I see that 4.82 is in the wild.....any feedback on how well it matches the requested run times?

---

My first one ran 2:26 hours with a requested 4 hour run. I set the 4 hour limit yesterday so both the server and client know about the 4 hour request.

Out of my sample size of one I guess that perhaps the result duration factor (2.0 on this machine) may have influenced the time. It'll probably take few WUs to get the time close.

Keep in mind that the program is doing a set of structures. After each structure it decides if it can do another without going too far over the requested time. On a fast machine (that takes 10 minutes per structure), it will probably be within 5 minutes of the requested time. On an old celeron that takes several hours per structure it can be way off.

Keep in mind that the program is doing a set of structures. After each structure it decides if it can do another without going too far over the requested time. On a fast machine (that takes 10 minutes per structure), it will probably be within 5 minutes of the requested time. On an old celeron that takes several hours per structure it can be way off.

Also any change to the time setting will not translate to the computer unless (until) you update the project or the system reports in by itself. You can adjust the time for work units that are in progress or already downloaded into your queue by changing the settings in you preferences and manually updating. This of course assumes you have the new appllication already loaded.

The info above on the accuracy of the time is correct. On a slow machine the actuaal run time may be off by as much as 30-40 min. But all the WUs will be within the same range. One other point. You can easily force your machine into EDF mode if you download a lot of work units and then set you time too large. It is also possible to download a lot of WUs then adjust the time to a point where they cannot possibly finish within the reporting time deadline. So you may want to let you queue drain and then set the time if you plan on running workunits for long periods of time.

---

Moderator9
ROSETTA@home FAQ
Moderator Contact

For those of us where broadband internet access means connectivity isn't a problem, are there any benefits or disadvantages to setting the default 8 down to 2 hours?

---

No real disadvantage. We prefer the default but do what you like. Shorter work units make our server work harder but it should be able to handle it. edit: there may be some issues that Moderator9 explains below. I did increase the expiration to two weeks and also the rsc_fpops_bound.

Couple questions:
a) How does one change the time of the runs? b) Does it help to do so?

---

a) go to your Account Prefs page and Change the ROSETTA prefs....

---

a) go to your Account Prefs page and Change the ROSETTA prefs....

And change which?

Resource share
If you participate in multiple BOINC projects, this is the proportion of your resources used by Rosetta@home	10
Percentage of CPU time used for graphics	not selected
Number of frames per second for graphics	not selected
Target CPU run time	not selected
Miscellaneous
Should Rosetta@home send you email newsletters?	yes
Should Rosetta@home show your computers on its web site?	yes
Default computer location	home

---

a) go to your Account Prefs page and Change the ROSETTA prefs....

And change which?

I think it is:

Target CPU run time
(not selected defaults to 8 hours)

---

LUE

There's an issue with the graphics, the graphs for energy and RMSD don't seem to update properly, it's like their stuck, hard to describe/explain
this affects all my units

a) go to your Account Prefs page and Change the ROSETTA prefs....

And change which?

I think it is:

Target CPU run time
(not selected defaults to 8 hours)

This Question is in the Rosetta FAQ list

---

Moderator9
ROSETTA@home FAQ
Moderator Contact

There's an issue with the graphics, the graphs for energy and RMSD don't seem to update properly, it's like their stuck, hard to describe/explain
this affects all my units

Easy answer.....don't run graphics, it steals valuable crunching time!

My first 4.82 unit seemed to be stuck at 1%, but after 3 hours it jumped to 37.71% so it may be ok anyway.

---

a) go to your Account Prefs page and Change the ROSETTA prefs....

And change which?

I think it is:

Target CPU run time
(not selected defaults to 8 hours)

This Question is in the Rosetta FAQ list

Many thanks.

---

Easy answer.....don't run graphics, it steals valuable crunching time!

oh, i don't, i only look every so often (like once a week) for aesthetic appeal lol

i was just pointing out that there's a bug with them

Great work guys, seems to work exactly as advertised. I have had one PC set to 2 hours and the other set to 4 hours and both seem to work properly around the time requested...except of course for some really short ones. The big producer in our team with 30 machines, (who had the satellite ISP problem) has returned from WCG with all his machines and so far I have not heard of a problem from him.

Great Work!

---

Are there any plans to allow a much finer adjustment for Target CPU time, like adjusting to 1/10s of an hour rather than 2 hours, which is rather coarse?

---

Why?

Why?

Just asking, not complaining. :-)
I'd like to keep a maximum presence in RAH in 3 completed WUs/day, while still allowing a steady 1 Wu/day on EAH, where my current batch of alberts run 3.56hrs to completion. Ideally, I'd set max CPU time to 6.8 hrs, so 3 x 6.8 = 20.4 + 3.56 = 23.96 would work out very neatly.
Why not? Would this change be difficult to implement?

Michael

edit - This rig gets an awful lot of crunching done in 6.8 hours, it was doing the old einstein WUs in < 5 hrs, consistently.

---