Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

DAlex · Jun 26, 2003, 04:30 AM

Just been reading some of the posts regarding the new client and was wondering if it is stable or if the upload /server issues are sorted yet.

I'm getting bored on F@H so was looking to switch when I get to the 10K milestone - just wanted some feedback on how the new client was shaping up as I've finally sorted out my pc problems (why did I leave a RAM check till last....).

Here's the machine list, any thoughts on optimisation appreciated.

G4 733
G4 800
XP 2600
XP 2100
P 1.3

Cheers

DAlex

mikkyo · Jun 26, 2003, 03:21 PM

Here we were kicking but and flying in F@H and now everyone is switching to dfold.
How sad.
Maybe I will installit on one machine and sample it with the CHUD tools and see if it is actually using CPU power now.
My hunch is the F@H is still the best utilization fo ones cpu.

Scotttheking · Jun 26, 2003, 04:07 PM

Originally posted by mikkyo:
Here we were kicking but and flying in F@H and now everyone is switching to dfold.
How sad.
Maybe I will installit on one machine and sample it with the CHUD tools and see if it is actually using CPU power now.
My hunch is the F@H is still the best utilization fo ones cpu.

Hey, it's faster on the mac then f@h is.
I'm still running a bit of f@h, but I've been run over. I have a real shot for #1 in DF.

BTW, where do I find the CHUD tools?

Welnic · Jun 26, 2003, 04:58 PM

I don't know anything about CHUD, but it is on this page:

http://developer.apple.com/tools/performance/

The Raven · Jun 26, 2003, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by mikkyo:
Here we were kicking but and flying in F@H and now everyone is switching to dfold.
How sad.
Maybe I will installit on one machine and sample it with the CHUD tools and see if it is actually using CPU power now.
My hunch is the F@H is still the best utilization fo ones cpu.

I really dont have much of a preference between the two folding projects but it seem I have to babysit F@H much more to keep it running
I will be moving most of my boxes back to dfold as soon as I reach my goals in F@H.

Even with most of our power In F@H we are not moving up, But in dfold we can move up fairly fast. Besides we don't want the let Welnic pass us

DAlex · Jun 26, 2003, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by mikkyo:
Here we were kicking but and flying in F@H and now everyone is switching to dfold.
How sad.
Maybe I will installit on one machine and sample it with the CHUD tools and see if it is actually using CPU power now.
My hunch is the F@H is still the best utilization fo ones cpu.

I'm just looking for something that will make better use of my macs whilst having a bit of fun - a new dfold, all fresh and shiny might provide a welcome change. F@H has been fun.

DAlex

OneMacGuy · Jun 27, 2003, 07:50 AM

Originally posted by DAlex:
I'm just looking for something that will make better use of my macs whilst having a bit of fun - a new dfold, all fresh and shiny might provide a welcome change. F@H has been fun.

DAlex

Folding@Home on my Dual G4/533 was so slow I wondered if it was working right. Does it always seem to take a week or longer to do WU? I have switched most of the PC's in my house from SETI to DFold and it seems to be running well, except for the server problems on their end. DFold does seem to be very sensitive to overclocking though. Several of my overclocked PC's kept freezing with it, they never froze under SETI though. It sure would be nice to see how the team standings are going in DFold. Oh, and BTW, DFold works behind my firewall at work when nothing else will. I have some really fast WinTel machines there, so I am definitely going to run it there.

My only problem with DFold on the Mac is that it is really just a UNIX port and is very hard to setup if you do not know UNIX. Do we have some instructions for setting it up under OSX?

Several of my customers like the DFold screensaver, so they let me run it on their machines at their office. Has anyone determined just what the speed diff is between the GUI and CL versions? I know when I followed Scotts suggestions for using the CL version of SETI using Firedaemon, that worked much faster.

Shaktai · Jun 27, 2003, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by mikkyo:
Here we were kicking but and flying in F@H and now everyone is switching to dfold.
How sad.
Maybe I will installit on one machine and sample it with the CHUD tools and see if it is actually using CPU power now.
My hunch is the F@H is still the best utilization fo ones cpu.

