Hi,
how do the top computers claim 5xx credits for every WU?
I only get 4x :-(

---

Hi,
how do the top computers claim 5xx credits for every WU?
I only get 4x :-(

They are cheating. This problem will be adressed with the upcoming change in credit granting:

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/forum_thread.php?id=1177#17292

---

Looking at top particapants, some person has 144k average credit. That must seriously screw up the tflop measuremnent for rosetta@home.

---

Looking at top particapants, some person has 144k average credit. That must seriously screw up the tflop measuremnent for rosetta@home.

Why? You must be referring to DDTUNG, who has somewhere in the region of 80 dual core opterons + 30 or so dual xeons@3Ghz + other assorted P4's. He is legitimately processing that amount per day..

Bok

---

Free-DC

Stats for all projects

Custom Stats

I've been getting 240-270 credits per WU running each for 24 hours, on a 2Ghz, Athlon 64 754 pin 3000+ cpu using the default Boinc client (5.2.16). So you can get close to 5xx credits per WU with something more modern than my 2 year old cpu by running each WU for 24 hours (86,400 seconds).

If you're talking about 5xx credits per WU that have run for 10,000 seconds, then someone's got really outrageous Boinc Benchmarks..

---

Looking at top particapants, some person has 144k average credit. That must seriously screw up the tflop measuremnent for rosetta@home.

Why? You must be referring to DDTUNG, who has somewhere in the region of 80 dual core opterons + 30 or so dual xeons@3Ghz + other assorted P4's. He is legitimately processing that amount per day..

Bok

Okay my mistake, wrong to pick someone. But if indeed people are illegitimately raising average credits, then it is unfair when comparing rosetta@home with other projects.

---

I've been getting 240-270 credits per WU running each for 24 hours, on a 2Ghz, Athlon 64 754 pin 3000+ cpu using the default Boinc client (5.2.16). So you can get close to 5xx credits per WU with something more modern than my 2 year old cpu by running each WU for 24 hours (86,400 seconds).

If you're talking about 5xx credits per WU that have run for 10,000 seconds, then someone's got really outrageous Boinc Benchmarks..

yeh, but you have some seriously long cpu times. Why are you getting such long times? Whats the a64 3000+ time for superpi (1M)?

---

Clearly Benny has set his adjustable WU runtime to 24hrs. It's a great way to crunch more models on the same protein and minimize your network bandwidth. This is in your Rosetta preferences. Credits are issued for the time spent on the WU (as scaled by relative processor performance), so you can set a higher runtime preference, reduce your bandwidth requirements, put less hits on the project's servers, while getting just as much credit and helping the science just as much (with LESS WUs!).

Beware: The client won't use the new runtime until you update to the project, and BOINC won't figure out that the WUs will take longer to run until it has crunched a few and updated again... so don't just jump from 3hrs to 24hrs with a 3 day cache. The client will ask for work thinking it takes 3hrs to complete, and so request 24 WUs to fill 3 days... then end UP taking a day on EACH ONE. Rule of thumb. Make changes gradually if you have a longer "connect to network every... days" setting in your general preferences.

---

Add this signature to your EMail:
Running Microsoft's "System Idle Process" will never help cure cancer, AIDS nor Alzheimer's. But running Rosetta@home just might!
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/

Clearly Benny has set his adjustable WU runtime to 24hrs. It's a great way to crunch more models on the same protein and minimize your network bandwidth. This is in your Rosetta preferences. Credits are issued for the time spent on the WU (as scaled by relative processor performance), so you can set a higher runtime preference, reduce your bandwidth requirements, put less hits on the project's servers, while getting just as much credit and helping the science just as much (with LESS WUs!).

Beware: The client won't use the new runtime until you update to the project, and BOINC won't figure out that the WUs will take longer to run until it has crunched a few and updated again... so don't just jump from 3hrs to 24hrs with a 3 day cache. The client will ask for work thinking it takes 3hrs to complete, and so request 24 WUs to fill 3 days... then end UP taking a day on EACH ONE. Rule of thumb. Make changes gradually if you have a longer "connect to network every... days" setting in your general preferences.

Thx for the info.

Im a temporary cruncher from einstein@home. So i really dont know much about rosetta@home. So sorry if my questions were noobish.

---

Thx for the info.

Im a temporary cruncher from einstein@home. So i really dont know much about rosetta@home. So sorry if my questions were noobish.

No worries. I hope you took my comments in the light intended. I was just trying to explain it so you could see how Rosetta is a little different that other projects.

I hope you'll stick around long enough to see that finding cures is at least as important as locating theoretical objects in space to prove Einstein's theories... and that you will keep a resource share on Rosetta, even once they do get their act together over at E@H. You'll see R@H is very clear about what you are crunching and what they are learning from that. Right now they are participating in the CASP, which is a scientific achievement trail. Every 2 years the protein folks get together and see who's learned the most about how proteins work. We think we know the answer :)

As you can see, the lead scientist posts frequently to his journal. And click his user ID, you'll see he also posts on the forums to answer scientific questions and project management questions. The rest of the team is active on the boards as well. Seeking information about any problems people encounter running R@H, and taking action to resolve them.

