Full Windows Package [Archive]

iggy

10-03-2003, 03:45 PM

It is easy to update just one system and copy relevant files to all others. :haddock:

Here (http://www.btinternet.com/~igor.mlad/DF_Win_Txt.exe) is the full Win client generated after one client sucessfuly updated. DFGui 3.1 is already inside. Protein size is 64.

Just enter your handle.

Happy folding! :elephant:

Thor

10-03-2003, 05:15 PM

Does that mean that the windows program itself hasn't been updated ?
It is just processing a new protein?
Is there going to be an auto-update again for the windows machine, or do we have to download the package?

Greets Thor

rshepard

10-03-2003, 05:19 PM

No; your auto update on Windows is fine--- Its only if you were wanting a fresh install that you need to wait

Thor

10-03-2003, 05:25 PM

Nice to know that my update is fine...
sometimes things are hard to understand when english is not your native language even though I lived in the US for one year...

Originally posted by HaloJones
The client is at full 100% during the first 10,000 structures. No more pauses!

I cannot confirm that.
On my Win2k machine it seems even worse than before in gen 0 I'll try to post a picture...

Greets Thor

Edit: Here is the picture..
http://www.da-zero.de/Task_Manager.jpg

you can even see it sometimes when running dfgui with progress update and refresh rate set to 1
it sometimes says:" the client seems to be running but hasn't produced any output yet" (did I remember that right?)

rsbriggs

10-03-2003, 05:41 PM

Have you adjusted the priority or something? On my machine, taskmanager shows 100% straight across in gen 0, and has for the last 20 minutes....

Thor

10-03-2003, 05:48 PM

Nope, didn't make any changes to my setup....
dfgui says client prority: 20 as before the protein change and the task manger shows low prority as well....but that is as before, too

No other apps catching procesing time, execpt for "idle"

Greets Thor

Admiral

10-03-2003, 06:08 PM

I got a Windows encountered a problem and needs to close this program error at the second generation. Restarted the client and it's at generation 19 now with no crash.
That's why I don't like autoupdates and I'd rather have a fresh install.
ETA on the full Windows client ?

edit: neat, checking the error log for the service, now I also have lots of "Warning during upload: STATUS 910 MISSING PREVIOUS OR ILLEGAL GENERATION" :swear:
I'm taking a brake till the full version gets out.

Shocked Pants

10-04-2003, 06:49 AM

Thor, if it's any consolation I have exactly the same problem as you with the cpu usage. One hopes that a solution is found soon.

Rebels Haven

10-04-2003, 07:42 AM

I'm running 18 machines and I too am having a varity of problems with this new "auto-updated" client....

Just found one sitting near the beginning of the "10K Run" saying it's waiting to upload!...:mad:

rshepard

10-04-2003, 08:08 AM

@Rebels Haven-
When they did the protein changeover, I had some clients catch the new protein, but it seemed that they couldn't upload (maybe the upload server was briefly down?) Anyway, those clients froze up, until I was able to get them to upload the results from the old protein. Don't know if that's what happened to you or not, but you might try forcing an upload and see if that clears it.

pfb

10-06-2003, 05:47 AM

anyone know when the full CLI version for Windows will be available - the one on the site is still the old protein :(

Brian the Fist

10-06-2003, 11:47 AM

We will post the final Windows package tomorrow (Tuesday) if it passes our tests OK today.

Fozzie

10-06-2003, 01:52 PM

So tomorrow Toronto style or something we Europeans can get stuck into before the end of the working day? :Pokes:

Brian the Fist

10-07-2003, 10:58 AM

We have had some trouble with it crashing on one of our test machines but I suspect it is the machine and not the code (works fine on Linux after all :D ) I've put up the updated binary (EXE only) here:

ftp://ftp.mshri.on.ca/pub/distribfold/download/foldtrajlite.zip

So please try it out (you still need to get the new protein through auto-update though). If I don't hear any major problems by tomorrow I'll post the full package in the normal location on the Downloads page.

thanks

Fozzie

10-07-2003, 11:04 AM

I'll bung it on one or two to run overnight see how it goes.

^7_of_9

10-07-2003, 09:33 PM

========================[ Oct 7, 2003 9:30 PM ]========================
Starting foldtrajlite built Oct 7 2003
Tue Oct 07 21:30:46 2003 ERROR: [001.001] {foldtrajlite2.c, line 7026} A newer version of the client is needed, please download an update from http://www.distributedfolding.org/

========================[ Oct 7, 2003 9:30 PM ]========================
Starting foldtrajlite built Oct 7 2003
Tue Oct 07 21:30:58 2003 ERROR: [001.001] {foldtrajlite2.c, line 7026} A newer version of the client is needed, please download an update from http://www.distributedfolding.org/

Size: 2.90 MB (3,043,328 bytes)
Modified: Today, October 07, 2003, 10:53:40 AM

gOhAsE

10-08-2003, 04:05 AM

Do you have the new native.val from October 2nd ?

about the new version:
This version here runs for 6 hours without any problems by now.

Brian the Fist

10-08-2003, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by ^7_of_9
Size: 2.90 MB (3,043,328 bytes)
Modified: Today, October 07, 2003, 10:53:40 AM

You have an old protein.trj probably. You need to let the old version auto-update to the new protein, THEN overwrite the EXE. Alternatively you can grab the correct protein.trh and native.val and sspred.val from another package, like from Linux.

