im using boinc, and only rosetta ;) im new to rosetta and i was wondering: everest ultimate says all 4 cores are 100%, so if there any additional setup in order to use 4 cores fully ? also, does this program continue the simulation after i shut off the computer and restart it ? thanks, any other suggestions or comments or issues i should know about ? thanks

by default boinc will only use 50% of available ram when actively using the puter and 90% when you're inactive. There are two "independent" place you can choose to set your preferences. You can either do so on the Boinc manager itself setting your "local" prefs,,,OR you can set them up under "Participants" your account here at the website. I have them set to 100% for both setting (active 100/inactive 100) on all my hosts. If you choose "local prefs" then it will "over ride" the web based settings.

welcome aboard

tony

Welcome PJ Ru. Thank you for crunching and helping the project do important science!

---

im using boinc, and only rosetta ;) im new to rosetta and i was wondering: everest ultimate says all 4 cores are 100%, so if there any additional setup in order to use 4 cores fully ? also, does this program continue the simulation after i shut off the computer and restart it ? thanks, any other suggestions or comments or issues i should know about ? thanks

If BOINC is installed as a service, then BOINC will automatically start crunching after the computer is restarted, even if no one is logged in. Under any other install type, BOINC starts crunching only when logged in and BOINC manager is started.

---

In theory, there is nothing you need to do to take advantage of all 4 cores.

However, I have discovered that Rosetta gives unusually poor credit to systems running Q6600's (in some cases around 10% of what would be expected). Due to this, I'm only running Rosetta (at low share) on one Q6600 until this is resolved.

---

In theory, there is nothing you need to do to take advantage of all 4 cores.

However, I have discovered that Rosetta gives unusually poor credit to systems running Q6600's (in some cases around 10% of what would be expected). Due to this, I'm only running Rosetta (at low share) on one Q6600 until this is resolved.

i know a few people running multiple Q6600s with credit as expected. you should get something in the region of 1700 RAC from a 2.4GHz Q6600 on 24/7. If you're getting less then it might be because the CPU is throttling down... is it definitely running at 2.4GHz when Rosetta is the only thing running?

---

hmmm... don't think my q6600 rac was ever that high when it was doing 100% Rosie, 24/7.

iirc, somewhere in the 12xx's or 13xx's.

If Boinc/Rosie are using 100%, why would it throttle down? Thought that was only when cpu wasn't being pushed too hard.

you should get something in the region of 1700 RAC from a 2.4GHz Q6600 on 24/7. If you're getting less then it might be because the CPU is throttling down... is it definitely running at 2.4GHz when Rosetta is the only thing running?

hmmm... don't think my q6600 rac was ever that high when it was doing 100% Rosie, 24/7.

iirc, somewhere in the 12xx's or 13xx's.

If Boinc/Rosie are using 100%, why would it throttle down? Thought that was only when cpu wasn't being pushed too hard.

you should get something in the region of 1700 RAC from a 2.4GHz Q6600 on 24/7. If you're getting less then it might be because the CPU is throttling down... is it definitely running at 2.4GHz when Rosetta is the only thing running?

"Throttling down" happens when the CPU reaches an unsafe temperature from continued use and will not run at full speed until it has cooled back down. It's more of a problem with laptops but can happen in desktops with poor cooling.

i don't think speedstep considers low priority tasks... I'm fairly sure (at least in some circumstances - maybe for specific hardware or power profiles) the clock is reduced when the only intensive tasks are low priority.

I don't have it enabled on my machines though...

---

i know a few people running multiple Q6600s with credit as expected. you should get something in the region of 1700 RAC from a 2.4GHz Q6600 on 24/7. If you're getting less then it might be because the CPU is throttling down... is it definitely running at 2.4GHz when Rosetta is the only thing running?

I'd love to get 1700RAC from a single Q6600!! I practice I've been seeing < 400 with Rosetta on 66% share.

For an example of low returns, see
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/workunit.php?wuid=121649462 It looks like somehow the credit system thinks some serious cheating is going on and scaling the granted credit severely.

I'll try setting Rosetta to 100% share on a Q6600 box & see what happens.

