Posts by marsinph

1) Message boards : Number crunching : What happens with certificates ? (Message 1479)
Posted 1 Oct 2021 by marsinph
Post:
Hello, unable to connect and get WU :
01/10/2021 15:52:34 | QuChemPedIA@home | work fetch resumed by user
01/10/2021 15:52:38 | QuChemPedIA@home | Sending scheduler request: To fetch work.
01/10/2021 15:52:38 | QuChemPedIA@home | Requesting new tasks for CPU
01/10/2021 15:52:39 | | Project communication failed: attempting access to reference site
01/10/2021 15:52:39 | QuChemPedIA@home | Scheduler request failed: Peer certificate cannot be authenticated with given CA certificates
01/10/2021 15:52:41 | | Internet access OK - project servers may be temporarily down.
2) Message boards : Number crunching : The aborted and resend WU (Message 1104)
Posted 27 Sep 2020 by marsinph
Post:
my tasks :
waiting for validation (13503)
Validation inconclusive (14374)

so, need to wait ;)



Damot, why you produce new WU, there are WU waiting resent since several months !!!
https://quchempedia.univ-angers.fr/athome/workunit.php?wuid=1386777
https://quchempedia.univ-angers.fr/athome/workunit.php?wuid=1387129
https://quchempedia.univ-angers.fr/athome/workunit.php?wuid=1384893

Now I see you have a huge amount of inconclusieve. What is the problem ? Your host ? the WU you produce ? The how they are hadled ?
You also have the same ration, as everyone i think : look https://quchempedia.univ-angers.fr/athome/results.php?hostid=1764
Best friendly regards from Belgium french !
3) Message boards : Number crunching : Got any Betas??? (Message 1098)
Posted 25 Sep 2020 by marsinph
Post:
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
4) Message boards : Number crunching : The aborted and resend WU (Message 1096)
Posted 25 Sep 2020 by marsinph
Post:
The scheduler manage both "nwchem" and "nwchem long" WU. It seems that the mix is not well balanced... I implement somerthing to accelerate wingman resends, but it seems that to many "nwchem" were invalid and it saturates the scheduler. I'll try several other things after the formulaboinc sprint



Thank you.
So far I know and remeber, it is a setting inside scheduler.
I am sure Aurum can help. If I am not wrong, he explained it on a other PRJ a long time ago.
5) Message boards : Number crunching : The aborted and resend WU (Message 1095)
Posted 25 Sep 2020 by marsinph
Post:
I have a bunch of stale unvalidated WUs as well. I wonder if they're from a bad batch that got cancelled before everything finished?



Not be afraid or surprised, you are not alone. Me too !
About 50% inconclusive.
Then from the total returned 50% valid and 50% wainting Wingman.
Not cry, I have WU since may wautung wungman. The oroblem is that rhose WU are NOT sent again.
6) Message boards : Number crunching : Got any Betas??? (Message 1083)
Posted 24 Sep 2020 by marsinph
Post:
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 !!!
7) Message boards : Number crunching : The aborted and resend WU (Message 1082)
Posted 24 Sep 2020 by marsinph
Post:
Hello Damot.
I have lot if WU wautung Wungman. Some frim may 2020 ! Four months ago !!!
And still not resended.
Why not first resend before creation of new WU ?
Everyone will be happy.. For sure the users like me who crunch already months. Sorry for the one who only joined because sprint.
Users who stock WU
I know you are alone and with only two hands.

I also suggest to set a limitation on amount of WU per host !
Best regards
8) Questions and Answers : Windows : no tasks available? (Message 1081)
Posted 24 Sep 2020 by marsinph
Post:
Hello,
Not forget to let run the "rescheduler". I have alreadu WU from may wating , but unsent to other wingman !
9) Message boards : Number crunching : missing computers (Message 859)
Posted 9 Jun 2020 by marsinph
Post:
I have 5 work units pending since at least the 13th of May, all had a wingman who aborted their work units (host 2132) and they have not been resent out yet.

The hosts are real otherwise they can't abort work units but it is taking awhile to get the work out to a new host.

I can wait.

