Folding Cracks the top 100

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Glad to enlighten you in some way.

Just in case anyone is confused, jello and I are joking around, as we sometimes do. This is not serious.

i think the people in this forum don't care enough to bitch and whine about us joking around and being so "exclusive"...


so it looks like team folding will hit a huge wall at the 45 spot.... where there's a huge difference between 44 and 45.... 2600 points or so.

then again, with the parents' imac going now....... no one can stop us!

 

[kishba]

Originally posted by jelloshotsrule
then again, with the parents' imac going now....... no one can stop us!

forget that! i just got my powerbook g3 400 back... now we're cooking

 

[madamimadam]

Originally posted by kishba


forget that! i just got my powerbook g3 400 back... now we're cooking

On a more serious note - - I just wish they had an OS 9 version so I could get the SETI machines at work running as Folding machines.

 

[mc68k]

Originally posted by madamimadamtimallen


On a more serious note - - I just wish they had an OS 9 version so I could get the SETI machines at work running as Folding machines.

I second that motion. Its because they only have to recompile from the Linux version of the client. I guess classic develpoment is too much for them. It's a damn shame, we'd be 20 places higher for sure.

 

[thoule123]

FYI- Folding is not a multithreaded app. Once it is running on a Dual Processor machine, you still may have lonely CPU cycles. I have a second install (so the ID's are different) running, then just start it twice.

btw- can I use the same username on different machines? As long as they have different ID's right...?

 

[mc68k]

Originally posted by thoule123
btw- can I use the same username on different machines? As long as they have different ID's right...?

Yes. The client ID, as you may know, is a unique identifier for that one processor, assigned by the servers at Stanford automatically.

A WU has one name and one team associated with it. Your name + team determines where the credit for that WU goes (anonymous if default). You can use the same client ID, but the WUs processed would only show up under 1 processor, even though you are using 2.

For any machine (mac, pc, and linux) running version 2 of the client, the client ID is stored in the client.cfg file. In version 3 for the PC, it is stored in the registry.

 

[AmbitiousLemon]

well i havent checked out the info on any of the new proteins but i just tried, and it seems none of them have any information posted about them like the proteinAs did. ive done 130s 140s 310s 900s 260s and none of them have any information available in the same manner the proteinAs (110s) did. so whats up?

 

[mc68k]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
well i havent checked out the info on any of the new proteins but i just tried, and it seems none of them have any information posted about them like the proteinAs did. ive done 130s 140s 310s 900s 260s and none of them have any information available in the same manner the proteinAs (110s) did. so whats up?

Did you check this page? They seem to have info for all of the current proteins.

 

[Falleron]

You guys have been doing really well while I have been away! Top 50 now!

 

[AmbitiousLemon]

so the mac os version of folding has been updated to 3.0. my question is, for those of us running folding control, how do we get it to download the new application?

 

[madamimadam]

Originally posted by Tiauguinho
MacFocus


It'll take some time until it shows some progress.

BTW, are you using the Graphical Client or the Folfing Control? If you're using the graphical client, I recommend you to use the Folding Control because it's faster.


You can find it in here.

http://macaddict4life.dhs.org/folding_control.php

I wanted to check to see if there was a new version of the control to go with the new version of folding@home but the site is dead.

 

[madamimadam]

Originally posted by Falleron
You guys have been doing really well while I have been away! Top 50 now!

We should be 43 by the end of the month

 

[AmbitiousLemon]

ive got another question. im wondering how much slower is the screensaver version than the console version. im thinking of switching some of the machines to the screensaver version but not if i will see a significant drop in productivity.

 

[mc68k]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
ive got another question. im wondering how much slower is the screensaver version than the console version. im thinking of switching some of the machines to the screensaver version but not if i will see a significant drop in productivity.

I love this thread. It's funny what it's titled and what we've been asking in it. Anyways, I'm too lazy to change it too.

To answer your question, apps like SETI and folding are based on processor time. Each process that is run by the OS takes up some percentage of the processor's overall workload.

With Folding you have the Core65.exe process that takes up all idle CPU time. With all other factors being equal the binary controlling the Core65 process. is the variable.

With the console version hidden, and terminal running, you are using the least resources. With the graphical client hidden you use almost the same resources (a little higher according to FAQs). With the screensaver version, you are displaying graphics to the screen, which by looking at the graphical version through top, always takes away cycles from Core65.

Judging through top with graphics displyed, it has taken anywhere from ~1-15% (constantly variable) of my overall pocessor cycles. Unless some factor is different with the OS when running in screen-saver mode, that app keeps taking away a little at a time. You could study for a while the average draw of graphics through top and come up with a percentage. You could also then take this percentage and multiply it with some output figure. That would give you the amount lost due to graphics. If it's taking, say, 6% on average to display graphics, then that's 6% that could have been used to go through frames. That is my logic.

