Current work unit

[Byte 2.0]

AMD XP 2600 Barton Core
512 Meg of 3200 Ram

Name: p638_L939_K12M_ext

found the log, but it is very choppy on this WU, because my system was in use allot while it was going and I shut it down several times because I need my CPU for other programs. After It has time to add to the log I will post it.

Edit
I searched in the FAHLOG file for the WU and found this for the first part of it

[12:20:13] Finished a frame (1)
[12:25:42] Finished a frame (2)
[12:31:11] Finished a frame (3)
[12:36:37] Finished a frame (4)
[12:42:04] Finished a frame (5)
[12:47:52] Finished a frame (6)
[12:53:26] Finished a frame (7)
[12:58:56] Finished a frame (8)
[13:04:24] Finished a frame (9)
[13:09:53] Finished a frame (10)
[13:15:22] Finished a frame (11)
[13:20:52] Finished a frame (12)
[13:26:23] Finished a frame (13)
[13:31:55] Finished a frame (14)
[13:37:25] Finished a frame (15)
[13:42:54] Finished a frame (16)
[13:48:24] Finished a frame (17)
[13:53:54] Finished a frame (18)
[13:59:24] Finished a frame (19)
[14:04:53] Finished a frame (20)
[14:10:22] Finished a frame (21)
[14:40:06] Finished a frame (22)
[15:21:40] Finished a frame (23)
[15:27:10] Finished a frame (24)
[15:32:39] Finished a frame (25)
[15:38:06] Finished a frame (26)
[15:43:36] Finished a frame (27)
[15:49:04] Finished a frame (28)
[15:54:32] Finished a frame (29)
[16:00:00] Finished a frame (30)
[16:05:29] Finished a frame (31)
[16:10:59] Finished a frame (32)
[16:16:27] Finished a frame (33)
[16:21:55] Finished a frame (34)
[16:27:22] Finished a frame (35)
[16:32:49] Finished a frame (36)
[16:38:16] Finished a frame (37)
[16:43:45] Finished a frame (38)
[16:49:15] Finished a frame (39)
[16:54:44] Finished a frame (40)
[17:00:12] Finished a frame (41)
[17:05:39] Finished a frame (42)
[17:11:08] Finished a frame (43)
[17:16:36] Finished a frame (44)
[17:22:06] Finished a frame (45)
[17:27:37] Finished a frame (46)
[17:33:10] Finished a frame (47)
[17:38:52] Finished a frame (48)
[17:40:38] + Working...
[17:44:22] Finished a frame (49)
[17:49:51] Finished a frame (50)
[17:55:20] Finished a frame (51)
[18:00:46] Finished a frame (52)
[18:06:12] Finished a frame (53)
[18:11:41] Finished a frame (54)
[18:17:12] Finished a frame (55)
[18:22:44] Finished a frame (56)
[18:28:14] Finished a frame (57)
[18:33:42] Finished a frame (58)
[18:39:10] Finished a frame (59)
[18:44:38] Finished a frame (60)
[18:50:06] Finished a frame (61)
[18:55:35] Finished a frame (62)
[19:01:07] Finished a frame (63)
[19:06:37] Finished a frame (64)
[19:12:06] Finished a frame (65)
[19:17:33] Finished a frame (66)
[19:21:43] Finished a frame (67)
[19:27:29] Finished a frame (68)
[19:33:14] Finished a frame (69)
[19:38:55] Finished a frame (70)
[19:44:39] Finished a frame (71)
[19:50:19] Finished a frame (72)

the longest part with out being broke up. I am up to about 105 now.

I am also on the FAHCORE_65 is that the new one? I read on a web site to delete the core and it would reinstall with the new one, which I have not tried, figured client 4.0 since the newest would be the newest.

[Byte 2.0]

ok, I just tested, I put my folder on another computer then deleted that core. started up the folding, it download and replace with the same core.

[Kov-Ice]

There are three different cores in use right now.

