I have been running Rosetta@home for years. I am one of the top 1000 producers with 632,772 "credits". But lately the app is bogging my machine down. In the past I have let it run in background and was happy. But now I find my browser hanging as I try to go between screens. When I put Rosetta in snooze mode, then my machine cruises along and had no problems at all. I thought I had it set to work when I am not using the machine. So it seems like it should go into snooze mode by itself when i start using it, but it doesn't seem to.
As I said, I have been running Rosetta@home for a long time, and never had issues until relatively recently. I have not changed any prefs, or made any changes to my machine, so I am guessing something with the app has changed. If you guys can fix the app, then I will keep on running it.

Recent work units are using more memory as they run, and this memory contention is what's making your browser sluggish.

As you say, you can set up the machine to only run BOINC applications when you are not actively using it. I believe they've been changing the exact wording and arrangement on the screen in various recent BOINC versions. But in the preferences, in the processor usage tab, you should see a checkbox that says "while computer is in use"... or something similar. In the version I have, this is under a section describing when computing IS allowed. So if you did not want BOINC to run at all while you are active on the machine, you would NOT check the box. I'd also suggest that you go to the memory tab and check the box to leave applications in memory (virtual memory) while suspended. Otherwise, every time you wiggle the mouse, you will be losing valuable work.

Do that, and it might still be a bit sluggish when you first sit down, but then it will suspend BOINC activities, and gradually get everything you are working with in to memory. You could further minimize this sluggishness on the memory tab by limiting the % of memory BOINC is allowed to use when the machine is idle.

---

Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Sense

Recent work units are using more memory as they run, and this memory contention is what's making your browser sluggish.

Here's an idea...fix the work units to not be so greedy with the resources that I am donating!!!!

I have have the box that allows it to run while I am active on the machine UNCHECKED. It's like the program doesn't give a crap whether I am using it or not.

LOOK, the thing worked fine before, bust now it is being a PITA. Apparently a chnage was made that shouldn't have been made. I have already removed it from my wife's two slower machines because it was making them unusable. I still have it on my machine which is faster. But it making it sluggish. Fix the thing, or I am removing it. I don't mind it using 100% of my processor while I am not using my machine (over 2/3rds of the day). But when I am using my machine, I don't want it to be bogged down.

Difference between current and prior behavior do not necessarily indicate anything is broken, nor in need of a "fix".

I'm sure they will improve it if they can.

If BOINC Manager is not honoring your preference for whether it is active when you are using the machine, that is a bug in BOINC Manager. Not any indication of greed on the part of a BOINC project.

---

Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Sense

I'm sure they will improve it if they can.

I have been running it for 4 years and have only started encountering issues relatively recently. Maybe a few months, maybe longer. If it doesn't improve, or if someone can't give me a solution, I am removing it. It is not acceptable how it has been running lately. I shouldn't have to snooze boinc to use my machine. I didn't used to have to do that. So SOMETHING is screwsed up!

The question that has not been asked or answered is, how much memory do you have on your systems?

I have 4GB of which 3.24 is free for use. I never encounter any slowness issues.
I run Einstein and Rosetta and 2 other projects all simultaneously on a quad core cpu and still have enough memory to browse the web, play simple graphics games on facebook and watch videos.

I had a look at your systems and compared the memory to mine.
1 machine is really really low in memory.
Memory 1405.59 MB which is just above the minimum to run Rosetta.
Memory 2815.3 MB (system 2) is better.

Compare those numbers with my system:Memory 3319.04 MB

I think this is why you are having issues.

Hi Rob,
if you click on the 'Activity' menu in Boinc Manager, is 'Run based on preferences' selected?
If not, and 'Run always' is selected, Boinc Manager will ignore your preference of not running Boinc 'While computer is in use'.

---

Hi Rob,
if you click on the 'Activity' menu in Boinc Manager, is 'Run based on preferences' selected?
If not, and 'Run always' is selected, Boinc Manager will ignore your preference of not running Boinc 'While computer is in use'.

Good point - that's a likely candidate.