Conan





You are not alone. I have WU since end op april, cancelled by wingman and still not resent.
But Strange, the new received WU are very "young". It seems, that the old are not more resent !
10) Questions and Answers : Getting started : Account creation / Sprint on Formula Boinc (Message 854)
Posted 6 Jun 2020 by marsinph
Post:
Hello everyone,

May I suggest to remove QuChem from the possible candidate project on Formula Boinc ?
Why ?
No new account creation possible (understandable) but, very strange, i see a new registered user on 5th june user ID 601) !?!?
There are 414 account and only 246 active (it iare the informations from "server status".
So in case of Sprint, it will be a race between a few hundred of users.
WU take about one day to run, but with wingman, so a lot waiting validation, and the most I have are returned, more than one month
but still not sent to a wingman (WU 1361892, 1360875, 1355492,...). A sprint on QuChem, will be more than a lotery !
Actual WU runs only under Linux, so, the most platform are excluded.

QuChem is a little project, like WEP (with the enormous problem of this week).

Best regards
Philippe
11) Message boards : News : NWChem long no longer in beta soon (Message 664)
Posted 4 Mar 2020 by marsinph
Post:
Mister, I suggest you read all very carefully the first line of each post !!!
I understand what you mean.
I make difference between "new message" and "reply or quote" .

This message is sent by "quote" You will see your serlf where it appears !
Like a new message

Best regards


But on Boinc from the first hours (past century) Look my ID on Boinc, look "the team" I am founder. 111th since creation
ofr BOINC.I think I have enough knownledge to configure hosts.

So long time on boinc and you are not able to quote a post correctly.
12) Message boards : News : NWChem long no longer in beta soon (Message 663)
Posted 4 Mar 2020 by marsinph
Post:
Hello,
Thank you for answer. English was also OK ( you could send in FR by private message !!!).
It prevent escalation and ping-pong effect.

You always says in most of replies there are no problem with your WU.
But in first part of this reply (in french), you write everyone have problem.

Then you mix scientific method and BIAS, with WU !!!

After , you suggest a problem about virualisation (and acceleration.. I agree if my host are not hardware able.....
But I let remember that all was perfect working (exept sometimes, WU who become stuck, it can happen. No problem, it is in beta phase).
But I still wait explanation why there are problems. For the same host, no any changes in config, why all worked perfect latest year, and since two mont, no more !

I appreciate your effort. it takes time. I know,
I am to help., as admin, you have full access to my host.
I have check once again all, to be sure, i am not doing wrong. It can happen.

Then I doscovered again a other problem.
I have only host 1764 (virtual Linux running on physical host 956. I have 2 only WU (110945 and 1109765). This situation on wed04mar 20:00UTC (WU received on 04mar 19:55:34 and 19:55:23)

But on my account page it seem I have also three more WU : 1109635, 1109640, 1109486) received 04mar 19:29...)
Info collected from a other host who not run QuChem). Where are those WU ??? Not at me.

Then about credits, on same host, usually, on host 1764) run in about 1hr-1hr30. All for 200 CR.
But the new , latest received WU are estimated to tun in about 12 hours. (I know it is not accurate)
I let it run

But It are your WU. Those two following seem to need 12 hours. We are very far away from what you predicted : about 200CR per hour
od9_athome_b3lyp-321gd,batch99,000993556,nwchem,1581785149_1
od9_athome_b3lyp-321gd,batch99,000998915,nwchem,1581785138_1
Then compare with
od9_athome_b3lyp-321gd,batch52,000521854,nwchem,1580756944_2 : running : three hours
or
od9_athome_b3lyp-321gd,batch60,000606303,nwchem,1580807016_3 : running 54 min
All for a CR of 200 !!!

Only to show that your CR system is strange. : running time 54 minutes or 3 hours : all the same CR !!!
I repeat, same host. Not forget all my host are in full basic config, Only OS and Boinc installed. Not used. So I can compare.


To conclude, I let finish the two very strange WU (12 hours estimated)
Then I return to all the other PRJ who needs your virtualization/accelaration. It works everywhere. Only here not .

So, you have enough information. If you want additional test, I will help you. But the by private message, so I can send my
private mail. More easy to send screenshot.