The 65 is a Tinker core. Your log file will show it going in frames. I think there are usually 400 frames to complete on one of those, so they take a while.

The 78 core is a Gromacs. It works in steps, usually counting to 100.

There is a new 79 core, which is like a double-Gromacs. Those are worth much points, but take a while as well.

I think the new 4.0 client will check for and download new cores to replace your old ones on its own now.

[lil Jimmie]

There are a bunch of heavy duty WU's going around right now I have 7 230+ pointers on my systems right now and without deleting the whole WU you will still get the same core, but tinkers are not a bad thing like they once were as far as points go.

Is this stilll the graphical version?

[Byte 2.0]

How are you able to tell how many points a work unit is before you work them?

[lil Jimmie]

I use Electron Microscope III to monitor all my computers and it will report the WU value as well as frame/completion times, but you can check the value at the Stanford Project Summary page The p638_L939_K12M_ext shows to be worth 128 points

[Byte 2.0]

Here is a sample of same WU after I upgraded from 2600xp 1.91 to a xp3200 2.19

[10:01:21] Finished a frame (230)
[10:06:03] Finished a frame (231)
[10:10:45] Finished a frame (232)
[10:15:25] Finished a frame (233)
[10:20:07] Finished a frame (234)
[10:24:48] Finished a frame (235)
[10:29:30] Finished a frame (236)
[10:34:11] Finished a frame (237)
[10:38:53] Finished a frame (238)
[10:43:36] Finished a frame (239)
[10:48:18] Finished a frame (240)
[10:53:02] Finished a frame (241)
[10:57:46] Finished a frame (242)
[11:02:30] Finished a frame (243)
[11:07:18] Finished a frame (244)
[11:12:03] Finished a frame (245)
[11:16:49] Finished a frame (246)
[11:21:40] Finished a frame (247)
[11:26:37] Finished a frame (248)
[11:31:27] Finished a frame (249)
[11:36:16] Finished a frame (250)
[11:41:06] Finished a frame (251)
[11:45:54] Finished a frame (252)
[11:50:48] Finished a frame (253)
[11:55:36] Finished a frame (254)
[12:00:19] Finished a frame (255)
[12:05:07] Finished a frame (256)
[12:10:03] Finished a frame (257)

Not much of a difference. just a hair under 5 minutes a frame.

[Byte 2.0]

ouch, if I take 5 minutes a frame by 400 frames I get 2000 minutes, devide by 60 minutes I get a little more then 33 hours for this WU, ouch.

I have 140 more units, which doing the same math puts it over 11 more hours. ouch.

[lil Jimmie]

Those Tinker WU's are rough on any cpu, but the AMD guys say the best chip is a 2500 mobil overclocked to around 2.4

I have that same WU on an Intel 2.6C that is taking around 0:09:16 a frame@128 points but it's also working on another tinker that is taking 0:08:45 a frame@239 points and total time for completion is 58 hours each. 367 points in two and a half days for is about what the 2.6 would do if it were gromacs.

I also have a 2.4B that is working on a p638_L939_K12M_ext and is getting around 0:05:30 a frame

[Byte 2.0]

cool, so my 33 hour esimate is not bad at all then.

[lil Jimmie]

Accoriding to my numbers it's just about right, just wait till you get some of the smaller one's that take between 2-3 mins a step...you'll think it's flying

BTW even if you only have a few systems folding and don't use EMIII to monitor you folding a handy lil tool is the Electron Microscope Protein Calculator

[Byte 2.0]

Jimmie I am trying to get the EM working correctly.

Right now I have to start both the FAH and EM separately, is that normal?

I have to start FAH first. I thought EM was going to start up the FAH automatically.

I just need to know if that is normal

[lil Jimmie]

Byte, I haven't used EM to start F@H even though I have seen the feature to do so in the EM settings. So unless you have EM configured correctly to start F@H then you will have to start them seperatly if this feature works like it is supposed to.

I do have EM set to start upon Windows starting checked off and that works fine but sometimes it has a delay in doing so.