PDA

View Full Version : What the...




MacAztec
Jun 24, 2002, 07:42 PM
Ok, I have Folding@home. I am using the graphic version, and I have had it running for about 4 days during the days. I put my comp to sleep at night.

Now, this is a G4 400MHz with 768MB of RAM. The task bar shows 31.00% done, is this right??

4 days for one WU?!?!?

Is folding control or folding console faster?

Please help me out, i'm getting frustrated!



MacAztec
Jun 24, 2002, 07:53 PM
And, I had folding control running for about a day, and it maybe finised 1/15th of the total bar....

Beej
Jun 24, 2002, 07:58 PM
It takes me days to complete a WU with my 933... so yeah, it's normal. I wish they were all a bit smaller... it gives me a better sense of actually achieving something! :)

firewire2001
Jun 24, 2002, 08:44 PM
that seems awfully weird considering it takes my 1ghz amd to process a a unit in about 12 hours....

and im using this computer a lot, too for things as intense as photoshop.

though i am running version 3.0, i got very similar results with version 2... this seems very weird that everyone's macs are going so slowly...

mc68k
Jun 25, 2002, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by MacAztec
And, I had folding control running for about a day, and it maybe finised 1/15th of the total bar....
The graphical version and the folding control store the config/WU files in different places. They don't help each other out. You need to pick a client and stick with it. That's why yout times are even longer than they should be.

The best overall IMO is the GUI folding app provided by stanford. It's never given me problems.
The best "nerdy" client is console, but that takes a lot of will-power, and has given me a few problems.
Then there's Folding Control, which is beta software running over the console version which I only recommened if you have a DP machine and don't want to run 2 Cores through Darwin w/o GUI assistance.

Straight console will always be faster but not by that much and there is sort of a learning curve. I would stick with the GUI— it is straightforward and does its job well. Run the GUI client hidden using cmd-h or by opt-clicking onto another window (it loads this way default for a reason). If you minimize the window or look at the protein moving, you will make your WU take longer because it will be using more CPU. The GUI and console are almost the same if you run the GUI client hidden. You get to see what's going on directly with the GUI, but with the console you have to look elsewhere.

For maximum CPU I usually run logged in through >console so X doesn't have to launch window services, and other GUI processes.

If you get a proteinA or some variant thereof (which is all they have given me lately), then it should take ~3-5 days if you give it most of the CPU. But since you ran the other client, you effectively doubled the idle processor workload for the period that you were running the two cores-- so it will take you longer to finish this WU.

You will be rewareded for your patience. Welcome to the team. :)

mc68k
Jun 25, 2002, 12:25 AM
Originally posted by firewire2001
that seems awfully weird considering it takes my 1ghz amd to process a a unit in about 12 hours....

and im using this computer a lot, too for things as intense as photoshop.

though i am running version 3.0, i got very similar results with version 2... this seems very weird that everyone's macs are going so slowly...
I think the varibale is the protein that is given to the machine, if all factors given for the machines are relatively equal. My macs almost always get a large complicated protein like proteinA or proteinAg29a but my Pc's seem to vary more frequently with what they receive.

The protein you work on is based on your benchmark results that run at the beginning of every session and your performance (mostly time) on previous proteins.

That's my take on your seemingly faster times. Even if your PC was chewing and the same protein as a Mac, you might not get the same score since WU worth is based on CPU time.

mmmdreg
Jun 25, 2002, 07:25 AM
the proteins vary so much that you can't really compare how fast they go...some proteins are easy but are only worth .5 points while others are way harder to fold and are worth 5 points...so some should take as much as 10 times as long as others according to the point logic..

irmongoose
Jun 25, 2002, 07:38 AM
are you sure you can let your comp sleep? Well, since I found that my 300 meg download didn't move one bit after it slept, and started right after I woke it up... hmm...




irmongoose

mc68k
Jun 25, 2002, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by irmongoose
are you sure you can let your comp sleep? Well, since I found that my 300 meg download didn't move one bit after it slept, and started right after I woke it up... hmm...
Not sure about this…

Your download might not have finished because your HD went to sleep and it couldn't receive data or your network becomes inactive.

All that folding needs (except when sending/receiving WU) is your processor. If that still works while your comp is sleeping, then you're set. You can test this by sleeping your comp and looking at the progress, if you have time.