Hello. I now have some 3.45 workunits on my 64-bit Windows 7 computer. It seem to work quiet normally. But I have some questions :
1. Rosetta@home currently has the applications is RosettaMini 3.45. The description likes this "Microsoft Windows running on an AMD x86_64 or Intel EM64T CPU" in the Page, but I find the workunit thread has the suffix "*32" in the taskmanage of the Win7 . It means that the thread is 32bit not 64bit? It puzzle me.
2. I edit Rosetta@home preferences, and change the Target CPU run time frome 3h to 8h. Is it different of the kind credit of the two WU ? Is it linear increasing?

Hello. I now have some 3.45 workunits on my 64-bit Windows 7 computer. It seem to work quiet normally. But I have some questions :
1. Rosetta@home currently has the applications is RosettaMini 3.45. The description likes this "Microsoft Windows running on an AMD x86_64 or Intel EM64T CPU" in the Page, but I find the workunit thread has the suffix "*32" in the taskmanage of the Win7 . It means that the thread is 32bit not 64bit? It puzzle me.
2. I edit Rosetta@home preferences, and change the Target CPU run time frome 3h to 8h. Is it different of the kind credit of the two WU ? Is it linear increasing?

Hi

1: Yes, you're right - the Rosetta application is 32-bit and is in a 64-bit wrapper so that BOINC sends the tasks to 64-bit machines as there is no native 64-bit program.

2: Again, correct - the credit increases linearly (on average) with run-time. Each task can theoretically run practically indefinitely, as the task can generate new runs to process based on different starting parameters. So an 8hr task will typically contain twice as many completed models/decoys as a 4hr task.

HTH
Danny

---

Hi

1: Yes, you're right - the Rosetta application is 32-bit and is in a 64-bit wrapper so that BOINC sends the tasks to 64-bit machines as there is no native 64-bit program.

2: Again, correct - the credit increases linearly (on average) with run-time. Each task can theoretically run practically indefinitely, as the task can generate new runs to process based on different starting parameters. So an 8hr task will typically contain twice as many completed models/decoys as a 4hr task.

HTH
Danny

Hello, Danny.

Thanks for you reply.And now I understand. Best wish.

Hi, now here is a new question:
When I crunch the WU which the target CPU run time is 16h, it would require double Harddisk space and double RAM compare to the target CPU rum time of WU is 8h? This reqirement is linear?
and how much is the Max of the harddisk and RAM asked for?
Thanks.

Hi, now here is a new question:
When I crunch the WU which the target CPU run time is 16h, it would require double Harddisk space and double RAM compare to the target CPU rum time of WU is 8h? This reqirement is linear?
and how much is the Max of the harddisk and RAM asked for?
Thanks.

The RAM requirement is the same regardless of run-time preference and the effect on hard disk space will be minimal (less than 1MB I expect). The only noticeable difference is how often the computer packages the task up and reports back.

HTH
Danny

---

Hi, now here is a new question:
When I crunch the WU which the target CPU run time is 16h, it would require double Harddisk space and double RAM compare to the target CPU rum time of WU is 8h? This reqirement is linear?
and how much is the Max of the harddisk and RAM asked for?
Thanks.

The RAM requirement is the same regardless of run-time preference and the effect on hard disk space will be minimal (less than 1MB I expect). The only noticeable difference is how often the computer packages the task up and reports back.

Hard disk load caused by unpacking the database for every new task would occur twice as often for 8h compared to 16h. That's the most noteworthy difference, specially on systems with many cores.

Another thing to consider is that while unpacking / starting up a new task the computer is not generating any scientific results (I noticed even reduced load on the CPU while it is waiting for the HDD for several seconds). And since we are getting credit for the science (generated decoys) and not unpacking zips, longer runtimes should theoretically mean more science done for Rosetta and more credit for us.

---

.

Many thanks to Link and dcdc for all the recent help in providing good answers to the questions people are asking!

---

Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Sense

thanks dcdc Link and Mod.Sense, thanks buddy.

Hello, now I have a question about the rule of credit.I readed a thread, posted in 2006, mentioned the rule of credit.and how is the rule now? Is it all the same?

Hello, now I have a question about the rule of credit.I readed a thread, posted in 2006, mentioned the rule of credit.and how is the rule now? Is it all the same?

I tried to summarise it here: https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/forum_thread.php?id=2218&nowrap=true#74568

Danny

---

Hello, now I have a question about the rule of credit.I readed a thread, posted in 2006, mentioned the rule of credit.and how is the rule now? Is it all the same?

I tried to summarise it here: https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/forum_thread.php?id=2218&nowrap=true#74568

Danny

thanks very much~It is clear.