I NEVER, I repeat NEVER have make remarks about (against) scientist. I do not know from where you take this.
I agree sometimes, I can answer not "sweet". But I do after I receive answer where it show a not full reading

Then I make difference between "reply to post" and "new post in discusuion"
13) Message boards : News : NWChem long no longer in beta soon (Message 656)
Posted 3 Mar 2020 by marsinph
Post:
Hello Damotbe,

OK . Boinc is also wrong . It is what you wrote ! Nice !!! I suggest you to contact Pr ANDERSON David. (See on SETI, the founder of BOINC, past century)
All virtualisation work perfect onh all othe Boinc project.? But Berkeley is false, I am false, everyone is false. Only you are right.
Then if Windows WU are "bonus", ok so far, It is your full right. Wanless also runs only under Linux.

I think , you have never look my returned WU. Too easy for you to say " is not me , but your config".
The returned WU by host 1764 (full manually real virtual machine) on host 956, have all capacities.
So my config hardware is full correct. I repeat once again. It is the same PHYSICAL computer.
Running basically Win7-Ultimate-x64 see description.

Then, what you write about Linux "able" without acceleration, once again ???
Look real host and the sub host(virtual host) .
Look the 13 WU (the latest on host 956, all returned on 03/03/20 on 20:10UTC ) Win7
Look WU 1077208, 1621082, and the others returned at same time.
I repeat once again same host, hardware, as 1764. I7-2600K
And look WU 1712747, 12748 (validated) and 1712792, 1712970 (waiting)
I8t is the same physical computer. same processor, same Bios, same RAM, same HDD, same...
Under Win7 your WU are not suitable. Not my host. Your WU.

Instead of pblishing that your PRJ will not more long will be in beta phase, correct the problems.
Or remove all your Windows.
I have an other host (957) , also a i7-2600K. Perfect the same configuration as host (956) .
Only GPU is not the same. The host 957 worked fine till 25 feb !
And also host 1174 (i7-3820K), same config Win7 as all others

Look the WU. Take time, please.
All report "virtualisation not capable". Nice, But it works on all other projects.

So suddenly, all the windows config became wrong ??? All around the world !!!
It is why i take the conclusion the problem is on your WU, not Boinc, not all the Windows World"
I have a other host with a Ryzen7-3900X with 32Gb (Win10), later I will test your WU.
I hope your wu will not report the same error "no virtualisation"

By the way you not answer about the question "how to enable" virtualisation on Win7.

Not forget, once again it works on all other PRJ.
But you say it is the fault ofr BOINC and the users who are unablme to configure correctly computer !
We are all unable to handle and manage Windows.

I am not the most capable, very far. But on Boinc from the first hours (past century) Look my ID on Boinc, look "the team" I am founder. 111th since creation
ofr BOINC.I think I have enough knownledge to configure hosts . My best was to install à 6Gb HDD on a computer x86 under Vista.
Now it turn (same host AMD 6300+ (dualcore) , 2Gb DDR2 (yes DDR twoo), with à RAID5 of four times two trra SSD !!! Impossible under 32 bits system !?
OK, I know it is possible.
This, to show Damotbe, that the problem is on your Windows WU. Not at our side. And not on BOINC


Un peu d humlilité, n a jamais tué aucun Français !!!





Hello,

Please look my host 956, i7-2600K-Virtualisation Bios enable-Win7Ult x64.
All the WU ends in error : VM requires acceleration but the config can not support it !!!
Host details "Virtualbox installed.......... but disabled " !!!.
Can someone tell me, where inside Windows7 we can enable/disable virtualization ?


OK so far, but please look host 1764 : it is a virtual machine mounted on host 956, running Linux on one core, 10Gb virtualdisk.
I repeat, on host 956, with the VB given by Boinc
And it works ! Look WU 859617 or 855793 who ran successfully.

Strange on a computer with virtual "disabled"

It only seems that there are problems with the WU under Win.

The only solution : install virtual machine !


you're jumping too quickly to the conclusion that suits you.
Our Windows WU's require acceleration for obvious performance reasons, but it is possible to install a Linux VM without acceleration and get linux WU's . In this case, the efficiency is likely to be quite bad. In any case, it's not a diagnosis of a problem with our Windows WU, it's expected.