If you could turn off the graphics, then it would be virtually the same as the other two. Graphics seems to be the only detrimental factor.

So it's not an incredible amount, but over time it could be. I tend to set the screens to go into powersave mode, and let console or graphical (hidden of course) run in the background). This gives me piece of mind that I did not waste any of the computer's resources.

 

[mc68k]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
so the mac os version of folding has been updated to 3.0. my question is, for those of us running folding control, how do we get it to download the new application?

If their site is down any longer, I will try to come up with a solution for Folding Control users to use FAH3. It should be as easy as replacing the controlling binary and the Core binary, unless FAH3 has different implementation.

This bears further investigation. I'm sure MacAddict wants to retain their posterity, so we should see a solution soon.

 

[Tiauguinho]

Do you guys know if the Version 3 of f@h is altivec enabled??

 

[jelloshotsrule]

Originally posted by Tiauguinho
Do you guys know if the Version 3 of f@h is altivec enabled??

and also, does anyone know if there's a folding control for v. 3 in the works?

 

[Rower_CPU]

tiauguinho-
According to everything I've heard, yes it is. I can't seem to find any documentation on the Folding site right now. I'll let mc68k confirm.

jello-
They haven't released it yet. It also sounds like they've changed the way the program works making it more difficult to run a GUI and CLI version simultaneously (for those with DP machines), since I guess they store their work in the same directory now. Running 2 CLI versions should still work nicely.

 

[mc68k]

Originally posted by Tiauguinho
Do you guys know if the Version 3 of f@h is altivec enabled??

It's just an updated client, not core. The core that the developers say is Alitivec/SSE aware is called Gromacs. The current F@H core is not based off gromacs and very slightly changed from the previous version. It's always best to upgrade, but you won't see major speed increases.

I would like to wean you all to pure console, F_Control is really unecessary.

 

[AmbitiousLemon]

unnecessary? i tried the console first and it sucked. you couldnt see progress. you couldnt start and stop easily. it was like runnning blind. very annoying.

so gromacs is altivec aware. any indication if this will be ready anytime in the near future? kinda sucks that all the macs are basically castrated.

 

[mc68k]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
unnecessary? i tried the console first and it sucked. you couldnt see progress. you couldnt start and stop easily. it was like runnning blind. very annoying.

so gromacs is altivec aware. any indication if this will be ready anytime in the near future? kinda sucks that all the macs are basically castrated.

The PC's are equally as castrated as well. Sucks more for the researchers.

Console ouputs to the screen and mirrors the screen output to a file called FAHlog.txt. The internal workings are mirrored in your work folder in a file called logfile_0x.txt, where x is your currnet WU. All you have to do is make a link to this file and open it up when your curious. As to which WU you're on, you can see that from the main home screen. To me, an app running an app running a core is sort of ridiculous, but I guess that's partially the fault of Stanford (they do have a graphical client that's basically the same as F_Control).

Start stop is ^C or ^Z for suspend, then last command in history or fg, respectively. I guess it takes some getting used to. I wouldn't want to wait around for those MacAddict4Life people to come up w/something.

My computer's been broken, so I haven't been able to read the boards that the Folding team runs. There are a few of them linked to on the main site. I will tell you more info when I have more time to research it myself.

 

[physicaldrummer]

Wow this is really interesting!

I can't wait to join! Right now all I have is an old 8600/250 with a dial-up that probably can't help much, but when I go to college in sept. I will be getting a PowerMac (maybe a 1.2GHz DP if they are out by then) and a 500-600MHz iBook, so I will definitely help. I need my scholarship money to buy the computers so sorry I can't join just yet...

 

[kishba]

well i finally tricked my workplace's firewall into letting folding through... this means i have a total of ~35 computers running right now with folding (at work... i have a few @ home still)

this is very good for our team

the computers aren't incredibly fast (just p3 500's), but every little bit counts

i'll see if i can bring up another lab later... i will only be able to leave the computers running folding until august 20ish because that's when school starts and my supervisor isn't too keen on running folding all the time

 

[buffsldr]

Great work, Kishba. You are correct, every little bit does count. Anyone else notice how many mac teams are in the top 60? Go macs!

 

[mc68k]

Originally posted by buffsldr
Great work, Kishba. You are correct, every little bit does count. Anyone else notice how many mac teams are in the top 60? Go macs!

6 teams, that's 10%! The mac teams have quite a presence, and our team hasn't found our "true" ranking yet.

Sadly, most machines I'm running are PC's for a mac team.