Page 1 of 1
Project: 1739 (Run 0, Clone 64, Gen 0)
Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 2:45 am
by flatout
Can i find out what this Project is points wise.
Fahmon does not reconcile this wu with it;s web download function.
Is there a link to this specific WU. Thanks in advance..
Code: Select all
[02:24:49] Folding@Home Gromacs Core
[02:24:49] Version 1.90 (March 8, 2006)
[02:24:49]
[02:24:49] Preparing to commence simulation
[02:24:49] - Assembly optimizations manually forced on.
[02:24:49] - Not checking prior termination.
[02:24:49] - Expanded 165275 -> 948357 (decompressed 573.8 percent)
[02:24:50] - Starting from initial work packet
[02:24:50]
[02:24:50] Project: 1739 (Run 0, Clone 64, Gen 0)
[02:24:50]
[02:24:50] Assembly optimizations on if available.
[02:24:50] Entering M.D.
[02:24:56] Protein: p1739_A21unf_305_SB
[02:24:56]
[02:24:56] Writing local files
[02:24:56] Extra SSE boost OK.
[02:24:56] Writing local files
[02:24:56] Completed 0 out of 2500000 steps (0%)
flatout..
Re: Project: 1739 (Run 0, Clone 64, Gen 0)
Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:25 am
by anandhanju
p1739 is worth 57 points. PM sent.
Researcher notified via PM.
Re: Project: 1739 (Run 0, Clone 64, Gen 0)
Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 7:10 pm
by dmearns
Is 1738 also 57 points?
- Dave
Re: Project: 1739 (Run 0, Clone 64, Gen 0)
Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:13 pm
by anandhanju
dmearns wrote:Is 1738 also 57 points?
- Dave
Yep. Yet another 57 pointer. Did you get this WU today? Or was it downloaded earlier?
Re: Project: 1739 (Run 0, Clone 64, Gen 0)
Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 10:16 pm
by dmearns
anandhanju wrote:dmearns wrote:Is 1738 also 57 points?
Yep. Yet another 57 pointer. Did you get this WU today? Or was it downloaded earlier?
One of the machines on my team started working on it last night. The points seem kind of low. That box has been getting about 230 PPD on the Ambers, but is only getting around 62 PPD on this unit. Even accounting for the bonus on the Amber, that is a big hit. Hope it goes back to folding the Amber units when it is done with the 1738.
- Dave
Re: Project: 1739 (Run 0, Clone 64, Gen 0)
Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 10:58 pm
by toTOW
Keep in mind that Amber are bonus WU.
p1738-9 are good old classic Gromacs ... no bonuses here (not a bigWU and not a special project).
Re: Project: 1739 (Run 0, Clone 64, Gen 0)
Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 12:06 am
by dmearns
dmearns wrote:... Even accounting for the bonus on the Amber, that is a big hit.
toTOW wrote:Keep in mind that Amber are bonus WU.
p1738-9 are good old classic Gromacs ... no bonuses here (not a bigWU and not a special project).
As I understand it, the Amber bonus is a factor of 2. Dividing 230 PPD by 2 gives an expected non-bonus rate of 115 PPD. Going from 115 to 62 PPD is, to me, a pretty big hit. Or did they increase the bonus on the Ambers to something like 3.5 when I wasn't paying attention?
- Dave
Re: Project: 1739 (Run 0, Clone 64, Gen 0)
Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 12:17 am
by ChelseaOilman
dmearns wrote:As I understand it, the Amber bonus is a factor of 2.
New rules for advanced methods (-adv flag)
To reward users for participating in this exciting project, we will be giving a x1.5 bonus in the points awarded.
Re: Project: 1739 (Run 0, Clone 64, Gen 0)
Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 3:01 am
by GTron
ChelseaOilman refers to the April 22 news. However on May 13:
vvoelz wrote:The -advmethods "bonused" AMBER Core WUs just got more bonus.
Starting with projects 4534-6 (to come online shortly), the bonus points will be x2.0. We hope that this will attract even more -adv users, and commensurately reward our current -adv users for this high-priority project.
Let me remind everyone that these "bonused" projects are for a limited time (until ~August). As before, point info at:
http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/fahproject?p=4534
Vince
so I think dmearns is on target with the x2.0 factor currently.
Folding On!
Greg
Re: Project: 1739 (Run 0, Clone 64, Gen 0)
Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 6:29 am
by 7im
Read the whole thread. The AMBER work units are of variable length. Some will get a little more than expected, a lot will get less.
Since no processor info was posted, we really couldn't make an accurate guess as to expected performance.