Folding @ Home Help

[Overkiller]

Hello All,

I currently am running f@h on 2 P4C pc's. I was running vanilla WU's as I only had 512MB of ram on both pc's. I now have a GB for each so I wanted to get the more point-worthy Wu's.

What do I have to modify to get these? Do I just have to go into my client config file in the F@h folder and set "bigpackets" to yes?

Do I have to do anything else?

Thanks!

 

[imported_Kensai]

I just use the graphical client.

 

[GLeeM]

Hello Overkiller

I've never edited the config file. I always just reconfig with a shortcut with the -configonly flag added.

When config is run, you are asked if you will accept WUs larger than 5 MB - answer yes.

I would advise that you at least try out the QMD core WUs. They can always (for now) be downloaded and give the best PPD. To get them you will have to add the -advmethods flag to the startup shortcut or use the new 504beta console - in the advanced there is the option to set advmethods.

If you don't like the QMD core WUs, remove the -advmethods flag or setting. You will then get other BigWUs when they are available.

 

[Overkiller]

thanks for the response kensai and gleem (also for the pm )

I am relatively new, again, to this project but to clarify:

BigWu's that are greater than 5MB generally do provide more points but they can eat upwards of 256MB of ram each, correct?
Now are the QMD workunits merely a variation of this? Or are they more experimental and prone to crashing?

My 2.8C is running @ 3.22 with 1GB of ram.

With work and school I am on it merely an hour or two a day, or more depending on how many papers I have!, so I have no qualms with the pc running relatively "slow" as I no longer have any time to game ( a pity I know) so I would like to get the most bang for my buck if you will.

Would you suggest running BigWu's on one thread and regular on another? Or BigWu's via the console question and then the ?experimental? QMD WU's as well by adding the -advmethods to the shortcut?


Lastly,

If I add -configonly flag to my startup shortcut(remove the other flags or just merely add it to it?) will that prompt me to re-configure as you suggested?

Sorry for all the questions. It's a tad bit late.

Thanks a ton!!!

 

[GLeeM]

As to -configonly: I make a new shortcut in the folder where fah runs from. I add -local and -configonly flags. If you have the new console - when you config, it asks if you want advmethods. Handy Otherwise you can add it to the startup shortcut.

I run only one instance of fah if I am doing QMDs on a hyperthreading CPU. I tried running two QMDs and had a tiny less ppd. I tried one QMD and one other BigWU and had even less ppd. I tried a Tinker and that slowed the QMD down even more. Test it for yourself, it would be good to have my tests checked

QMDs are as stable or more so than other BigWUs. I have finished 263 with no early ends or other problems.

A QMD uses lots more ram at the beginning of its run. They end up at about 210,000 K as seen in Task Manager, I think peak usage is about 100,000 K more which would be for about an hour or so at the beginning of the WU.

 

[Overkiller]

Chances are that the large WU's and QMD's just ended up "arguing" over resources too much and this led to your lower production values.

Now I must just confirm, while you have a Hyperthreading capable cpu...it's enabled as such in bios; correct (no offense intended!! i just know people that had it disabled )

Although I doubt it truly matters as the QMD WU should take 100% of the resources as needed anyways irregardless of the settings.

I will try the -configonly & -advmethods shortly. Is there any way of knowing whether I have received a QMD wu for sure?

Thanks for all your help gleem

 

[GLeeM]

Yes I have HT enabled in the BIOS.

I tested and there was no difference with it enabled or disabled. (Just a couple seconds faster when enabled )

Current QMD wus are p19**

The log will say using QMD core.

 

[dawks]

I am running the 5.04 beta console version with -advmethods as a service, but my XP Barton 2500+ (@2800) has only gotten a FaHCore_78.exe unit thus far. The unit is only using about 10megs of ram and has been running for 115 hours. Previous to updating to the 5.04, I'd get FaHCore_78.exe WU's that would take 104megs of ram and run for about 65 hours..

 

[Insidious]

dawks,

I have the same CPU as you (B2500 @ 2800) and am not using the Beta console client. I get some of the puny WUs you are describing and some of the ones that give me much better PPD.

Might want to recheck your flags (-advmethods and also the Big WU question answered YES in your cnfiguration).

Probably just luck of the draw on which WUs you get.... but if it starts to feel like you did better with the older client, I wouldn't hesitate to switch back. I know Stanford has played games in the past selectively assigning work based on CPU, client, etc...

-Sid

 

[GLeeM]

Originally posted by: dawks
I am running the 5.04 beta console version with -advmethods as a service, but my XP Barton 2500+ (@2800) has only gotten a FaHCore_78.exe unit thus far. The unit is only using about 10megs of ram and has been running for 115 hours. Previous to updating to the 5.04, I'd get FaHCore_78.exe WU's that would take 104megs of ram and run for about 65 hours..

Yes I would agree it is a luck of the draw thing. And do like Insidious says and make sure you have answered yes to wu bigger than 5 MB.

But 115 hours seems like a long time, do you know how many points that WU is worth?

Also, if you know how, add the -forceasm flag. This will have the client use optimized code even if the computer is not shut down nicely.

When the client is started it checks to see if it was shut down nicely. If it was not, it does not use optimized code because it thinks it was the reason for a crash. The -forceasm flag prevents the client checking last shut down.

And you will see something like this in the log:

[10:51:33] - Assembly optimizations manually forced on.