I'm not getting any beta or NWChemLong WUs. Any available?
What's the trick?

Run test applications?	Yes
Run only the selected applications:
NWChem: no
NWChem long: yes
If no work for selected applications is available, accept work from other applications?	no
Max # jobs	No limit
Max # CPUs	No limit

---

Have you checked your Event Log in BOINC to see what it says?

I'm not getting any beta or NWChemLong WUs. Any available?
What's the trick?

Run test applications?	Yes
Run only the selected applications:
NWChem: no
NWChem long: yes
If no work for selected applications is available, accept work from other applications?	no
Max # jobs	No limit
Max # CPUs	No limit

Because you not eat belgian waffles !!!

That is such a good idea! I'm going to get out my waffle maker and treat my kids to Belgian waffles with peanut butter and hot maple syrup :-)

Server Status says there's 2038 NWChem Long WUs unsent but my log says, "No tasks are available for NWChem long."

Since this morning it's gone from 1 user to 5 so maybe they'll come when they come.

Does the client request betas or are they just sent by the server as available and so nothing would be in my log unless it actually arrived?

I confirm : it remains NWChem long tasks. The scheduler manage both "nwchem" and "nwchem long" WU. It seems that the mix is not well balanced...

That is such a good idea! I'm going to get out my waffle maker and treat my kids to Belgian waffles with peanut butter and hot maple syrup :-)

With ice cream, no peanuts butter (too fat)
All depend the kind of Belgiums waffle.
There two main, but also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lacquemant_waffles

I've been watching beta t1, t2 & t4s running and I can't tell the difference. Their Properties say they have the same 500 TLOPs. They run the same speed. Why doesn't t2 run twice as fast as t1 and t4 four times as fast as t1???

Depending on the step of the computation some piece of code are sequential and other required too many synchronization to be effective. Amdahl's law ...

With only anecdotal data I'm not seeing anything close to Amdahl's Law. This is what I'm seeing: t(1) ~ t(2) ~ t(4)
Amdahl's Law might say 1.95*t(1) = t(2) or 3.67*t(1) = t(4).
https://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Estimating-CPU-Performance-using-Amdahls-Law-619/

So it's not that t(4) is working on a larger molecule than t(1) but that parallelization isn't working?

Amdahl's Law is parametric and depends of proportion of parallelized code. If this proportion is 0%, the law is t(1) = t(2) = t(4) = t(inf)
The example you looked at is for 97%.

Because I don't write NWChem's code, I don't know how the size of the molecules play a role in effiency. We had been asked for multicore versions, but for small molecules, Thomas (the chemist) is confident about the fact that it is useless and thus, a waste of ressources. That's why it is in beta and people are responsible of the usage of this feature.