So, it's not the WUs that have a problem, but the configuration of your machine (hardware and software versions) that doesn't work properly with the tools provided by BOINC developpers. And yes, you're not the only one with this problem, and I'm sorry for that. I specify again that I did not modify the virtualbox wrapper provided by Berkeley. Probably, that the most stable projects have invested time to modify the official version, but I'm alone and I don't have that time. Our application is developed for Linux. The Windows and Mac applications we provide are a bonus. If that doesn't work for you, I'm sorry.
14) Message boards : News : NWChem long no longer in beta soon (Message 645)
Posted 3 Mar 2020 by marsinph
Post:
Hello,

Please look my host 956, i7-2600K-Virtualisation Bios enable-Win7Ult x64.
All the WU ends in error : VM requires acceleration but the config can not support it !!!
Host details "Virtualbox installed.......... but disabled " !!!.
Can someone tell me, where inside Windows7 we can enable/disable virtualization ?


OK so far, but please look host 1764 : it is a virtual machine mounted on host 956, running Linux on one core, 10Gb virtualdisk.
I repeat, on host 956, with the VB given by Boinc
And it works ! Look WU 859617 or 855793 who ran successfully.

Strange on a computer with virtual "disabled"

It only seems that there are problems with the WU under Win.

The only solution : install virtual machine !
15) Message boards : News : NWChem long no longer in beta soon (Message 641)
Posted 2 Mar 2020 by marsinph
Post:
Hello Admin,
are you sure there are no any problems with your WU !?
All was running fine till 25 feb. Now, all Windows WU report crash of VM or CPU without VM capacity (or disable).
I7-2600K, I7-3830K (both Win7 x64, Ryzen9-3900X (Win10-x64)
All with at least 16GbRAM
All could crunch till 25fev. (As joke : probably the VM extension on CPU and BIOS were programmed to stop working !)

It is not disrespectfull from me. There are a lot of people who have problems.
Look only one of the biggest cruncher on earth. I has power, serious computing knownledge, he also complaint
Already three teams founder complaints too.

I have follow all recommandations on my Win10, Very attentive to all screenshots on all tuto.
IT not works.

We are all wrong. Let me allow to remeber your post of october 2019 where you wrote there are some problems.
Also your post on 07jan20 10:18:24 UTC, where you suggest to abort all WU !

Complaints comes from everywhere, and we are all wrong.
All of us are here to help reserach, and also competition.between team (all benefits for you)
You can (I prefer) answer by private message in french (our native language)
With respect
Philippe




Instead of producing WU, it woul be better first to solve the problems !!!
On the same host, some WU runs into 1 or 2 hours, others stays at 100% after 10 hours !
The worst is that some WU (same host of course) take 4 hours , others take one hour and for the same credit (200)
And some needs only 30 minuts to run !
So please solve it or change CR system.
Fropm now, on all my hosts, each WU above two hours are cancelled.
It is not the goal of project, but I will not monopolyze my cores for nothing


It's not a problem to be solved. These Calculations are unpredictable by nature. I've already talked a lot about it on the forum. The fixed credit is much more advantageous for the participants in average. (200 credit for 1.5 hours per core in average)

all your messages here are to complain in a disrespectful way. I don't give a shit about the credits and I've already spent way too much time on it, testing multiple systems. If for you it prevails over scientific research, just quit !
16) Message boards : Number crunching : Error while computing with windows 10 (Message 640)
Posted 2 Mar 2020 by marsinph
Post:
Hello everyone,
I see I am not alone.
All mly CPU (i7-2600K, I7-3830K, Ryzen9-3900X) has virtualzation capacity and enabled.
It works on all PRJ.
I can also manually install a separate VM on all my hosts.
Only this PRJ says : no VM .
Who (what) is is wrong ???
17) Message boards : News : NWChem long no longer in beta soon (Message 616)
Posted 25 Feb 2020 by marsinph
Post:
Instead of producing WU, it woul be better first to solve the problems !!!
On the same host, some WU runs into 1 or 2 hours, others stays at 100% after 10 hours !
The worst is that some WU (same host of course) take 4 hours , others take one hour and for the same credit (200)
And some needs only 30 minuts to run !
So please solve it or change CR system.
Fropm now, on all my hosts, each WU above two hours are cancelled.
It is not the goal of project, but I will not monopolyze my cores for nothing
18) Message boards : News : Updates and poll (Message 438)
Posted 14 Jan 2020 by marsinph
Post:
Dear Quchempedia crunchers!