---

Hi Rob,
if you click on the 'Activity' menu in Boinc Manager, is 'Run based on preferences' selected?
If not, and 'Run always' is selected, Boinc Manager will ignore your preference of not running Boinc 'While computer is in use'.

Excellent point! For whatever reason BOINC developers think that people like to set preferences that indicate to ignore other preferences they've just sent. I forget that one every time.

---

Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Sense

Maybe he got some bad work units. I had this happen to me a couple of months ago on my main system, which is a 980X with 6 gigs of ram. Until those work units got on the machine, I had no problems leaving BOINC crunching while using the computer. But I came in from offshore and when I went to try to use that machine, everything was responding like dog poop. I finally figured it was some bad work units, which I deleted. Once that series was deleted, I had no further problems.

4 years ago Rosetta only used either 128kb or 256 kb of memory per processor core to run. Now it is 512 kb. per core. I don't run Rosetta now because for some reason Win. 7, and a few associated programs. use nearly 50% of my 2gb of memory just idling, I don't even want to talk about what happens when I have Firefox (memory hungry plug ins) running with over 20 tabs open. (That and the fact I am still running the "test" version of Windows 7 and it shuts down every 2 hours. Shame on me I know.)(And for some reason new work simply refuses to download when I "allow new work.")I will probably wait to crunch Rosetta full time again until Ivy Bridge comes out. As much as I like the underdog AMD, I want to crunch not only with a powerhouse but a very energy efficient powerhouse.

From the look of it, Rob's AMD computer probably has 3gb of memory installed and uses a little of it for onboard video. This is a dual core, so Rosetta is probably using 1 gb. alone, then Windows 7 could be using another 1 gb minimum, then whatever anti-virus, firewall, background programs he is running. Not to mention the fact that he could have spyware, adware, and other various assorted things running in the background that he is unaware of. "qttask" and "ituneshelper" anyone? He technically should have enough memory here. Rob, have you opened your task manager during these slow periods to see which programs are using the most memory?
His wife's computer is running XP, so not such a O.S.system hog there, but again, too much background stuff and it can build up fast.

Zone alarm and AVG anti-virus have really taken up a bit of room on mine. I'm going to go to 4gb eventually with my current computer, and I won't even consider less than 8 gb when/if I build an Ivy Bridge computer.

---

Rosetta is certainly running much bigger and running more complicated WUs than when I first joined here. This creep in memory requirements is likely the main cause of these issues. A 1.5Mb and 3Mb machine isn't what it was so if there's anything that can be done to increase the RAM it would benefit the system whether continuing with Rosetta or not. I know some of the old RAM sticks can be tricky to find, so it may not be straightforward to do. It's also true that the older a machine gets the more full of junk it gets too and it can do with a bit of a spring clean.

Apart from upgrading Boinc to the latest versions (it's 6.12.34 at the moment) as they're a somewhat kinder in memory management and work scheduling, it's worth popping over to Black Viper to visit the Services section for the appropriate Windows version and close down a lot of startup services which are unnecessary, based on their pretty good advice. Again, this will benefit an older machine whether running Rosetta or not. And obviously uninstall old redundant software, clear out caches and defrag as well.

Whether this is sufficient for Rob to keep running here or not, I can't know.

One other tip is to grab the appropriate regular (free) Tweakguides manual which covers everything from childishly simple to rather complicated tweaks to any computer. Very readable and it's surprising how much you can learn about your computer, whatever standard of computing experience you may have (especially useful if upgrading to a new windows version, I found).

Best of luck, whatever you chose to do.

---

4 years ago Rosetta only used either 128kb or 256 kb of memory per processor core to run. Now it is 512 kb. per core. I don't run Rosetta now because for some reason Win. 7, and a few associated programs. use nearly 50% of my 2gb of memory just idling, I don't even want to talk about what happens when I have Firefox (memory hungry plug ins) running with over 20 tabs open. (That and the fact I am still running the "test" version of Windows 7 and it shuts down every 2 hours. Shame on me I know.)(And for some reason new work simply refuses to download when I "allow new work.")I will probably wait to crunch Rosetta full time again until Ivy Bridge comes out. As much as I like the underdog AMD, I want to crunch not only with a powerhouse but a very energy efficient powerhouse.

