Folding Forum

It seems to me that this run got to 94%, shut down as it was running on batteries
and got wiped. Is this correct?

[07:30:35] Folding@Home Gromacs Core
[07:30:35] Version 1.90 (March 8, 2006)
[07:30:35]
[07:30:35] Preparing to commence simulation
[07:30:35] - Looking at optimizations...
[07:30:35] - Created dyn
[07:30:35] - Files status OK
[07:30:36] - Expanded 238702 -> 1166721 (decompressed 488.7 percent)
[07:30:36] - Starting from initial work packet
[07:30:36]
[07:30:36] Project: 4458 (Run 169, Clone 0, Gen 1)
[07:30:36]
[07:30:36] Assembly optimizations on if available.
[07:30:36] Entering M.D.
[07:30:42] Protein: p4458_Seq51_Amber03
[07:30:42]
[07:30:42] Writing local files
[07:31:57] Extra SSE boost OK.
[07:31:58] Writing local files
[07:31:58] Completed 0 out of 1500000 steps (0%)
[07:56:40] Writing local files
[07:56:40] Completed 15000 out of 1500000 steps (1%)
[08:21:36] Writing local files
[08:21:36] Completed 30000 out of 1500000 steps (2%)
[08:46:46] Writing local files
[08:46:46] Completed 45000 out of 1500000 steps (3%)
[09:19:00] + Paused
[09:19:00] + Running on battery power. Pausing work until computer is plugged in.
[20:04:58] + Working ...
[20:04:58] + Off battery, restarting core.
[20:04:58] Suspending work thread...
[20:04:58] Resuming work thread...
[20:15:30] Writing local files
[20:15:30] Completed 60000 out of 1500000 steps (4%)
[20:41:09] Writing local files
[20:41:09] Completed 75000 out of 1500000 steps (5%)
[21:06:20] Writing local files
[21:06:20] Completed 90000 out of 1500000 steps (6%)
...............
[08:30:51] Writing local files
[08:30:51] Completed 1395000 out of 1500000 steps (93%)
[08:55:31] Writing local files
[08:55:31] Completed 1410000 out of 1500000 steps (94%)
[09:12:39] + Paused
[09:12:39] + Running on battery power. Pausing work until computer is plugged in.


--- Opening Log file [January 9 21:00:01 UTC]


# Windows CPU Systray Edition #################################################
###############################################################################

Folding@Home Client Version 6.23

http://folding.stanford.edu

###############################################################################
###############################################################################

Launch directory: C:\Users\Nicholas\AppData\Roaming\Folding@home-x86


[21:00:01] - Ask before connecting: No
[21:00:01] - User name: silas_the_monk (Team 82447)
[21:00:01] - User ID: 28DEBC280E99DAA6
[21:00:01] - Machine ID: 1
[21:00:01]
[21:00:01] Loaded queue successfully.
[21:00:01] Initialization complete
[21:00:01]
[21:00:01] + Processing work unit
[21:00:01] Core required: FahCore_78.exe
[21:00:01] Core found.
[21:00:01] Working on queue slot 07 [January 9 21:00:01 UTC]
[21:00:01] + Working ...
[21:00:02]
[21:00:02] *------------------------------*
[21:00:02] Folding@Home Gromacs Core
[21:00:02] Version 1.90 (March 8, 2006)
[21:00:02]

What happen to the computer while you where running on battery

toTOW wrote:What happen to the computer while you where running on battery

Nothing special. IS there a way of checking centrally what happened to this WU?

No we can't.

But it will help if you post more of the FAHlog ... in your previous one, we don't see if the WU resumed fine or not ...

This is the relevant portion. Actually I remember now that I when I plugged the computer back in the Folding at home did not start automatically.
So I started it. That is the gap between 09:12:39 and 21:00:01. Looking again I found this:

The client didn't close in a nice way :

[21:00:02] - Ensuring status. Please wait.
[21:00:19] - Looking at optimizations...
[21:00:19] - Working with standard loops on this execution.
[21:00:19] - Previous termination of core was improper.

Do you know why ?

In the process, the checkpoint file has been corrupted :

[21:00:19] - Checksums don't match (work/wudata_07.xtc)
[21:00:19] - Starting from initial work packet

Hmm. The machine did hang once recently, maybe then. In fact I can see that now it is working on the same WU and at 27%.

Is this similar to the issue of pausing the client and then shutting down the computer w/o stopping the client? Iirc, that's known to trash the unit (at least it worked that way for me, when my son did that. ).