Project:6014 (R0,C83,G134)

[jima13]

FWIW, HFM shows this running on 2 of my systems. I plan on just letting them run and not mess with it. I've included partial logs>

Code: Select all

16:27:21] Folding@Home Gromacs SMP Core
[16:27:21] Version 2.17 (Mar 12, 2010)
[16:27:21] 
[16:27:21] Preparing to commence simulation
[16:27:21] - Looking at optimizations...
[16:27:21] - Created dyn
[16:27:21] - Files status OK
[16:27:21] - Expanded 1799207 -> 2396877 (decompressed 133.2 percent)
[16:27:21] Called DecompressByteArray: compressed_data_size=1799207 data_size=2396877, decompressed_data_size=2396877 diff=0
[16:27:21] - Digital signature verified
[16:27:21] 
[16:27:21] Project: 6014 (Run 0, Clone 83, Gen 134)
[16:27:21] 
[16:27:21] Assembly optimizations on if available.
[16:27:21] Entering M.D.
[16:27:28] Completed 0 out of 500000 steps  (0%)
[16:33:36] Completed 5000 out of 500000 steps  (1%)
[16:39:48] Completed 10000 out of 500000 steps  (2%)
[16:45:57] Completed 15000 out of 500000 steps  (3%)

Code: Select all

[16:16:34] Folding@Home Gromacs SMP Core
[16:16:34] Version 2.17 (Mar 12, 2010)
[16:16:34] 
[16:16:34] Preparing to commence simulation
[16:16:34] - Looking at optimizations...
[16:16:34] - Created dyn
[16:16:34] - Files status OK
[16:16:34] - Expanded 1799207 -> 2396877 (decompressed 133.2 percent)
[16:16:34] Called DecompressByteArray: compressed_data_size=1799207 data_size=2396877, decompressed_data_size=2396877 diff=0
[16:16:34] - Digital signature verified
[16:16:34] 
[16:16:34] Project: 6014 (Run 0, Clone 83, Gen 134)
[16:16:34] 
[16:16:34] Assembly optimizations on if available.
[16:16:34] Entering M.D.
[16:16:41] Completed 0 out of 500000 steps  (0%)
[16:23:10] Completed 5000 out of 500000 steps  (1%)
[16:29:40] Completed 10000 out of 500000 steps  (2%)
[16:36:08] Completed 15000 out of 500000 steps  (3%)

[P5-133XL]

There is absolutely no point in two different machines trying to complete the same WU. You will only get credit for it one time and it does not help the science to do it twice. There are exceptions where the assignment servers are deliberately assigning the same WU to multiple machines but they are currently using the GPU client.

The first question I will ask is are these two installations clones of each other? multiple coppies of the same WU being issued can also occur the machines get the WU at almost identical times but that occurs very rarely.

You will need to do some work to make the assignment servers think they are different machines.

Take one of them, shut folding down. Delete the work folder; delete the queue.dat file; delete the client.cfg file; and run the folding again to reconfigure it and also change the MachineID to a different unique number. This should make it so that the assignment servers think they are different machines and thereby not assign the same WU to both of them.

[Wrish]

Deleting the work folder to masquerade as a new machine only works on OS X and Linux, not Windows. For Windows you'd have to delete the registry key, or simply use a different machine ID number in configuration (valid numbers are 1 through 16).

[P5-133XL]

Yes, you are correct, that when you reconfigure, you will need also to change the machineID to a different unique number.

[codysluder]

jima13:
Please look on the first page of Fahlog and tell us whether the 16-digit User ID values are the same or different. If they're the same, you'll probably have problems again some time in the future.

The question that was asked was whether or not the machines were clones of each other, but that's only an indirect way to get to the same information I'm asking for. Changing Machine IDs is one way to work around duplicate User IDs, but the right way to fix the problem is to delete one User ID from the registry and let the server assign a unique value.