From the look of it, Rob's AMD computer probably has 3gb of memory installed and uses a little of it for onboard video. This is a dual core, so Rosetta is probably using 1 gb. alone, then Windows 7 could be using another 1 gb minimum, then whatever anti-virus, firewall, background programs he is running. Not to mention the fact that he could have spyware, adware, and other various assorted things running in the background that he is unaware of. "qttask" and "ituneshelper" anyone? He technically should have enough memory here. Rob, have you opened your task manager during these slow periods to see which programs are using the most memory?
His wife's computer is running XP, so not such a O.S.system hog there, but again, too much background stuff and it can build up fast.

Zone alarm and AVG anti-virus have really taken up a bit of room on mine. I'm going to go to 4gb eventually with my current computer, and I won't even consider less than 8 gb when/if I build an Ivy Bridge computer.

I am not sure your memory problems are as bad as you initially think they are...YES Win7 takes ALOT of ram and hoards it, but in MS's opinion free memory is wasted money just sitting there. It uses that memory as a mini cache to remember things so your pc runs faster, releasing what a program needs and then recapturing it when a program closes. Is it perfect, no it is not, but it is better than those memory managers we used to have to use in 95, 98 and XP!

I believe I know why my boinc client doesn't download new work now, and why the original poster is having so many "sluggish" problems. Anyone looked at the system requirements lately? Last time I was crunching, 2 years ago, it was 512mb per core, now it's 1gb (I'm assuming per core still.) I have 2 gb total on my computer, and a dual core processor. If that's how much Rosetta needs to run, per core, I'd not be able to crunch any more than one core, and the way I do crazy tabbed browsing,(ADD like you wouldn't believe-50 tabs open as of right now) I use about 85% of my total memory and would have no room for Rosetta to run anything.

---

I believe I know why my boinc client doesn't download new work now, and why the original poster is having so many "sluggish" problems. Anyone looked at the system requirements lately? Last time I was crunching, 2 years ago, it was 512mb per core, now it's 1gb (I'm assuming per core still.) I have 2 gb total on my computer, and a dual core processor. If that's how much Rosetta needs to run, per core, I'd not be able to crunch any more than one core, and the way I do crazy tabbed browsing,(ADD like you wouldn't believe-50 tabs open as of right now) I use about 85% of my total memory and would have no room for Rosetta to run anything.

1 is better than none. And in either case, I've seen lots of dual core PCs w/ 2G of RAM running rosetta with no problems... now if you do use 50+ tabs, then maybe you should limit it to one core. Or, get a stick of RAM, which are pretty cheap.

---

"2 years ago, it was 512mb per core, now it's 1gb "


My computer is still using an average of 470mb per core. I have never seen it use 1gb per core.

"2 years ago, it was 512mb per core, now it's 1gb "

My computer is still using an average of 470mb per core. I have never seen it use 1gb per core.

There was a period when WUs consumed up to 1.4Gb per core, but more recently 600-650Mb is the norm. This W7 laptop is running 2 cores with just 1.3Gb free on a 4Gb machine & a work desktop running XP with 2 cores is running 1.2-1.8Gb free from 4Gb through the day with just a few concurrent programs. RAM is certainly an issue & it might be said even 1Gbcore is pushing things too. I wouldn't skimp or try & get away with the bare minimum. 3-4Gb will avoid other issues too, especially with today's rsource-intensive software (aside from Rosetta). Running BBC news video in one window today used 600Mb on its own!

Edit: Remember, 4Gb installed on a 32-bit OS only provides 3.3Gb free. Only a 64-bit OS addresses the full RAM

---

Difference between current and prior behavior do not necessarily indicate anything is broken, nor in need of a "fix".

I'm sure they will improve it if they can.

Well, Rosetta@home apparently still claims a task only needs 96 MB memory, but under 1 minute from start it's already using 400 MB and has now increased to 460 MB. Rosetta@home using the wrong wu-parameters isn't something new, Rosetta@home still uses the same broken wu-parameter-file as they used roughly 4 years ago, see the old thread about System requirements????.