---

Add this signature to your EMail:
Running Microsoft's "System Idle Process" will never help cure cancer, AIDS nor Alzheimer's. But running Rosetta@home just might!
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/

Thx for the info.

Im a temporary cruncher from einstein@home. So i really dont know much about rosetta@home. So sorry if my questions were noobish.

With Panda Titanium running, and my normal apps open, SuperPi runs in 47 seconds on my 754 pin A64.
And don't worry about the questions - if they don't get re-asked periodically, then new users won't be directed to the answers. It should be covered in the FAQ, but many of us stay away from things like that until we see mention of features and settings that we weren't aware of.

---

Hi there,

I am a newby as well (just joined yesterday). Since my question is related to the credits as well, I append it here.

Right now I am running Rosetta on 4 computers. I am a bit worried about the fact, the regardless of the cpu speed, all WUs take about 10xxx seconds to complete. Only the claimed credits vary. 33 Credits on the slower computer and 40 to 42 on the faster ones.
Is this correct? Do I have to fine-tune something? (I have read the tread on how to set up BOINC preferences)

After looking at some of the computers, I am afraid my computers are claiming too less credits, or are all the others I looked at cheaters? (would be quite a bit of pity, only to pick cheaters computers though...)

Regards,

Jochen

---

[...]I am a bit worried about the fact, the regardless of the cpu speed, all WUs take about 10xxx seconds to complete. [...]
After looking at some of the computers, I am afraid my computers are claiming too less credits, or are all the others I looked at cheaters? (would be quite a bit of pity, only to pick cheaters computers though...)
[...]

Hi Jochen,

in your Rosetta Preferences you find the item "Target CPU runtime" which means the time each WU is supposed to be calculated on your PC. If left at default, it is 3 hours or 10.800 seconds. So each of your PCs running Rosetta will roughly run the WUs equally long but with different power. That's why you get different credits per WU.

Your credits seem quite ok, I have a 3200+ running at a slightly faster speed than stock and it claims just as much over those 33 credits as the speed increase should do. The FX and the X2 both claim what I would expect looking at their processor speeds.

Regards,

Christoph

---

"I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant." R.M. Nixon

Hi Christoph,

thanks for your answer.
I obviously missunderstood the 'Target CPU Runtime' setting...
Since everything else looks ok, I am happy again. ;)

Happy crunching,

Jochen

---

I am a bit worried about the fact, the regardless of the cpu speed, all WUs take about 10xxx seconds to complete. Only the claimed credits vary.

That's correct. The runtime is actually something you can chose. The science relates to how many "models" you crunch. You must crunch at least one model to have anything to report bcak, regardless of your runtime preference. Some proteins are so large that it can take 3 or 4 hours to crunch a single model (even if your preference is set down to an hour). Others, you can crunch 10 models per hour.

What's happening is that both a fast and slow machine are set with a target runtime. And your fast machine is able to crunch more models during that time than the slow machine. Credits for R@H are based on how much crunch time you invest, with the relative performance of the machine taken in to account. So, if both machines were to crunch for exactly 3 hours on the same WU, the faster machine would have crunched more models and have a higher relative performance and so it would claim more credit than the slower machine.

I think you will find that having a fairly consistent WU runtime is very helpful. R@H isn't like other projects where you are handed a WU that noone has really studied before, and you search through it from start to end. With R@H we're ALL basically working on just a handful of proteins. The R@H community crunches thousands of different models on them and the project studies those results to further develop the science. So, if your crunch on one WU for 24hrs, you will return more models for that protein. If you crunch for 3hrs each, then you will go through more WUs and require more network bandwidth to download more WUs.

---

Add this signature to your EMail:
Running Microsoft's "System Idle Process" will never help cure cancer, AIDS nor Alzheimer's. But running Rosetta@home just might!
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/

Ok, thanks. I just switched to 8h 'Target CPU Runtime'.

Jochen

---

Ok, thanks. I just switched to 8h 'Target CPU Runtime'.

Jochen

There is a detailed FAQ on this issue here

---

Moderator9
ROSETTA@home FAQ
Moderator Contact

There is a detailed FAQ on this issue here

Thanks for the link. I should have read the FAQs first anyway. Sorry that I did not do this, but I do not have very much time during the week. I will have a close look at them during the weekend.
I just wanted to make sure, everything is ok, before I installed Rosetta on my remaining computers, so I just asked, instead of reading the FAQ. Shame on me.

All that I could say as an excuse is, that joining here, came very suprisingly for me. It all started with the boycott at SETI and I did not want my computers to run idle. (I will not leave Rosetta, when the boycott ends. For a couple of reasons, I decided to permanently disconnect from SETI.)

Kind regards,

Jochen

---

Kind regards,

Jochen

Well what ever brought you here to Rosetta@home, glad you are here. Welcome!!!

May I also say, I am a little envious of the computer power you are bring with you. Very Nice. ;-)

Again, welcome to you and All of the new members.

Happy crunching!

Joel~

---

In the FAQ link it states that the default time is set at 8 hours, but the default time is actually set at 3 hours unless the user changes it. Why the discrepency, and what is really the best setting to have to further the research?

---