---

i know a few people running multiple Q6600s with credit as expected. you should get something in the region of 1700 RAC from a 2.4GHz Q6600 on 24/7. If you're getting less then it might be because the CPU is throttling down... is it definitely running at 2.4GHz when Rosetta is the only thing running?

I'd love to get 1700RAC from a single Q6600!! I practice I've been seeing < 400 with Rosetta on 66% share.

For an example of low returns, see
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/workunit.php?wuid=121649462 It looks like somehow the credit system thinks some serious cheating is going on and scaling the granted credit severely.

I'll try setting Rosetta to 100% share on a Q6600 box & see what happens.

Credit is granted by the number of decoys (models) returned, but the claimed credit is calculated by the BOINC benchmarks x time. The BOINC benchmarks will run with the CPU is at full speed because boinc.exe runs at normal priority, so if EIST is kicking in when the CPU is running rosetta (low priority) your computer will have high benchmarks but low throughput - which would explain what's happening.

Try running CPU-Z and see if the clock speed drops after a while.

---

I get from 1700 - 2200 RAC from a Q6600 running R@H 24/4. This Q600 is currently overclocked to 3.4GHz but even at stock speeds 1700 is a good target.

The Q6600 is a great overclocker so if your systemboard provides the features, you can easily get 2.8GHZ out of almost any Q6600.

Make sure you have max processors set to 4 in your profile.

---

Thx!

Paul

i know a few people running multiple Q6600s with credit as expected. you should get something in the region of 1700 RAC from a 2.4GHz Q6600 on 24/7. If you're getting less then it might be because the CPU is throttling down... is it definitely running at 2.4GHz when Rosetta is the only thing running?

I'd love to get 1700RAC from a single Q6600!! I practice I've been seeing < 400 with Rosetta on 66% share.

For an example of low returns, see
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/workunit.php?wuid=121649462 It looks like somehow the credit system thinks some serious cheating is going on and scaling the granted credit severely.

I'll try setting Rosetta to 100% share on a Q6600 box & see what happens.

Yikes! you are really getting the shaft. Here is a link to an Acer Aspire only running on one core.
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/workunit.php?wuid=122537142

---

i know a few people running multiple Q6600s with credit as expected. you should get something in the region of 1700 RAC from a 2.4GHz Q6600 on 24/7. If you're getting less then it might be because the CPU is throttling down... is it definitely running at 2.4GHz when Rosetta is the only thing running?

I'd love to get 1700RAC from a single Q6600!! I practice I've been seeing < 400 with Rosetta on 66% share.

For an example of low returns, see
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/workunit.php?wuid=121649462 It looks like somehow the credit system thinks some serious cheating is going on and scaling the granted credit severely.

I'll try setting Rosetta to 100% share on a Q6600 box & see what happens.

Yikes! you are really getting the shaft. Here is a link to an Acer Aspire only running on one core.
https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/workunit.php?wuid=122537142

Thanks for the advice, I'd love to be contributing more, but the credits seen for other projects are much, much higher.


One of the Q6600's has been set so Rosetta is getting 100%, XP power setting was changed to always on (BIOS still has EIST enabled) & I have confirmed via CPU-Z that the clock is not dropping below spec 2.4GHz. It has been running like this with 4 cpus enabled for several days.

Still seeing a lot of WU's with low ratio of claimed to granted. Credit over last 24Hrs for this system 482. A WU returning 1 decoy took 9843.75 cpu seconds.

I will try setting EIST off in BIOS.

The only slightly strange characteristic of these systems is that they have 4GB physical RAM of which only 3 is usable (due to PCI memory mapping etc).

---

Looking into this from another perspective, looking at http://boincstats.com/stats/host_cpu_stats.php?pr=rosetta&st=200&or=12 shows that for Rosetta, the Q6600 is ranked as 274th for credit per cpu-second (much higher ranking in other projects - see some earlier posting of mine in this thread).

Using the quoted average of 0.01945 Rosetta credits per cpu second, we find that a Q6600 @2.4 giving 100% of 24hrs to Rosetta should average 672 credits per day.

