Man I am so sorely tempted to recruit you for my team :) and so would any team.
:) :)

Do It! At least for the Million Point Day!

Typically it's getting 65 credit per 6,500 second WU (and obviously will be processing two at a time, hence 1 credit per 50 seconds.

Which would result in 36 credits per hour per CPU.
My FX-60 gets 357 credits for a 24 hour work unit: 15 credits per hour per CPU.

Just a wild stab in the dark: You are using some optimized clients for other projects and therefor run a calibrating BOINC application and forgot to turn off calibration for Rosetta?

cu, Jochen

@Laurenu2: You are one of those, having a BOINC version 5.5.0 with far too high benchmark results. What kind of BOINC client are you using? Why are the benchmarks that high?

Can some one tell me how someone with only has 3,822.20 points get a RAC of 30,128.86??

6 PF2002 30,128.86 3,822.20 Netherlands 3 Jan 2006 15:17:02 UTC

I have 66+ PC's running 24/7 and upload 2X's his over all total every 6 HR's and my RAC is 31,650.90 Thats only 1500 more then his

Is this guy cheating by changing the numbers on his end

Do you have his computer ID? If so please contact me at joseantonio@choicecable.net or contact BOK. Do so ASAP, please

A lot of the first time posters are showing strange results like that, Lauren2.

Credit: 4
RAC: 250
single or double digit Credit, and RAC in the 3 digit range. Is RAC being calculated differently with Boinc 5.4.9 or Rosetta's .22 release?

Hi Laurenu2... can you post the results page for one of your nodes that has this problem? Thanks!

I just looked through the pages for four or five of the nodes that are under your userid -- they all have had perfect success rates for
the last three days! We're not aware of any bad WU's being sent out on rosetta@home, and have been checking that the error rates are low. Obviously,
we need to know ASAP if there are any bad WUs. (There was a bad batch last week on ralph, but it was a small batch, and has been purged from the system.)

A lot of my nodes are without work due to reaching there WU quotas Rosetta should check there system and purge the BAD WU's they just sent out

This ist not really a bug, but it is bugging me:

The new work units seem to have only very few "saving points"

Which means, you put half an hour or even an hour of crunching in, shut down the computer for some reason and when you get back to runching, you have to start over again..

I had this happen at least three times, so I wonder if there is any possibility to put more save spots in the WUs for the crunchers who are not running 24/7 ???

Greets Thor[Free-DC]

I have 4 long runners running here Norm run time is 2 Hrs +/-

4/21/2006 2:01:44 AM|rosetta@home|Starting result FACONTACTS_RECENTER_NOFILTERS_1bgf__448_895_1 using rosetta version 501 1.52% @6hr


4/20/2006 11:29:01 PM|rosetta@home|Starting result FACONTACTS_RECENTER_NOFILTERS_1r69__448_100_1 using rosetta version 501 2.44% @9.2hr

4/21/2006 2:49:55 AM|rosetta@home|Starting result HBLR_1.0_1hz6_420_4593_1 using rosetta version 501 3.68% @ 6.1 hr

4/21/2006 2:33:19 AM|rosetta@home|Starting result HBLR_1.0_1mky_420_5056_1 using rosetta version 501==4.11% @ 6.7hr

I am going to work I will check on them again later today to see what is up with them

It'd still be nice to have WUs that are only causing problems with say.. the Windows clients, only be sent out to the Linux/Darwin users, instead of requiring 3 failures on Windows clients before they're shelved.

And if Boinc/Rosetta sends any data back and forth during the network connections that could be piggybacked.. (when we're looking to see if we need new work, returning a finished WU, or checking to see if there's a Rosetta update), so that the file would be left on the machine until the next connection to the server - it would be nice to have a list of problem WUs sent out that should be nuked..

Although, between the mentioned changes, and hopefully better pre-testing on Ralph, we can hope that the problem would not crop up any more.. :)

You obviously missed the post from "Rhiju" where he said in part-

"...The result is reported to us as a large amount of "claimed credit"; we are going through on a weekly basis and granting credit for these jobs that caused big problems and returned "invalid" results. The results and your posting are still useful to us -- in this case, the postings on this work unit helped us track down a pretty esoteric bug in Rosetta. Let me know what the result number is -- if its not flagged to get credit, I can see why."

The full text of the post is Here.
As a personal asside I might point out that the usefulness of your posting is directly related to the information you provide concerning the problem. Could you at least provide a link to the result ID so the problem can be examined?

"...Well David I let this one FA_RLXpt_hom002_1ptq__361_380_3 run through 48 HR it did not self abort as you said it would and send it self in IT JUST RESTARTED and it most likely was the 3rd time it restarted. That is 142 Hrs of wasted CPU time ."

"... I'm sorry I can not, I looked for it but could not find it. For me your system for tracking WU is hard to use for me It might work OK for me if I had only a few nodes working this. But I have over 50 nodes working this project, jobs get lost with so many pages of WU's It might help if you put in page numbers 1 to 10 20 30 40 50 instead of Just NEXT PAGE
."