12 instances of F@H in Process viewer?

Discussion in 'Distributed Computing' started by LethalWolfe, Jun 6, 2004.

  1. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #1
    I installed mc68k's script to run F@H on my dual proc QS and somehow I've managed to get 12 instances of F@H listed in my process viewer. Is that normal? If not, what did I do, and how can I fix it?


    Lethal
     
  2. cjc343 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    In the apple store, in front of a G5.
    #2
    no, it is not normal. I would suggest using the "rid" command in terminal, to erase F@H and then reinstalling. I would then restart.

    Could you post a picture?
     
  3. Dreadnought macrumors 68020

    Dreadnought

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    Location:
    Almere, The Netherlands
    #3
    did you type start or some other command in the terminal too many times?
     
  4. ChrisFromCanada macrumors 65816

    ChrisFromCanada

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Location:
    Hamilton, Ontario (CANADA)
    #4
    I have has a very similar problem while running the DP scrpt. Although I have 3 processes running at once. The evidence it then using top in terminal i see FAH's running at once and when I look at the .txt file I see:

    [07:49:15] + Processing work unit
    [07:49:15] Core required: FahCore_78.exe
    [07:49:15] Core found.
    [07:49:15] Working on Unit 00 [June 6 07:49:15]
    [07:49:15] + Working ...
    [07:49:15]
    [07:49:15] *------------------------------*
    [07:49:15] Folding@home Gromacs Core
    [07:49:15] Version 1.65 (May 6, 2004)
    [07:49:15]
    [07:49:15] Preparing to commence simulation
    [07:49:15] - Looking at optimizations...
    [07:49:15] - Created dyn
    [07:49:15] - Files status OK
    [07:49:15] - Expanded 197137 -> 951793 (decompressed 482.8 percent)
    [07:49:15] - Starting from initial work packet
    [07:49:15]
    [07:49:15] Project: 1060 (Run 0, Clone 63, Gen 4)
    [07:49:15]
    [07:49:15] Assembly optimizations on if available.
    [07:49:15] Entering M.D.
    [07:49:22] Protein: p1060_A21nat_273_99
    [07:49:22]
    [07:49:22] Writing local files
    [07:49:22] Testing CPU type...
    [07:49:22] Done testing.
    [07:49:22] Extra AltiVec boost OK.
    [07:49:22] Writing local files
    [07:49:22] Completed 0 out of 2500000 steps (0)
    [08:28:15] Writing local files
    [08:28:15] Completed 25000 out of 2500000 steps (1)
    [09:07:03] Writing local files
    [09:07:04] Completed 50000 out of 2500000 steps (2)
    [09:45:54] Writing local files
    [09:45:54] Completed 75000 out of 2500000 steps (3)
    [09:47:57] Writing local files
    [09:47:58] Completed 5000 out of 500000 steps (1)
    [10:24:45] Writing local files
    [10:24:45] Completed 100000 out of 2500000 steps (4)
    [11:03:35] Writing local files
    [11:03:35] Completed 125000 out of 2500000 steps (5)
    [11:42:22] Writing local files
    [11:42:22] Completed 150000 out of 2500000 steps (6)
    [12:21:09] Writing local files
    [12:21:09] Completed 175000 out of 2500000 steps (7)
    [12:59:56] Writing local files
    [12:59:56] Completed 200000 out of 2500000 steps (8)
    [13:00:19] Writing local files
    [13:00:19] Completed 10000 out of 500000 steps (2)
    [13:38:46] Writing local files
    [13:38:46] Completed 225000 out of 2500000 steps (9)
    [14:17:30] Writing local files
    [14:17:30] Completed 250000 out of 2500000 steps (10)
    [14:56:25] Writing local files
    [14:56:25] Completed 275000 out of 2500000 steps (11)
    [15:35:20] Writing local files
    [15:35:20] Completed 300000 out of 2500000 steps (12)
    [16:12:46] Writing local files
    [16:12:47] Completed 15000 out of 500000 steps (3)
    [16:14:13] Writing local files
    [16:14:13] Completed 325000 out of 2500000 steps (13)
    [16:53:06] Writing local files
    [16:53:06] Completed 350000 out of 2500000 steps (14)
    [17:36:30] Writing local files
    [17:36:31] Completed 375000 out of 2500000 steps (15)




    You can see that there appears to be two running on one processor. The .txt for my other porcessor appears to be fine.
     
  5. LethalWolfe thread starter macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #5

    Probably. I was testing out the commands (start, stop, pause, etc.,) and "start" was the only one that would work (pause and stop just resulted in a "killall command not found" error).

    So should I kill 11 of the 12 process or just leave it as is?


    Lethal
     
  6. mc68k macrumors 68000

    mc68k

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2002
    #6
    the killall command should be included with mac os x, unless maybe u didnt install the BSD subsytem?

    there is no safeguard against typing in start multiple times. it will launch multiple instances....so i would suggest stopping all of them and just using start once

    tell me any other problems u have
     
  7. LethalWolfe thread starter macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #7

    Is the BSD subsytem something you have to chose to be installed or is it installed by default? This is install is 2 years old and it was my first Mac so however it came from the factory is how it is now.

    I force quit all the insances in the process viewer. Went to terminal, typed "start" and now I just have 2 instances of F@H. I'm assuming one for each CPU?


    Lethal
     
  8. cjc343 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    In the apple store, in front of a G5.
    #8
    could you post a screenshot of the "top" command in terminal or of the active processes in activity moniter?
     
  9. shemp9999 macrumors regular

    shemp9999

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2003
  10. LethalWolfe thread starter macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #10
    Here is the TOP pic.

    Everything seems to be normal now.

    And I'm running 10.1.5 on this machine.


    Lethal
     

    Attached Files:

  11. cjc343 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    In the apple store, in front of a G5.
    #11
    yeah, 2 processes should be right for a dualie.
     
  12. mc68k macrumors 68000

    mc68k

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2002
    #12
    yes this should work fine, just not all the commands

    10.1.x is horribly slow and out of date. u would be doing urself and ur machine a favour by updating to at least jaguar (10.2) :)
     
  13. LethalWolfe thread starter macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #13
    I'm looking to upgrade soon. I'm finally at a lull w/my editing to where I feel comfortable doing an OS upgrade. No way am I gonna do that in the middle or working on a big project. :)


    Lethal
     

Share This Page