I am using version 5.4.9 and noticed that version 5.8.15 is out and have the following questions?

If I download the update, will it automatically replace the version I am currently using, or will I have to delete the present version and start over?

Also, will it attach itself to Rosetta, or will I have to 're-attach' to that?

---

I am using version 5.4.9 and noticed that version 5.8.15 is out and have the following questions?

If I download the update, will it automatically replace the version I am currently using, or will I have to delete the present version and start over?

Also, will it attach itself to Rosetta, or will I have to 're-attach' to that?

Yes to both! It will automatically replace the old boinc, and it will stay attached to any current apps you have in the current boinc. When you upgrade, it will run a benchmark check to tell boinc what you have. It is one of the great things about boinc that it is so user friendly even when upgrading. It should only take a few minutes to upgrade, and much of that is the dowwnload.

---

(Click for detailed stats)

Gerry Rough,

Thanks. Just to clarify, all I have to do is download Boinc again? Nothing else required?

The reason I ask, is that I tried 'Climate Prediction' several times before I got it working, and never got past 2-4% before it restarted. I grew very frustrated and finally switched to Rosetta.

---

Gerry,

Well, it seems to have worked........so far. Thanks.

---

Gerry,

Well, it seems to have worked........so far. Thanks.

Glad to help. But if you really like another project that much, try again. I would go to their message boards and see what gives. I always recommed two projects in case one is down. That way you can always be happy crunching. It is an addcition, you know! I personally recommend the other protein folding projects as back-ups. That way it is at least related to rosy since there is much overlap.

---

(Click for detailed stats)

Gerry,

Thanks for the advice. I have been running F@H for several years, so that is my other project.

Actually I have heard that there might be a plan to put F@H under the Boinc umbrella, but I haven't heard anything recently.

Thanks again.

---

Actually I have heard that there might be a plan to put F@H under the Boinc umbrella, but I haven't heard anything recently.

They won't. And best not ask about it on their forums either... they are apparently quite testy about that and will remove posts with the mention of BOINC in them. ;-)

---

Actually I have heard that there might be a plan to put F@H under the Boinc umbrella, but I haven't heard anything recently.

They won't. And best not ask about it on their forums either... they are apparently quite testy about that and will remove posts with the mention of BOINC in them. ;-)

Odd indeed. I should think there would be many who would be happy to crunch for F@H. Could someone explain to me the down side to F@H teaming up with BOINC? Seems to me this is a great case of win/win!

---

(Click for detailed stats)

Gerry,

Thanks for the advice. I have been running F@H for several years, so that is my other project.

Actually I have heard that there might be a plan to put F@H under the Boinc umbrella, but I haven't heard anything recently.

Thanks again.

We have already crunched for F@H under BOINC. It was in 2005. I crunched there for 2 or 3 months, then they stopped .....
They don't like BOINC! Too bad for them .....>:(

---

They are more interested in speed than part-time crunchers.
Afaik their (beta-) multi-core client doesn't do more WUs at the same time, but one WU faster, as this fits the project goals better. They discourage the use of hyperthreading for the same reason.
And they don't like caching more then 1 WU at the time, as it will sit idle for too long.

I think that's the main reason for the project team to stay away from BOINC for now. They have a good working client, a broad base of crunchers, and are not interested in some part-timers.

The people on the boards are a quite hostile bunch, they don't like outsiders infest their beloved program with heretic povs.

As much as I like to understand the needs of the project team, if told in a nice fashion (although their communivcation skills can be honed in regard of the BOINC volunteers), as much I detest the plain BOINC-haters in the forum over there (no project employees, but crunchers as you and me).

Biased moderating again, deleting my last post in this thread. Why ? And where is my email to tell me the reason why ?

---

...Could someone explain to me the down side to F@H teaming up with BOINC? Seems to me this is a great case of win/win!

OK, but before I explain, I am explaining *other people's* objection, OK, not my own. Personally I am with you all the way, I think it would be good for BOINC and good for F@H for them to team up. So if you disagree with what follows, pkease don't shoot the messenger.

BOINC is a multi-project platform, by design. This means that it has to offer a common denominator for the needs of different projects. This raises the following issues

1. It never fits a specific project as well as an interface specifically designed for that project. Stand-alone project designers can tune redundancy, error checking, credit scoring, whether to penalise for non-return of WU, whether to penalise for late return of WU, etc etc to the real needs of their scientists and the perceived needs of their users.

2. The BOINC structure acts as a brake on developing new ideas about how to do a Distributed Computing (DC) project. It may be good for the application, but bad for the long term development of DC.

An example is that on the non-BOINC project, pi-segment, you get 'charged' 100 credits to download a work unit, and then get more than that back when you return it, and get even more back if you return it on time.

This discourages folk from downloading work and simply cancelling it. An idea like that would be hard to introduce to BOINC because of the BOINC policy of trying to get credits worth the same across all projects.

BOINC stops the need to re-invent the wheel, but in so doing, is it preventing the discovery of the pneumatic tyre?

3. In the case of an existing project, there is user inertia. Look at the furore caused by the transfer of SETI-classic to SETI-BOINC amongst some of their users. People get used to particular ways of using bulletin boards. People have tuned their DC activities to getting the best credit under one system, and it feels to them like moving the goal-posts if the project moves to another way of doing things.

CPDN got round this by continuing to offer the old interface for as long as anyone wants to use it - last time I looked there were still folk crunching and (I think) downloading new work on the CPDN-Classic system.

WCG got round this by keeping BOINC as a second interface. They don't run the BOINC website, only the BOINC servers. Each task completed is scored on the WCG system and also on the BOINC system, so the accumulated credits you get on their site are different to those shown by BOINCstats, etc. But this puts off the very BOINC people the project want to attract - I rarely visit their site as I don't know where to find anything, and that means I crunch little of their work.

Hope that helps you grok the countervailing views a little.

Coming back to my own position, I would not say that any of the countervailing argumants are wrong, but that they are, IMO, outweighed by the advantages of BOINC - a cross project uniform interface, a cross project community (there are folk like John Keck, Fuzzy Hollynoodles, Misfit who turn up on several projects), and so on. And above all by the fact that it is so easy to join a new project.

River~~

---

The post by Vijay Pande about the public beta for FAH is still on their Forum. I used to participate in F@H expecting the Boinc client 'soon' (as another post promised) and nothing happened.
Perhaps the hostility towards Boinc from a number of outspoken F@H participants is a factor in this. The Stanford - Berkeley rivalry is hard to understand for someone like me who didn't grow up in this country, let alone the San Francisco Bay Area.

Instead my team (DSLReports.com Team Helix) adopted Rosetta/Boinc as an additional project and I moved all my resources over to it. I'd consider contributing to F@H again if they ever release the promised Boinc client, but in the meantime their loss is Rosetta's gain (and if you look at my stats, it isn't all that insignificant) :-)

---

Team Helix

Gerry,

Well, it seems to have worked........so far. Thanks.

Glad to help. But if you really like another project that much, try again. I would go to their message boards and see what gives. I always recommed two projects in case one is down. That way you can always be happy crunching. It is an addcition, you know! I personally recommend the other protein folding projects as back-ups. That way it is at least related to rosy since there is much overlap.

Dear Garry:

Pardon me for breaking in, but, if anyone out there is looking for a good backup project to run they might want to try malariacontrol. After several months of being closed to new people they are again allowing account creation.

---

PUDDIN TAME

how do i update boinc or rosetta?

---

how do i update boinc or rosetta?

The science apps, like Rosetta, will download automatically.

You have to update BOINC manually. The current public version is always at: http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download.php

---