F@H: Official release of version 5.00 clients

[GLeeM]

Post is here.

Download is here.

Enjoy all the new features!

EDIT: Do not install the GUI on Windows 98 and maybe not on Windows ME. If you want the new features on those OSes you have to use the console.

Sorry about this to those that tried.

 

[ProviaFan]

Thanks for the update, GleeM.

I've been painting all day (first at work, then at home), so I missed the initial fanfare. Oh well, I might as well install it on my parents' system (it's the only one that hasn't been taken down for the painting) and see how it goes... theirs is currently running F@H as a service with FireDaemon, so the v5 client's built-in serviceability will be appreciated.

 

[trevinom]

does the service install in win98?

 

[3chordcharlie]

I can't get the CLI to run as a service in 98, and the graphical version gives an error (can't link file something32) and then says a 'device attached to the system is not functioning'. It did this on two 98se machines, and managed to 'dump' about 48 hours of finished work on the two machines.

I'm not going to bother playing with my XP machines until there's a few more posts in this thread; either I'm doing something wrong (not sure how you double-click a file incorrectly...) or there's something screwy. That makes about 400 credits worth of lost work in the last 10 days, so obviously I'm not doing too well here :S

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: trevinom
does the service install in win98?

No, the service install is for NT-based OSes only. There are other ways to hide things in Windows 98, involving a registry trick IIRC, but it's been years since I worked on a 9x machine, and I lack a desire to break that record - sorry.

 

[ProviaFan]

For what it's worth, I've had no trouble at all with the v4, v5-pre, and v5-final clients (CLI only) on Windows 2000 Pro, Windows XP Pro SP1 (haven't got SP2 yet), and Windows 2003 Server. I'm not sure why the clients are not working for you on Win98... Did you start afresh with a new folder, or did you "upgrade" over the old install?

 

[lobadobadingdong]

is there any way to bench it to see if there are any performance differences?

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: lobadobadingdong
is there any way to bench it to see if there are any performance differences?

Sorry, I don't think it's possible to benchmark it reliably over a short term period, as far as I know.

 

[raynman68]

Thanks GleeM,

I have been running the beta without a hitch for a week. I will install the new console version on my machines in the A.M. after I get some much needed sleep.

Robert

 

[mikecel79]

Does anyone know if FAHLogstats will still be able to read the logs from the V5 clients. I have 20+ machines running and I'm hesistant to switch them over the the V5 client if I can't monitor them with FAHLogstats.

 

[GLeeM]

There will be no performance difference. All the performance is in the core, not the client.

Do like jliechty says and make new directories for v5, it changes the queue structure so you can't run v4 after if you put it in a v4 folder. Restart v4 with -oneunit flag to finish WU without getting a new one. Then start with v5.

I am truly sorry 3chordcharlie.

Also check your clients, there was some trouble with WU p1301 needing a new version core that the server did not have, thus causing a viscious download cycle.

FYI: the big WUs should come with 15% bonus points. I'm doing one now that doesn't seem to have any bonus! I've done better Tinkers on this P4! Might be worth trying on your system, though. Be warned - the download size is like 4 MB and took 30 minutes on my slow dial-up! They also use up more ram. But 15% more points!!

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: mikecel79
Does anyone know if FAHLogstats will still be able to read the logs from the V5 clients. I have 20+ machines running and I'm hesistant to switch them over the the V5 client if I can't monitor them with FAHLogstats.

I've not had any problems getting FAH LogStats to read v5 logfiles, with the 200+ point Tinker WUs that have been the norm for me lately. Assuming the logfile format for Gromacs WUs hasn't changed either, then there should not be any problems. (note that my "herd" numbers 3, so it's not like I've done extensive testing)


I'll edit in this post instead of doing another iteration of postcount++; - anyway, I updated two rigs to v5 already simply by putting the v5 CLI in my v4 CLI folder, deleting the v4 CLI to avoid confusion, and then running v5. The upgrade was uneventful. I do the same thing with ATI Catalyst drivers, though that method gives other people many problems. Proceed that way at your own risk, YMMV.

