ARGOMENTO:

Please post issues and bugs here. We are particularly interested in excessive disk usage and memory errors. We do expect some jobs to use up to 600-700MB of memory and we'll submit these to higher memory clients. We are also interested in a possible dead lock of the main application and the graphics app where the cpu usage goes to zero for both apps.

Ho pescato delle RALPH...

A chi interessa: sono 15 giorni che ci sono un sacco di wu (un sacco relativamente a ralph, ovviamente)

I don't think anyone would argue that speeding up Ralph/Rosetta@home would be anything but a positive.

That said, from what I understand, GPU programing is *hard*, especially if you don't have a naturally parallel application. SETI@Home has it a bit easy, as Fourier transforms/signal processing matches GPU processors very well.

In contrast, because of the way Rosetta works internally, it's non-trivial to convert to GPU programing style. From what I understand, while bits and pieces might be easily moved to a GPU, you'd be killed by the data transfer to and from the GPU when switching between GPU-using sections and CPU-using sections. My sketchy understanding is that on several occasions groups with experience doing GPU programming have taken a look at the Rosetta code with little to nothing ultimately coming of it.

That said, one of the researchers in the lab was/is working on a "skunkworks"-type project regarding incorporating the use of GPUs into Rosetta - though I hesitate to mention this because it's very uncertain if anything will actually come of it, or if it does, when. Even if there are parts of Rosetta that are GPU-ized, there's no guarantee that it would be those parts which would make a significant difference in the typical runs performed on Rosetta@Home.
Short answer: No one would refuse a GPU version of Rosetta, but the considered opinion is that making it would likely be a lot of effort for not all that much actual speedup.

Sto scaccolando contemporaneamente le versioni 3.14, 3.16 e 3.17!!!
Che confusione

Ho quasi l'impressione che vogliano fare dei confronti

RALPH has separate executables for minirosetta (current version of Rosetta@Home) and minirosetta_beta (next version of Rosetta@Home). At the moment, the two applications are identical, despite their different version numbers.

minirosetta => 3.18
minirosetta_beta => 3.17

During the update process, the two versions will diverge. The idea behind this is to always have a running version of the software currently deployed on Rosetta@Home available for test.

minirosetta => 3.18
minirosetta_beta => 3.17

During the update process, the two versions will diverge. The idea behind this is to always have a running version of the software currently deployed on Rosetta@Home available for test.

L'applicazione minirosetta_beta è stata aggiornata alla versione 3.21

L'applicazione minirosetta_beta è stata aggiornata alla versione 3.21

L'applicazione minirosetta_beta è stata aggiornata alla versione 3.22