I only moved because of a time and stability issue with some of my Windows boxes. Running gromacs they get a little flaky sometimes. Have to watch them constantly. dFold so far is stable for me. I can pretty much just let them go, plus all my boxes seem to run a little cooler, which doesn't hurt with the hot days still ahead. (no air conditioning).

Work is taking precedence over everything else right now.

mikkyo · Jun 27, 2003, 02:44 PM

Huh, maybe that is why I don't have any problems with F@H, I have linux and mac boxes but no Windoze.
Everything just works, flys along.

slipjack · Jul 1, 2003, 03:45 PM

Does anyone have the link to setting up dfold as a service on the PC? I did it before but have forgotten...

Scotttheking · Jul 1, 2003, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by slipjack:
Does anyone have the link to setting up dfold as a service on the PC? I did it before but have forgotten...

Assuming NT based. In dos, go to the directory dfold is in.
type in:
'foldtrajlite /install'
without the quotes
Go to the service control panel and start it
If you want to use the ram tweak, you need to edit the service.cfg file to have 'useram=1'

slipjack · Jul 1, 2003, 04:40 PM

Same for 2000? Thanks Scott.

Scotttheking · Jul 1, 2003, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by slipjack:
Same for 2000? Thanks Scott.

2000 = NT5
xp = NT5.1

slipjack · Jul 1, 2003, 05:04 PM

Aha.

I'm living in a PC world, but still have a Mac mind.

ism · Jul 1, 2003, 05:46 PM

Do I have to do anything to install this client or will it download and install automatically from the old one?

Because it still seems to be running (on my mac that is)

Scotttheking · Jul 1, 2003, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by ism:
Do I have to do anything to install this client or will it download and install automatically from the old one?

Because it still seems to be running (on my mac that is)

You show as producing on the new stats, so I'd say your machine auto updated.

slipjack · Jul 2, 2003, 01:17 AM

So anyways... I've got my foldit script set up like this:

./foldtrajlite -f protein -n native -rt -q

anything I should change with the new protein? Nothing seems to be uploading yet either from my Mac client. (the PC client worked fine...)

Scotttheking · Jul 2, 2003, 11:05 AM

I use -qt (quiet true). I'm not sure if just -q works, but it would let you know.

Look at the file progress.txt. If you aren't sure what it says, post it here.

slipjack · Jul 2, 2003, 12:33 PM

q seems to work fine... If you delete the lock file while the thing is running it supposedly 'shuts down'... at that point will files get uploaded or does it upload when you run foldit again..?

Scotttheking · Jul 2, 2003, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by slipjack:
q seems to work fine... If you delete the lock file while the thing is running it supposedly 'shuts down'... at that point will files get uploaded or does it upload when you run foldit again..?

It only uploads once per generation. You can't tell it to upload in the middle of a generation.

Welnic · Jul 2, 2003, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by slipjack:
q seems to work fine... If you delete the lock file while the thing is running it supposedly 'shuts down'... at that point will files get uploaded or does it upload when you run foldit again..?

In phase I when it shut down after foldtrajlite.lock was removed it did try to upload everything. In phase II it uploads at the end of each generation or two. It will always only upload a complete generation, so if you quit in the middle of a generation it will only upload if it has one buffered.

If it is shut down by removing the lock file it writes to disk exactly where it is in that generation. If it is shut down by other means then when it starts up again it starts over at the last place that it wrote to disk, which if you do not have the -g flag is less than 5 structures.

slipjack · Jul 2, 2003, 08:53 PM

Thanks guys, great info.

slipjack · Jul 2, 2003, 10:35 PM

I dunno man.. here's what my progress says:

slipjack · Jul 2, 2003, 10:56 PM

Wait... i have a bad feeling... do I have to re-download the client to run the new protein?

slipjack · Jul 2, 2003, 11:02 PM

Uh, yes, slipjack, that is why there is a NEW client for download... *whap*

The Raven · Jul 10, 2003, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by mikkyo:

Maybe I will installit on one machine and sample it with the CHUD tools and see if it is actually using CPU power now.
My hunch is the F@H is still the best utilization fo ones cpu.

Have you done this yet??
results?