FAHClient V7.1.38 released (4th Open-Beta)

[Hyperlife]

I have two Linux rigs running v7 for SMP and v6 for GPU, so I'd love to see Linux GPU folding finally happen without Wine. (It might even work under FreeBSD's Linux emulation!)

I wish there was a way to vote for tickets in the Trac system. I'm not sure if cluttering this thread with support for Linux GPU folding is a good idea.

[DocJonz]

I'll try not to clutter too much .... but ditto for a native Linux GPU client (it's long been on my request list)

[Jesse_V]

I would strongly urge anyone still running the old v6.x to purge it from your system and install the new v7.1.38. With this version a new age of "Launch and Forget" has arrived for F@H. However, I do wonder if v7.x will interface/mate with Windows 8 when it arrives; I plan to make the upgrade as soon as possible. Has anyone at Stanford F@H downloaded a developer's copy of Windows 8 and tried the new v7.x for potential problems?

I would be a bit cautious myself. There are a few bugs remaining, but we are tentatively recommending it to testers and whatnot. As stated by jcoffland on the original post, ETA calculations still need to be fixed, there's a outstanding bug to make the FAHViewer work, among a few other things. Scientifically though, I think v7 is beautiful and works very well. It is MUCH easier to use and looks a lot better than some of the v6 clients, but it isn't quite perfect just yet. jcoffland has said that the plan is get v7 to be the recommended client by January. Dr. Pande has also stated that some parts of the F@h website will be overhauled at just about the same time, which should make everything really easy and nice for newcomers. Its exciting!

Apparently v7 has been tested on the beta versions of Windows 8. It was noted by jcoffland on the first post of this topic. The original statement is here: viewtopic.php?f=67&t=19648&p=195722&hilit=windows+8+developer+preview+release#p195722

[bruce]

The log I set for maximum verbosity in case I ran across any errors.

I have not found anything useful that maximum log verbosity adds. (It does dump of default values of everything at the beginning.) What you're probably looking for is verbose messages from the FahCores. You get that by adding -verbose in the extra-core-args configuration option.

I would strongly urge anyone still running the old v6.x to purge it from your system and install the new v7.1.38. With this version a new age of "Launch and Forget" has arrived for F@H.

No need to purge V6. Just allow it to stop with the -oneunit flag and remove any startup options that you've set. Once you're happy with V7 you can purge it (which, as you say, will probably be very soon.)

Question: Windows 8 might present an excellent chance to vastly expand the F@H program if it included F@H with an "On/Off" setting/option, especially if it could run with total invisibility, even on the "Task Manager". I don't know what we'd offer the end user for choosing to run F@H except a nice desktop background or screen saver. It might be the best thing since Play Station. Does anyone know anyone at MicroSoft we could "sweet talk" into making the addition? I know it'd cost several thousand dollars a line of code to make the addition, so MicroSoft would have to be convinced it was worth the trouble.
P.S. Is F@H any closer to a Nobel Prize yet?

I'm not sure why you really want to hide FAH so completely. The people that would benefit from that would be those who write trojans designed to steal points from unsuspecting computer owners and that's completely contrary to the EULA and the general philosophy of accepting voluntary donations of computer time.

Task Manager is designed to debug a system. Hiding things from it won't be something Microsoft will accept. They do have the option to show all users or not, so running it under another account is an option.

A desktop, something like Life With Playstation is certainly possible, but my guess is that it won't be something that would get much use. Once the Viewer is fixed, it can be run to impress your neighbors, but it's not something you'd want to run continuously because of the resources that would be wasted. The same would be true for a screensaver. That doesn't mean your suggestions don't have some merit. Just because my first impression is negative won't keep it from happening. Go ahead and make your case for their importance.

[RadonPL]

When installing the latest version in Ubuntu 11.10, I get this error:
"The package is of bad quality
The installation of a package which violates the quality standards isn't allowed. This could cause serious problems on your computer. Please contact the person or organisation who provided this package file and include the details beneath.
Details:
The package doesn't provide a valid Installed-Size control field. See Debian Policy 5.6.20."

Also, after ignoring this error and successfully installing, it starts running at 100% CPU power without showing any GUI about the status/progress.

[davidcoton]

I just upgraded Ubuntu to 11.10. After that (don't ask -- it went horribly wrong for a while) the Windows FAHClient is able to connect to the Linux FAHClient -- apparently correctly (it only worked the other way before).

Hope that helps,

David

[7im]

Hello RadonPL, welcome to the forum.

I can't comment about the Bad Package error, but the client running at 100% is normal. The package installer starts the client as a service.

