Console version help!

KhaosKhaos New Hampshire
edited November 2005 in Folding@Home
I need a rock solid console to run on work computers as a service. There are two choices... 5.04beta and 5.02. I'm assuming that 5.02 was well tested and stable. My curiosity is whether 5.04beta is stable and if there is any benefit to using it over 5.02.

I'm also wondering what the best means for setting up F@H as a service is now that it has the new -service and -svcstart flags. Should I still use the Task Scheduler to create a scheduled task that runs when the computer starts, and should this task now include the -service flag? I'll be playing with it myself, but if anybody can save me the trouble of experimenting, I'd appreciate it. My goal is to have F@H be as transparent as possible.

Edit:

Also, is it possible for Electron Microscope to be transparently installed on host computers?

Comments

  • QCHQCH Ancient Guru Chicago Area - USA Icrontian
    edited November 2005
    I have been using the new beta (5.04) and haven't seen any problems, so far. I like the ability to earmark memory and set it to advmethods if I want.

    I would use the
    Launch automatically at machine startup, installing this as a service
    I set my work PC's to idle, and 90%. That keeps my users happy and also allows other idle processes (patching and remote services) from waiting around for spare CPU Cycles... So far, it works GREAT. At home, I run at idle but 100%. On dedicated PC's... Low priority (higher than idle) and 100%.
  • Straight_ManStraight_Man Geeky, in my own way Naples, FL Icrontian
    edited November 2005
    The same Client version on Linux runs stable also. Exception: Core_78 and some beta WUs. Core_7a runs fine.
  • KhaosKhaos New Hampshire
    edited November 2005
    Thanks for the help guys. I'm still curious about Electron Microscope, as it would be nice to be able to monitor some 80 installations remotely.

    I also have another question, now. This is my first experience running F@H on a HyperThreading PC (Our newer Dells are all 3.0Ghz P4HT models). On my personal computer, FahCore_7a is using 50% of the processor resources. I am assuming this is due to HyperThreading, so I would need two installations on all HT capable computers in order to utilize 90%, with one installation set to 100% and another to 80%? That should yield roughly 90% overall processor usage...?

    P.S. Enabling "service mode" during the config process works brilliantly.

    Do you guys recommend I still use the advmethods flag?
  • GargGarg Purveyor of Lincoln Nightmares Icrontian
    edited November 2005
    For HT pcs, you need two clients, both set to 100% (if you want 100% of the processor used). If you want 90% used overall, I think 100% and 80% or 90% and 90% would work.

    Give one of the clients Machine ID 1, and the other Machine ID 2 (I think that's in the advanced options).
  • KhaosKhaos New Hampshire
    edited November 2005
    That's how I set it up. Just rebooted and everything is working as intended... Great.

    Now, advmethods, yay or nay?

    And how does Electron Microscope work... Is it good for stealth installs, or dedicated use only?
  • GHoosdumGHoosdum Icrontian
    edited November 2005
    Khaos wrote:
    That's how I set it up. Just rebooted and everything is working as intended... Great.

    Now, advmethods, yay or nay?

    And how does Electron Microscope work... Is it good for stealth installs, or dedicated use only?

    EM can monitor any instance of F@H, as far as I know.

    I don't think you need advmethods, unless the WUs that it brings in have changed, you should be wanting the Gromacs on your P4, and I think those get delivered with advmethods off just fine.
  • KhaosKhaos New Hampshire
    edited November 2005
    Hm, okay, no advmethods then.

    I've looked into Electron Microscope, and apparently it is not possible to monitor remote installations without them being visible to the network. This isn't possible, so it looks like I won't be monitoring them... At least not right now. After all, I am not the network administrator, and he tends to get huffy if I mess with his stuff too much (Understandably).
  • GHoosdumGHoosdum Icrontian
    edited November 2005
    Just be careful that you don't violate any company policies or anything.

    Sadly, I'm unable to fold my 800MHz P3 and my 3.0GHz P4HT at work because company policy specifically forbids the use of any distributed-computing app. :(
  • GargGarg Purveyor of Lincoln Nightmares Icrontian
    edited November 2005
    GHoosdum wrote:
    Just be careful that you don't violate any company policies or anything.

    Sadly, I'm unable to fold my 800MHz P3 and my 3.0GHz P4HT at work because company policy specifically forbids the use of any distributed-computing app. :(

    The policy here is so vague, I'm just going to do it until they tell me not to :)

    It's too bad the lab doesn't officially endorse Folding. Imagine the thousands of computers here that sit idle most of the time, or are used just for office applications when they're used. If Stanford was a part of the UC system, I bet they'd endorse it.
  • KhaosKhaos New Hampshire
    edited November 2005
    Our company, too, has vague policy about such things. Since I moonlight as network admin and full time as lead programmer, I think it will be okay. I just don't want to mess with how he has network drives for other departments configured. Unfortunately, my department only has a few computers... Of course, I am free to mess with those as I see fit.

    It's the other 70 computers that I want to fold with without causing a disturbance. ;D
  • QCHQCH Ancient Guru Chicago Area - USA Icrontian
    edited November 2005
    Our lab has a policy GRANTING distributed computing but leaves it up to local admins. I'm my own admin so I install it. Any system I work on... the owner is given the option to have it UNINSTALLED, but no one has, yet. :thumbsup:
  • GHoosdumGHoosdum Icrontian
    edited November 2005
    QCH2002 wrote:
    Our lab has a policy GRANTING distributed computing but leaves it up to local admins. I'm my own admin so I install it. Any system I work on... the owner is given the option to have it UNINSTALLED, but no one has, yet. :thumbsup:

    OK, that is seriously a cool policy.
  • QCHQCH Ancient Guru Chicago Area - USA Icrontian
    edited November 2005
    Fermi does SETI... all of our farms (almost 1,000 PC's) used SETI to burn-in the systems. Alias... I have no pull in that departement. :rolleyes:

    But I'm still trying.... :D
Sign In or Register to comment.