First generation of our newly generated small molecules is almost finished. Thanks again.

We have two propositions for the new phase of calculations :

1. Make a pause (maybe a month or so), in order to parse and treat the recent calculations, learn from the success and failures of the calculations and then generate new small molecules. Probably with a little bit more than 9 atoms.

2. Take some of the newly generated compounds, add them to a core (BTX) used in the chemistry lab here in Angers (see the abstract of this article https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2019/nj/c9nj05804d/unauth#!divAbstract) to demonstrate how we can use our newly generated molecules inside a real system, to show how a fragment can modify the core properties and to serve as a screening example. These calculations are very interesting and can lead to very nice applications (drugs and materials).

Beware that the second choice, means that the molecules will have more than 9 heavy atoms, probably more than 30 and so calculations could take days. The good news is that the next workunits will implement checkpointing. Boinc will not be able to display the real level of progress and will think that the calculation starts again from the beginning. But we've run some tests and the calculations restart from the very last step. The expected calculation times will always be very approximate and unreliable, we will voluntarily choose a slightly high value.

If you choose the first option, we will calculate the BTX ones with our private ressources and we will post a news when we will have treated and generated new small molecules.

Thank you for giving your choices and opinions under this post.

Kindly,
Thomas and Benoit


Taka a pause !? OK but you forget yopur project is now in world competition between teams !
So remove it .

New WU will implemente check point !?!? It is aready under Windows in VirtualBox !!!
But WU take some days without error and doing nothing (exept the cjeck point)

Sometimes, you suggest to abort. Nice unusefull advise.
I have one WU running 4 days, two WU running 3 days, one running 2 days.
No any in error.
https://quchempedia.univ-angers.fr/athome/result.php?resultid=854441
https://quchempedia.univ-angers.fr/athome/result.php?resultid=853808
and so on.....
Here the four days WU : https://quchempedia.univ-angers.fr/athome/result.php?resultid=813148

I delete this project. There are much more stable as this one.

A lot of complaints and no change, except to say the new WU will take some days.

To Admin : do you really think we will wait, days and days before to be obliged to cancel ???

Best regards
19) Questions and Answers : Windows : Long-running tasks with 0% CPU usage (Message 437)
Posted 14 Jan 2020 by marsinph
Post:
CPU usage is low, you can cancel. There is a problem with vbox guest additions that prevents access to work unit data and code.



Hello,
nice advise to abort !
I have one WU running 4 days, two WU running 3 days, one running 2 days.
No any in error.
https://quchempedia.univ-angers.fr/athome/result.php?resultid=854441
https://quchempedia.univ-angers.fr/athome/result.php?resultid=853808
and so on.....
Here the four days WU : https://quchempedia.univ-angers.fr/athome/result.php?resultid=813148

I delete this project. There are much more stable as this one.

A lot of complaints and no change, exept to say the new WU will take some days.

To Admin : do you really think we will wait, days and days before to be obliged to cancel ???
20) Message boards : Number crunching : Very little CPU usage (Message 401)
Posted 8 Jan 2020 by marsinph
Post:
Current work units should be short (<12h) with a mean runtime of 1.5 hours.

However, for the next batches this rule of thumb will no longer apply, target runtime should be around 12h-24h with huge variability due to large molecular systems.





Hello Damotbe
Thank you for information about the new WU.

I have about 50% of my "short" WU stuck. The others runs in about 2 hours.
But if we would need (and monopolyze full ressources while host is doing nothing) for up to one day, It is not efficient.
Do you think we will wait several days, for at end, canceling ?


Next 20

©2022 Benoit DA MOTA - LERIA, University of Angers, France