please compare your task here, with mine here and let me know what you think about credit granted, claimed, fair, unfair whatever. By my calculations you received 50% more credit per second then I did, yet your benchmarks do not reflect that your machine does floating point that much faster then mine, and most of what Rosetta does is floating point.

[edit] and I would add that your machine appears to be able to crunch the 30 nstructs that mine did in about 52% of the time it took me to do it. So let's say your Mac is the benchmark system, all others are compared to it. You were granted 37 credits for your work. How many credits should I be granted based on your benchmark?


Feet1st,

this is not a matter of the client but of your specific setting. Your computer should be able to crunch a "standard" work-unit like the one I did in less than 9,000 seconds or the one you did in less than 30,000 seconds as opposed to the 85,000 you scored. Your settings may be responsible for this. You have to set the client so that it keeps the application in the memory and you have to set the "Switch between applications every" in the project preference page to a reasonable time (30-120 minutes).

17) Message boards : Number crunching : Why do I receive much less credit than my client claims? (Message 40342)
Posted 4 May 2007 by Martin P.
Post:
Why do I receive much less credit than my client claims although I use the latest client version 5.8.17? http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/results.php?userid=84658

It is a known fact that the Mac science app is only half as effective as the Windows client due to bad programming/optimization and therefore Macs receive only half the credit for the same amount of work done. Now I receive even less than the claimed credit (which is already much too low), due to what? Why do they even offer a Mac client when they do not want Mac-users to participate in this project?

18) Questions and Answers : Macintosh : Submitted credit versus granted credit (Message 35835)
Posted 31 Jan 2007 by Martin P.
Post:
I think you should be fine with either BOINC version.

Rosetta implemented a new credit system in that timeframe. And what has come up is that on a Mac, the benchmarks run very quickly, and so they presume the machine will crunch well, and yet Rosetta doesn't run as fast as predicted by the benchmark. The new credit system grants credit for the number of models you've crunched. And since the Rosetta models don't compute on par with the BOINC benchmarks, you see a disparity between your claimed credit and your granted credit.

Just this week they added a mention on the site that says:

Note: the Mac OS X (PPC) application is not optimized and will not fully utilize the PPC processor.


"PPC" means Power PC.


Is it not possible for a MAC to run multiple tasks in parallel to fully utilize the bench mark speed.


morrisian,

you are right: the Mac client is not optimized at all and therefore needs almost twice as much time for the same amount of calculations. Since they changed the credit system this directly converts to credit as well, because credit is granted according to the number of calculations you do.


19) Questions and Answers : Macintosh : I´m getting a lot of validation and computer errors. (Message 34186)
Posted 6 Jan 2007 by Martin P.
Post:
Does ANYBODY care about this?
20) Message boards : Number crunching : Problems with Rosetta version 5.43 (Message 34019)
Posted 3 Jan 2007 by Martin P.
Post:

Same problem here with result http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/result.php?resultid=55257558 (Mac-client).


And another one: http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/result.php?resultid=55257667


Next 20



©2021 University of Washington
https://www.bakerlab.org