To view the client, open FAHControl. Apps/Science/FAHControl

The V7 user guide, linux section, mentions this install method.

[jcoffland]

there's a outstanding bug to make the FAHViewer work

Which bug is that? The viewer works fine as far as I know. Some systems with buggy graphics drivers have problems and not all cores actually provide visualization data, but we fake it. We are working on both of these issues, see ticket #409. I've added blacking listing capability to the viewer so we can blacklist any buggy hardware that is known to BSOD but that is rare.

[Jesse_V]

there's a outstanding bug to make the FAHViewer work

Which bug is that? The viewer works fine as far as I know. Some systems with buggy graphics drivers have problems and not all cores actually provide visualization data, but we fake it. We are working on both of these issues, see ticket #409. I've added blacking listing capability to the viewer so we can blacklist any buggy hardware that is known to BSOD but that is rare.

Thank you for blacklisting that bad hardware. Sorry yes I was referring to that ticket. Its just that the demo is shown all the time, at least for me, which is cool but it's not the protein I'm working on. Since the FAHViewer is supposed to display that protein, I classified it simply as not working. Sorry for the confusion. FAHViewer does have some really nice controls whatever its displaying.

[jcoffland]

When installing the latest version in Ubuntu 11.10, I get this error:
"The package is of bad quality
The installation of a package which violates the quality standards isn't allowed. This could cause serious problems on your computer. Please contact the person or organisation who provided this package file and include the details beneath.
Details:
The package doesn't provide a valid Installed-Size control field. See Debian Policy 5.6.20."

We are still working on the Linux packages.

[P5-133XL]

Is there any support to a set of configurable options equivalent to Nvidia_fermi (non-fermi as well as ATI too) to allow a non-white listed GPU's to GPU fold? It just seems to me, that the current system of using a non user-editable white-list is inefficient, requiring continuous new versions of the folding client to deal with continuous new video cards that get released.

At this point in the beta-process it isn't too bad in that new versions of the client are being regularly released anyway. At some point, the frequency of client releases is going to slow down but the rate of new video cards is not going to. So I wonder if it wouldn't be worthwhile to at least have the capability to use generic flags like in the v6 clients?

[Napoleon]

Added some new upload results to my previous post. I actually reached about 75% of nominal full speed of my connection (150 / 200 * 100%) for a 3.3MB upload. IMHO, v7 upload speed issue is resolved.

[^w^ing]

Added some new upload results to my previous post. I actually reached about 75% of nominal full speed of my connection (150 / 200 * 100%) for a 3.3MB upload. IMHO, v7 upload speed issue is resolved.

It isn't for me, but I'm happy that it works for you. Do you have a comparison against the v6 client with these WUs?

[Napoleon]

Unfortunately, no. I did make some comparisons earlier, though, viewtopic.php?f=18&t=18609&start=15#p186598. Not the exact same WUs, but same server. I've never had issues with v6 upload speeds, whereas there was consistent "throttling" with older v7 beta client. I'm sorry to hear the latest v7 still has upload speed issues in your case. Quite puzzled, too. I would imagine our routes to Stanford are somewhat similar?

Code: Select all

 5     18 ms    19 ms    18 ms  xe-4-2-0-0.psl-peer2.hel.fi.ip.tdc.net [62.237.169.20]
 6    127 ms   126 ms   126 ms  ae-0.nyk2nqp2.us.ip.tdc.net [83.88.21.55]
 7    219 ms   219 ms   219 ms  calren-cenic.paix.net [198.32.176.33]
 8    223 ms   221 ms   221 ms  dc-oak-core1--paix-px1-ge.cenic.net [137.164.47.19]
 9    220 ms   220 ms   219 ms  dc-svl-agg1--oak-core1-10ge.cenic.net [137.164.47.122]
 10   221 ms   221 ms   221 ms  dc-stanford--svl-agg1-10ge.cenic.net [137.164.50.158]
 11   222 ms   221 ms   220 ms  boundarya-rtr.Stanford.EDU [68.65.168.33]
 12   221 ms   221 ms   221 ms  bbra-rtr-a.Stanford.EDU [171.64.255.129]
 13   221 ms   221 ms   221 ms  yoza-rtr-a.Stanford.EDU [171.64.255.144]
 14   221 ms   221 ms   221 ms  vspg2v.Stanford.EDU [171.64.65.64]

[Grandpa_01]

Well it is not fixed for me either still 1 hour for Windows to send results of a 6901 and 15 min for Linux to send a larger 6903 /6904 file from the same machine running on a VB. My guess would be a Windows problem.