---

Looking into this from another perspective, looking at http://boincstats.com/stats/host_cpu_stats.php?pr=rosetta&st=200&or=12 shows that for Rosetta, the Q6600 is ranked as 274th for credit per cpu-second (much higher ranking in other projects - see some earlier posting of mine in this thread).

Using the quoted average of 0.01945 Rosetta credits per cpu second, we find that a Q6600 @2.4 giving 100% of 24hrs to Rosetta should average 672 credits per day.

on my calculator, using your number 0.01945*3600*24, I get 1680 credits

Sorry, my mistake, it should read:

Using the quoted average of 0.001945 Rosetta credits per cpu second, we find that a Q6600 @2.4 giving 100% of 24hrs to Rosetta should average 672 credits per day.

0.001945 * 3600 * 24 * 4 = 672

---

Thanks for the advice, I'd love to be contributing more, but the credits seen for other projects are much, much higher.

I know some people do distributed computing for credits, but I encourage you to also consider the scientific and medical value of your computer's work. In the end, credits are just numbers; medical breakthroughs can improve the lives of millions.

---

Looking into this from another perspective, looking at http://boincstats.com/stats/host_cpu_stats.php?pr=rosetta&st=200&or=12 shows that for Rosetta, the Q6600 is ranked as 274th for credit per cpu-second (much higher ranking in other projects - see some earlier posting of mine in this thread).

Using the quoted average of 0.01945 Rosetta credits per cpu second, we find that a Q6600 @2.4 giving 100% of 24hrs to Rosetta should average 672 credits per day.

on my calculator, using your number 0.01945*3600*24, I get 1680 credits

Sorry, my mistake, it should read:

Using the quoted average of 0.001945 Rosetta credits per cpu second, we find that a Q6600 @2.4 giving 100% of 24hrs to Rosetta should average 672 credits per day.

0.001945 * 3600 * 24 * 4 = 672

Even then I have a problem, because on my Q6600 which does not run 24/7 (about 65% to 70% of that), and crunches 5 different projects (40% resource share for Rosetta), RAC is something like 590 credits/day. Okay, it is overclocked to 3 GHz, but even then running under the conditions you describe, it would exceed 672 credits per day, I think.

https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/show_host_detail.php?hostid=317645

The 0.001945 number must be an average. I have two Q6600s that are dedicated to R@H (both are overclocked to 3.4GHz) and I am getting at least 1800 RAC. I am only overclocked by 40% so if we reduce my results by 40%, we are still way north of 672.

Where does the 0.001945 constant originate?

---

Thx!

Paul

I think it's from here:

http://boincstats.com/stats/host_cpu_stats.php?pr=rosetta&st=0

Although the figure currently given is 0.001784. Doesn't seem right.

---

Thanks for the advice, I'd love to be contributing more, but the credits seen for other projects are much, much higher.

I know some people do distributed computing for credits, but I encourage you to also consider the scientific and medical value of your computer's work. In the end, credits are just numbers; medical breakthroughs can improve the lives of millions.

As an experiment, 1 of the Q6600's I have was set to run Rosetta 100% share, EIST was disabled & the system conf'd for 4 cpus, 100% usage etc. CPU-Z confimed ongoing 2.4Ghz Clock rate & BoincMgr often showing >99% on all 4 active running cores, even during interactive usage. After a week or so it was consistently getting a daily credit of about 500.

The Q6600 systems I have access to (currently 6 of them, a few more on the way) are now primarily processing SIMAP. I figure this is contributing (indirectly) to the same scientific and medical benefits as Rosetta. I'd hate to support something with virtually senseless aims!! Chasing credits is not my primary motivation, but it does add a little interest.

Why not support Rosetta, regardless of the credits? The stats seem to indicate that there is something fundamentally askew with Rosetta running on Q6600's. The averages across all Q6600's on Rosetta are way down compared to other projects where Q6600's rate much better on average. Based on my own claimed vs granted, many WU's are getting 10% of claim, which means a lot of wasted resource. If other projects are more suitable, then in terms of contribution to mankind's scientific knowledge it makes sense NOT to use them for Rosetta.

Cheers

---