 

[osage]

Originally posted by: mikecel79
Does anyone know if FAHLogstats will still be able to read the logs from the V5 clients. I have 20+ machines running and I'm hesistant to switch them over the the V5 client if I can't monitor them with FAHLogstats.

yes, it works for the beta version at least. I have been running several machines on it for a while now. It does not always show the correct credit/points, but I get mostly beta WU on these machines as they are my beta testers

 

[GLeeM]

Originally posted by: mikecel79
Does anyone know if FAHLogstats will still be able to read the logs from the V5 clients. I have 20+ machines running and I'm hesistant to switch them over the the V5 client if I can't monitor them with FAHLogstats.

Yes it works, except for p1301, the WU thinks it is p130. I had to edit the extra-nfo.csv file. They might have it fixed by now.

 

[ICXRa]

Good news!

Thanks GLeeM

 

[osage]

I have been dropping machines like flies in the last couple months to reduce my overhead. as result of this I don't do as much in the way of beta testing as I once did.
so this is a beta team recrutment recruitment post I guess. if anyone would be interested in joining in you can find the info here

the beta team is NOT always the fast-track to big points, if that's your primary focus it probably is not for you.

 

[3chordcharlie]

I now have three 9x machines that can't run the new gui, all with the same error:

"The WINFAH.EXE file is
linked to missing export USER32.DLL:GetLastInputInfo"

I also get this error if I try to uninstall f@h.

EDIT - All three of the machines also give 'a device attached to... is not functioning properly' but the third one doesn't.

On one machine I uninstalled f@h 4, and put the new CLI in the directory to finish off the work unit (well, once I found out it couldn't run as a service; I originally intended to switch to the CLI altogether). I then installed the new GUI in a new directory, and get the same error. The other two machines I did it is in the same directory; one I uninstalled the old version first, the other I didn't.

I installed version 4 back over version 5 on one of the machines and got it running, and two others are running the CLI temporarily (and probably slowly - I was too frustrated to take the time to set up all the flags on them), but this sucks.

 

[Rattledagger]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I now have three 9x machines that can't run the new gui, all with the same error:

Isn't there a saying along the lines of "Then everything goes wrong, RTFM".

WINDOWS CLIENT INSTALLATION

Note: As of v.5, screensaver functionality is built into the standard GUI client (which is suitable for Windows 2000/NT/XP). Win 9x users should use the Console client.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Rattledagger

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
I now have three 9x machines that can't run the new gui, all with the same error:

Isn't there a saying along the lines of "Then everything goes wrong, RTFM".

WINDOWS CLIENT INSTALLATION

Note: As of v.5, screensaver functionality is built into the standard GUI client (which is suitable for Windows 2000/NT/XP). Win 9x users should use the Console client.

Thanks - at least now I know it won't work.

I assumed it was something to do with my particular machines, not the client itself, and actually I did RTFM - I'm pretty certain that line wasn't there last night when I checked the release notes (I read them before I started installing, and repeatedly when I started having problems); I doubt the page was cached on all three machines. Only the 'updated august 9th' is making me think I might be wrong about this, but since version 5 was, I think, released on the 10th of august, the new page would have been inserted on the 10th, not the 9th, so I suspect it's a manual date, and is the date of the document being edited. Obviously I can't be sure of this.

Anyone know if or for how long I can keep running the version 4 gui? Two of the machines I can easily set up with the CLI, the other would be much better to use the GUI client, and I'd hate to lose a productive machine due to the upgrade

 

[trevinom]

I hope I never have to upgrade my V4 client cause I'm running windows 98 on alot of my machines. They only ave 2G HD's or less so I can't install XP on them.

upgrades suck

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: trevinom
I hope I never have to upgrade my V4 client cause I'm running windows 98 on alot of my machines. They only ave 2G HD's or less so I can't install XP on them.

upgrades suck

So not happy about this one

I hope I don't have to upgrade, too.

 

[Rattledagger]

2GB hd? that is huge compared to one of the machines I'm running NT4 & BOINC on... Have some spare hd's, but these are unfortunately scsi.

 

[ProviaFan]

The v4 client should continue to work for quite some time, if things continue as they have in the past. The last time an upgrade was "forced" IIRC, was back in the v3.x days (you had to upgrade from v2 for some reason I can't remember).

 

[GLeeM]

The download page says the GUI will work on Windows ME, but there are reports that it does the same as on Win98!

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: GLeeM
The download page says the GUI will work on Windows ME, but there are reports that it does the same as on Win98!

I'm almost certain that it initially said 98 as well; maybe there's no one left in the whole f@h world still using ME so it hasn't been tried yet