So I,m up very late (or early as the case may be) drinking coffee and eating chocolate, surfing the Forum and I start thinking what would happen if the setting for target CPU usage increased from a max of 24 hours to maybe 48 or longer?
Would this be of any use to Dr. Baker & Co.? Would the longer run time produce better results,or perhaps a higher resolution on the folding predictions? Would there be anybody that would want to have a work unit with a two day(or longer) work unit?

---

A 24 hour unit would do the same amount of science as 6 4 hour units, or 2 12 hour units, etc. etc.

The difference:

You would be doing all the science in one kind of unit with a 24 hour unit, while you will probably get different kinds of units if you did 6 4 hour units.

Also, you'll reduce server load on the Rosetta servers and decrease your own bandwidth usage with bigger units.

---

Hi MattDavis,
Right, so the science in a theoretical 48 hour WU would be greater? or just more?(either way seems good)
I'm set at 24 for all my machines, including everything from some really "old school" hardware, to a fairly sweet dual-dual core Xeon. I noticed that the amount of decoys generated by my machines vary significantly from machine to machine in relation to the computing potential of each machine. For the high end machines, I wonder if a 24 hour WU is limiting?

---

Hi MattDavis,
Right, so the science in a theoretical 48 hour WU would be greater? or just more?(either way seems good)
I'm set at 24 for all my machines, including everything from some really "old school" hardware, to a fairly sweet dual-dual core Xeon. I noticed that the amount of decoys generated by my machines vary significantly from machine to machine in relation to the computing potential of each machine. For the high end machines, I wonder if a 24 hour WU is limiting?

The science in a 48 hour WU is the exact same as 2 24 hour units, or 4 12 hour units, or 8 6 hour units, etc. etc.

A longer runtime doesn't do any more science than several smaller runtimes that equal the same longer runtime.

---

G'day paulcsteiner

here

There used to be a 4 day limit, but they changed it to 1 day as they were getting the 1% stuck bug, which was causing a lot of trouble.

As for the difference between the amount of hours per WU and science done, minuscule if anything at all, it would only help with bandwidth.

More WU's less time or more time less WU's it adds up to the same amount of models/decoys (science) done*.

Even if they implemented an algorithm that took your last models/decoys into account in the search space, it's such a big search space, one computer can't effectively do enough to make any meaningful difference (I'm guessing).

Edit: spelling, and a bit more spelling, and to try to make it readable.
Edit: *this isn't exactly accurate, as different WU's have different calculation times per model/decoy but it's the best I could do, without going into the different credits for different WU's etc... I hope it helps anyway.

Hi Hugo,

Thanks very much for the info. I'm starting to wrap my head around the concept. It just seemed to me that longer run times should generate more decoys, more decoys, the better?. I dunno, I gotta do some reading ands catch up to you's guys in the know!, Cheers and happy crunching.

G'day paulcsteiner

here

There used to be a 4 day limit, but they changed it to 1 day as they were getting the 1% stuck bug, which was causing a lot of trouble.

As for the difference between the amount of hours per WU and science done, minuscule if anything at all, it would only help with bandwidth.

More WU's less time or more time less WU's it adds up to the same amount of models/decoys (science) done*.

Even if they implemented an algorithm that took your last models/decoys into account in the search space, it's such a big search space, one computer can't effectively do enough to make any meaningful difference (I'm guessing).

Edit: spelling, and a bit more spelling, and to try to make it readable.
Edit: *this isn't exactly accurate, as different WU's have different calculation times per model/decoy but it's the best I could do, without going into the different credits for different WU's etc... I hope it helps anyway.

---

Unless you want to be really picky and count the second or less it takes BOINC to end one result and start the next ;)

---

I've tried to explain it several times but I don't see a more simple way to do it.

How about this:

4 hrs... 24 models;
12 hrs... 72 models;

... making predictor of the day,
... priceless!

You see Rosetta needs 10,000-100,000 models crunched for most proteins and methods of study in order to have meaningful results. If you crunch 3 tasks in 12 hours, or 1, you are still going to have about 72 models (all other things being equal as to type of protein you are crunching etc.).

---

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/

HAHAAA~!
Yes perfect. I keep hoping to make POTD.

How about this:

4 hrs... 24 models;
12 hrs... 72 models;

... making predictor of the day,
... priceless!

You see Rosetta needs 10,000-100,000 models crunched for most proteins and methods of study in order to have meaningful results. If you crunch 3 tasks in 12 hours, or 1, you are still going to have about 72 models (all other things being equal as to type of protein you are crunching etc.).

---