Lots of messages in error.log

[vsemaska]

I've downloaded the Tru64 UNIX version of the latest protein and started it. I've noticed that error.log is growing at about 25 lines per minute. The messages are about 'Contact between residues'.

In whatsnew.txt is says 'Added support for sampling with less atom bump-checking'. Is this the cause of the numerous messages? Is there a new switch that I missed in readme1st.txt that turns these messages off? File error.log will become huge over time if we can't turn these messages off.

Thanks,
Vic

[wirthi]

Same happens with windows client. Seems to be the new algorithm; this messages occured on the older clients too, but (much) less frequent.

[Welnic]

I have some error.log files that are already 250K. I know from past experience that it is okay to just delete them. Maybe I will set things up to delete them once a day.

[MarcyDarcy]

I've checked and error.log is already 350kb large and rapedly increasing :(

[Thecommi]

Windows XP client, going up 1K every 55 seconds, is this hindering the folding process with all these errors?

[bwkaz]

I don't know if it hinders anything, but I see it with the Linux icc client too. Using cron to delete the log file twice a day is cool, though. ( ;) )

I know that a lot of Linux filesystems, as long as you don't explicitly sync() the error log file, can handle writes really quickly. They just queue them up when they get them, then blast them all to the disk when they can. Don't know about any Microsoft filesystem.

[mighty]

Well Howard did warn us, that the structures would be sloppier, and I guess this is what error.log is telling us :)

[lemonsqzz]

running on SunLinux here...
my quick and dirty "workaround" since I dont really care most the time about what is in the error log is to create a directory called "error.log" in the directory I am running the binary from which will of course never get written to since its a dir...

[huraxprax]

ln -sf /dev/null error.log

All my error files were larger than a megabyte.
But I wonder if you can rely on the structures this time when there are so many errors...

[muttley]

My error log is now 1.8+ megs in about 12 hours on a 2000 XP with 333mhz DDR.

[MAD-ness]

I think I saw Howard saying the structures can be "cleaned up" afterward (by the scientists).

[Insidious]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: FoBoT
for those getting mucho errors, try stopping the client, wiping out the directory, redownloading the client from scratch, re-install and start it up again

i had the error thing happening on one box that auto-downloaded. when i re-did it, it worked fine
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This seems to be working here.... Thanks FoBoT

[Digital Parasite]

As Fobot said, if you are still having problems with the client generating large error.log files, you should re-download the client and install it. I just checked the server and a new version has been posted. The original which has the error.log problem has a time stamp of 11:15am for the Windows client anyway and the latest version is time stamped at 6:14pm.

Jeff.

[pointwood]

Howard, will you make the clients autoupdate to the new version?

/me would like to see that happen.

[Insidious]

Why doesn't DF correct this itself when it "checks for updated versions"?

Howard,
You could save us (collectively) MANY hours of work if you would let DF know this corrected file is an update and let our machines auto-update.

OOPS, I just saw this has already been suggested... srry

[Paratima]

Originally posted by Digital Parasite
As Fobot said, if you are still having problems with the client generating large error.log files, you should re-download the client and install it. I just checked the server and a new version has been posted. The original which has the error.log problem has a time stamp of 11:15am for the Windows client anyway and the latest version is time stamped at 6:14pm. Jeff. This works for Windoze, but as of this post, Linux versions haven't been updated yet.

Also, auto-updating is fine for many, but us sneaker-netters would appreciate a posted notice somewhere.

[Brian the Fist]

see www.distributedfolding.org/news.html

[pointwood]

What about all those people that already have updated?

Why not make all clients autoupdate again?

[wirthi]

Does this mean we don't have to upgrade (If the size of the error.log is no problem) ?

[Paratima]

Originally posted by Brian the Fist
see www.distributedfolding.org/news.html Thanks, Howard! As usual, you da man! :smoking:

[Brian the Fist]

Originally posted by pointwood
What about all those people that already have updated?

Why not make all clients autoupdate again?

I do not wish to abuse the auto-update. While annoying perhaps, this isnt a critical bug fix and some people might not want to bother to update, especially if they have a slow connection. So please consider the needs of others and not just yourself.

There are no changes in the 'updated' version other than this log file fix.

[Scotttheking]

Originally posted by Brian the Fist
I do not wish to abuse the auto-update. While annoying perhaps, this isnt a critical bug fix and some people might not want to bother to update, especially if they have a slow connection. So please consider the needs of others and not just yourself.


Chalk one vote up for auto update.

Sure, it's not critical, but it's very very annoying (/me suddenly realizes that DF is installed on a server with limited disk space, and schedules an hour to drive down and update it), yeah, I'd call it critical.

I'd say that most people who have auto update turned on would like it to be used, but I guess that's not how you feel.

[runestar]

Howard,

In the next version, how about a switch we can toggle to force DF to do an auto-update?

This should address everyone's points. Might also be useful if there is a corrupt files... throw the switch and DF will be downloaded again automatically without us having to surf to the website, download it, and unpack it.

TTFN,

RuneStar½
The SETI TechDesk
~Your home for SETI and Astronomy News~

[pointwood]

Howard: I'm going to say exactly the same to you. I have a very limited number of clients installed - it's not a problem for me at all (so no, I'm not thinking about myself!). I'm thinking about others with lots of clients installed. If you let the client run until the next update, you'll get a pretty huge error.log. I respect your decision, though I do not completely agree with it.

Scott: Installing a DC client on a server that is critical is not exactly what I would call a good idea... :rolleyes:

[Scotttheking]

Originally posted by pointwood
Scott: Installing a DC client on a server that is critical is not exactly what I would call a good idea... :rolleyes:

And I make sense when?
Besides, it runs windows, so I wouldn't call it critical:cool:

[Brian the Fist]

Originally posted by pointwood
Howard: I'm going to say exactly the same to you. I have a very limited number of clients installed - it's not a problem for me at all (so no, I'm not thinking about myself!). I'm thinking about others with lots of clients installed. If you let the client run until the next update, you'll get a pretty huge error.log. I respect your decision, though I do not completely agree with it.


As Im sure you know, Im well aware this is an inconvenience to people with dozens or hundreds of computers. However, being one of those myself, I know its not THAT big a deal because presumably there is cluster management software that lets you re-install the software easily on just one machine and clone that over. And teh vast majority of users have only one or two machines. Thus at the risk of inconveniencing a few of the more hard core users, I chose to not auto-update again. There is no 'right' answer in this situation and I only have a few hours to weigh the pros and cons of each choice so I choose the solution that benefits the most people (in my opinion). When we update again in 3-4 weeks the logs will automatically be deleted if you dont update so as long as they dont get TOO big, it won't really be a huge problem.

To Runestar: What the heck are you talking about??

[runestar]

Say we have a situation similar to this in which there is a minor but not otherwise that important update.

By adding a switch to the program that when used by the user forces the client to get whatever version of the client is sitting on the server. Thus, we have a forced auto-update.

So if a situation like this arises again, someone like pointwood or one of his colleagues could choose to force an auto-update to an updated client which normally wouldn't be pulled down.

Make sense now? =)

RuneStar½
The SETI TechDesk

[Brian the Fist]

Kind of, but now my head hurts :haddock:

[runestar]

If you're going to have a headache, you might as well get it enjoying something... so go down to the market and pick a tub of your favorite ice cream, takes a big spoonful, and stick in your mouth... ;)

Better yet, do that repeatedly and code the new screensaver... THAT will be interesting to see the result...

RS½