This problem is easily fixed by Rosetta@home, by updating their wu-parameter-file.

---

"I make so many mistakes. But then just think of all the mistakes I don't make, although I might."

Difference between current and prior behavior do not necessarily indicate anything is broken, nor in need of a "fix".

I'm sure they will improve it if they can.

Well, Rosetta@home apparently still claims a task only needs 96 MB memory, but under 1 minute from start it's already using 400 MB and has now increased to 460 MB. Rosetta@home using the wrong wu-parameters isn't something new, Rosetta@home still uses the same broken wu-parameter-file as they used roughly 4 years ago, see the old thread about System requirements????.

This problem is easily fixed by Rosetta@home, by updating their wu-parameter-file.

R@h has never claimed to run in 96MB.
Settings in WU parameters files will not effect the actual amount of memory utilized as a task runs, unless the task exceeds an upper limit.

What do you feel the problem with the parameter file is? How are you thinking it is impacting your experience running R@h?

---

Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Sense

R@h has never claimed to run in 96MB.
Settings in WU parameters files will not effect the actual amount of memory utilized as a task runs, unless the task exceeds an upper limit.

What do you feel the problem with the parameter file is? How are you thinking it is impacting your experience running R@h?

Hmm, let's select a random Rosetta-task...

<workunit>
<name>Aug20_needle_11start_flipped_select2_test_SAVE_ALL_OUT__35323_4963</name>
<app_name>minirosetta</app_name>
<version_num>317</version_num>
<rsc_fpops_est>40000000000000.000000</rsc_fpops_est>
<rsc_fpops_bound>500000000000000.000000</rsc_fpops_bound>
<rsc_memory_bound>100000000.000000</rsc_memory_bound>
<rsc_disk_bound>300000000.000000</rsc_disk_bound>
<command_line>
@needle.run.flags -silent_gz -mute all -out:file:silent default.out -in:file:boinc_wu_zip Aug20_11start_flipped_select2_needle.zip -nstruct 10000 -cpu_run_time 10800 -checkpoint_interval 120 -database minirosetta_database -in::file::zip minirosetta_database.zip -boinc::watchdog -run::rng mt19937 -constant_seed -jran 1885853
</command_line>
<file_ref>
<file_name>Aug20_11start_flipped_select2_needle.zip</file_name>
<open_name>Aug20_11start_flipped_select2_needle.zip</open_name>
</file_ref>
<file_ref>
<file_name>needle.run.flags</file_name>
<open_name>needle.run.flags</open_name>
</file_ref>
</workunit>

Let's see, "<rsc_memory_bound>100000000.000000</rsc_memory_bound>" = 97656.25 KB = 95.36743 MB. So yes, Rosetta@home definitely claims users computers only needs 96 MB memory to run this task...

The BOINC scheduling-server uses this info, together with users memory-settings (the highest of the two "use at most %memory"-settings, even if user has switched them around) to decide if a given client can run such a task at all. If example user has selected max 90 MB, this task won't be sent to client. If on the other hand user has selected max 100 MB memory, this task will be downloaded, for so nearly immediately erroring-out because it exceeds users memory-settings. It doesn't matter if the computer has 1 GB or more memory, as long as it exceeds the user-set memory-settings the task will error-out.

The behaviour of <rsc_memory_bound> was changed with the introduction of the memory-preferenses set by users, so even all Rosetta-tasks uses 400 MB memory or something, as long as it's below the user-preference-limit it won't error-out. Only very old clients like v5.2.xx and earlier should error-out solely due to <rsc_memory_bound> but since <rsc_memory_bound> is being used by the scheduling-server it's still a bad idea to set the limit much too low like Rosetta@home is doing. It's a big enough problem that scheduling-server doesn't take into account #cores then giving-out work if you're not making it even worse by setting the limit too low.

Hmm, this task has now hit 803 MB memory-usage, this is 8.4 times more than the limit indicates... Thankfully this computer has more than 1 GB memory, otherwise so much memory gobbled-up by a single task definitely would give problems with other usage of the computer.

---

"I make so many mistakes. But then just think of all the mistakes I don't make, although I might."