Message boards : Number crunching : Report "hombench_..." issues here!
Previous · 1 · 2
Author | Message |
---|---|
adrianxw Send message Joined: 18 Sep 05 Posts: 653 Credit: 11,840,739 RAC: 9 |
almost as effective I can't speak for anyone else of course, but as long as the credit is sorted out, I'd rather have the long wu with the optimal science payload. Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream. |
Mike Tyka Send message Joined: 20 Oct 05 Posts: 96 Credit: 2,190 RAC: 0 |
almost as effective The difference in science payload for any given returned structure between the two protocols is very marginal, but being able to produce way more decoys in a given time has a huge advantage. So everything taken into account, using the faster relax protocol should actually be advantageous scientifically too, not just in terms of shortening the WU length. Mike http://beautifulproteins.blogspot.com/ http://www.miketyka.com/ |
adrianxw Send message Joined: 18 Sep 05 Posts: 653 Credit: 11,840,739 RAC: 9 |
Okay, fine by me. Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream. |
Conan Send message Joined: 11 Oct 05 Posts: 151 Credit: 4,244,078 RAC: 2,057 |
I've tracked down some problems with the hombench_ WUs, so the next batches going out soon (in preparation now) should take considerably less time, certainly less than 2-3 per model, more likely (depending on the sie of the protiens) less than half an hour. G'Day Mike, I think you had better have a look at the Ralph Forum. You have made a major change to run time that is for sure, from up to 11+ hours down to 9 seconds, it then errors out on all work unit "hombench_tex" types. Still needs work I'm afraid. |
Mike Tyka Send message Joined: 20 Oct 05 Posts: 96 Credit: 2,190 RAC: 0 |
Yes James's WUs are all failing on RALPH - he's tracking down why, he's been adding constraints to these runs (to hopefully steer the search towards the native structure). I should add that even though all the WUs start with hombench_ their inner details can be very different. We're running at least 4 different protocols right now in an efford to establish what approach works best for which sort of problem - something we can determine properly and reliably through very large runs - hence BOINC. We'll get this fixed of course before moving to BOINC. I can't see any WUs with 9 second runtimes though ?! If you mean James' WUs then yes, they seem to fail very early on, but that's a seperate problem. (not to do with my change). The units called hombench_mtyka_looprelax_ccd_moves_2_looprelax_ccd_moves see ok though right ? (i guess thi is RALPH specific discussion and not relevant to BOINC users) Thanks for looking out for problems :) Mike http://beautifulproteins.blogspot.com/ http://www.miketyka.com/ |
ramostol Send message Joined: 6 Feb 07 Posts: 64 Credit: 584,052 RAC: 0 |
You just can't win'em all: https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/workunit.php?wuid=182132039 hombench_mtyka_foldcst_simple_foldcst_simple_t303___4611_4660 Task ID: 199398597 CPU time: 58,300.45 [!!] Claimed credit: 389.05 Granted credit: 12.00 [!!] Computer: GenuineIntel Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T8100 @ 2.10GHz [x86 Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 6] Number of CPUs 2 Operating System Darwin 9.5.0 Memory 4096 MB Cache 976.56 KB Swap space 92321.28 MB |
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Report "hombench_..." issues here!
©2024 University of Washington
https://www.bakerlab.org