Abaddon
Deity
= 
Great idea guys!
Team CFC: Folding@Home project
- Thread starter Abaddon
- Start date
- Status
= Great idea guys!
ruff_hi
Live 4ever! Or die trying
Don't worry - I found a solution ... delete the 'work' sub-directory. The prog then says "cannot find work directory, restarting new job" (or similar).
JonnyB
Workaholic
This was weird, my current WU was averaging about 1:15 per frame, yesterday I restarted my computer and afterwards it was working at 3:09 per frame.
Tonight, after the WU should have finished based on the original time estimate, I decided to try restarting my computer again and it's now back to 1:15 per frame.
When it was working at 3:09 per frame there was nothing else eating up my CPU usage that I could see. I don't understand why restarting my computer caused such a drastic change in my folding speed.
Tonight, after the WU should have finished based on the original time estimate, I decided to try restarting my computer again and it's now back to 1:15 per frame.
When it was working at 3:09 per frame there was nothing else eating up my CPU usage that I could see. I don't understand why restarting my computer caused such a drastic change in my folding speed.
Abaddon
Deity
Mines screwed up after completeing a work unit again.. ill have to completely remove it from my system and reinstall before it will work again.. i wonder why it does this?!?!
When mine finishes a work unit, it too crashes but I just reboot the program from the start/all programs menu and it works fine again.Starting on a new unit.
Also try just rebooting, it might be quicker, and I have a feeling it will work again after a reboot, assuming your connected to the internet.
I get 34s per frame, I wonder who gets the fastest speed? I'm sure some people who have dual core processors probably get like 15 secs or something ludicrous
I think we should carry the folding smilie? in our sigs like wearing a poppy or something
or some club badge.
Longer than that. It's been about 10 months since I last ran F@H, and I'm still in the top 10.For what it's worth - neither can I, now.Though it looks like I'll retain the highest "total points" for at least another six months.
Longer than that. It's been about 10 months since I last ran F@H, and I'm still in the top 10.
Hehey I just noticed I'm in 96th
cool.
A frame isn't a constant amount of work, in most cases it's simply 100th of the total work package, though some are 400 frame units. So measuring the time per frame is not very useful as a comparison unless all the work units happen to be the same size.
My four-core system runs 100-frame SMP work units at about 12 mins per frame, taking 20 hours to complete one work unit. They are worth 1440 points per unit. That's about 70 points per hour.
I have a feeling you may have the fastest processor
And I also have a feeling you will not remain in 5th for ever.
JonnyB
Workaholic
I guess 4 core systems get different WU's than I do. I get a bunch of different sized ones, but bigger ones have smaller times. The one I had yesterday was 2000 frames at 1:15, the one I'm working on now is 5000 @ 29 seconds each.
I've also had WU's that were as high as 20,000 and 50,000 frames, and as low as 200. But each seems to take me 1.5 to 4 days to complete.
Sidhe said:
If you go to this page it shows the top 20 members of our team based on current production, if you click on someones name it'll show you when they're expected to overtake, or be overtaken by someone.
I've seen people talking about very large frame counts before, and I still don't 'get it'. This page lists the projects and the "Frames" column contains entries of 2 (a strange exception, I guess), 400 (a few Tinker projects), and mostly of 100. Where are you getting 2,000, 20,000 and 50,000 frame projects from?
Are you talking about "steps", as reported in the fahlog.txt file? If that's the case, my work units are currently 10 million steps each, and my system processes 100,000 steps every 12 minutes.
Furiey
No Longer Just Lurking
Some of the cores count in Steps rather than Frames, with multiple steps to complete one Frame. The large numbers occur when you get one of those work units.
JonnyB
Workaholic
My info is coming from the icon on my toolbar, if I select 'display' it shows:
Working On:
p3039_Supervillin-03
GROMACS core
Frames Completed:
1300/5000
31s/frame
1328/5000 (estimate)
WU End:
19:10 Mon 5 Mar 07
01d:08h:04m:22s
I haven't seen the page you linked before. Hopefully Sakhunder or someone can explain the differences between that and what I see on my F@H
Edit: It might be steps that I'm talking about, I don't know. Display mode refers to them as frames so I do too.
I have a feeling you may have the fastest processor
And I also have a feeling you will not remain in 5th for ever.
Ah, yes. But Aesop had a fable about a tortoise and a hare. The SMP client is beta software, meaning it breaks every so often. My system racks up big numbers when it's working, but then it'll have a major hiccough once in a while and throw work units away like a drunken sailor for a couple of days. That restores my average to a more modest level from time to time.
Right now Sahkuhnder sustains a faster and more consistent rate of progress than I do, and seems to be disappearing into the sunset. The stats indicate that I'll move up to 3rd place in the next couple of months, but after that, IglooDude's massive accumulated score plus Sahkuhnder's impressive current work rate will keep me there indefinitely.
That project is listed as a 100 frame project in the list I linked earlier, and I can see nothing in that listing that correlates with 20,000. Maybe the "frames" given in your graphical client are using some older definition of the project size.
I don't run a graphical client on my multicore machine, so the only display I have is the log file. I do have another, older, single core Mac that runs a conventional graphical client. It's currently folding p3038_supervillin-03, and all I see in the Mac graphical client is a percentage progress number and a progress thermometer. The log file, again, just lists "steps" at 1% intervals. Each 1% is 50,000 steps for the current unit, and it's doing 1% every 80 minutes or so.
Well whatever happens it's an impressive score by all the top 10 anyway. well done.
RFHolloway
Analyst in the UK
That would be the issue - the log file for both the graphical and the console client counts in percentage complete (for all units I ever saw) but it does also record the number of individual timesteps (at least on the cores I get)
Here is an extract from the log file
[17:57:49] Protein: p2124_lambda_5way_melt_4_10011
[17:57:49]
[17:57:49] Writing local files
[17:57:49] Using table 3
[17:57:49] Completed 5711692 out of 20000000 steps (29)
[17:57:49] Extra SSE boost OK.
[18:56:23] Writing local files
[18:56:24] Completed 5800000 out of 20000000 steps (29)
[21:11:20] Writing local files
[21:11:20] Completed 6000000 out of 20000000 steps (30)
you can tell that its a p2124. On the graphical client it would be listed as 20,000 frames, so 1000 steps is 1 frame. Alan (and most of the software you can get to monitor how the folding is going) uses the numbers in brackets which are always percentages.
From that you can tell that it took from 18.56 to 21.11 to complete 1% of this large unit. That is 2hrs 15 minutes. so the whole unit would take 225hrs or 9.375 days. The unit is worth 396 points so I am getting 42.24 points per day from that copy of F@H. I actually had 2 copies of F&H running on that processor by accident, so I was actually getting more like 85 points per day, and since I have 2 processors my total points are about 170 per day or about 1200 per week.
That will fluctuate a bit on the stats because the work units all vary somewhat, and because the stats look at units completed rather than work done. But it will average out over the long term.
- Status
Similar threads