^7_of_9

10-08-2003, 12:11 PM

For some reason the old one refused to update (it continously crashed when trying to update or said there was no updates available), so I just copied an exisiting installation from another machine over and cleared the filelist and all the other stuff that wasn't needed and it went fine then.

MarcyDarcy

10-08-2003, 01:08 PM

I've tried the new client yesterday but wasn't able to post earlier.
Everything went ok, no errors seen whilte trying the client out :)
(Windows XP on a AMD athlon XP 1800+)
The error.log

========================[ Oct 7, 2003 8:45 PM ]========================
Starting foldtrajlite built Oct 7 2003

========================[ Oct 7, 2003 8:46 PM ]========================
Starting foldtrajlite built Oct 7 2003

========================[ Oct 7, 2003 8:47 PM ]========================
Starting foldtrajlite built Oct 7 2003

All my work/point were showing up in the stats. :)

Paratima

10-08-2003, 02:49 PM

Running fine for me on a Pentium III with Win2K.
:walking:

DocWardo

10-08-2003, 06:42 PM

Datestamps are a thing of beauty when you have wated this long for them

Wed Oct 08 15:02:19 2003 ERROR: [000.000] {foldtrajlite2.c, line 4693} Error during upload: NO RESPONSE FROM SERVER - WILL TRY AGAIN LATER
Wed Oct 08 15:08:04 2003 ERROR: [000.000] {foldtrajlite2.c, line 4693} Error during upload: NO RESPONSE FROM SERVER - WILL TRY AGAIN LATER
Wed Oct 08 15:10:51 2003 ERROR: [000.000] {foldtrajlite2.c, line 4693} Error during upload: NO RESPONSE FROM SERVER - WILL TRY AGAIN LATER
Wed Oct 08 15:14:29 2003 ERROR: [000.000] {foldtrajlite2.c, line 4693} Error during upload: NO RESPONSE FROM SERVER - WILL TRY AGAIN LATER
Wed Oct 08 15:19:43 2003 ERROR: [000.000] {foldtrajlite2.c, line 4693} Error during upload: NO RESPONSE FROM SERVER - WILL TRY AGAIN LATER

pfb

10-08-2003, 07:14 PM

hmmm - are the date + timestamps on every entry?

heres mine from the earlier downtime:

ERROR: [000.000] {foldtrajlite2.c, line 4616} Error during upload: NO RESPONSE FROM SERVER - WILL TRY AGAIN LATER
ERROR: [000.000] {foldtrajlite2.c, line 4616} Error during upload: NO RESPONSE FROM SERVER - WILL TRY AGAIN LATER
ERROR: [000.000] {foldtrajlite2.c, line 4616} Error during upload: NO RESPONSE FROM SERVER - WILL TRY AGAIN LATER
ERROR: [000.000] {foldtrajlite2.c, line 4616} Error during upload: NO RESPONSE FROM SERVER - WILL TRY AGAIN LATER
ERROR: [000.000] {foldtrajlite2.c, line 4616} Error during upload: NO RESPONSE FROM SERVER - WILL TRY AGAIN LATER

why no timestamps? (this is from an auto-updated client)...and why is the line number different?

even odder - the .exe in the .zip file posted has a different filesize to the one I have from my auto-updated PCs:

.exe size I have: 2.88 MB (3,026,944 bytes)
.exe size in .zip: 2.90 MB (3,043,328 bytes)

Did the autoupdate contain that new .exe? If it did why haven't my 3 Windows PCs got the new .exe (my Linux PC has)...?

Anyone else's autoupdated .exe different to the one in the .exe? Or is it me? :crazy:

Also, are there other changes in the .exe which could be affecting my Folding? The 'whatsnew.txt' doesn't mention any changes at all (not even the date + timestamps in the log...)

/edit - just put the new version on one of the Windows PCs to see if there is any difference...

DocWardo

10-08-2003, 07:35 PM

timestamps are not in the auto-update exe. you have to install the new .exe that is discussed in this thread. since it is a different exe that is why the line numbers would be different.

pfb

10-08-2003, 07:41 PM

It's a bit odd that the Windows auto-update didn't have it yet the others did...as long as the only difference is the timestamp facility...

MgKnight

10-08-2003, 07:53 PM

Originally posted by pfb
It's a bit odd that the Windows auto-update didn't have it yet the others did...as long as the only difference is the timestamp facility...
Is it not also a bit odd that days pass without the full Win package being released and yet there is not call for us out in the trenches to test it to see if it is the package or Howard's machine?

:Pokes:

Paratima

10-08-2003, 08:15 PM

You mean like in this same thread, page 1, 5th post from the bottom? That is to say, here (http://www.free-dc.org/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4351&perpage=25&pagenumber=1) ?

And no, that's not the only change. Sheesh, don't you guys keep up? :rolleyes:

pfb

10-08-2003, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by Paratima

And no, that's not the only change. Sheesh, don't you guys keep up? :rolleyes:

What other changes than the timestamp + version printing in the error.log are there? There's nothing in the 'whatsnew.txt' nor can I see any on the DF site...
:confused:

Paratima

10-08-2003, 08:40 PM

Sorry, pfb, we post WAY too many inquiries to this forum, WAY too fast for me to keep up with! :jester:

However, at least one other item that changed was the subject of this thread (http://www.free-dc.org/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4120) .

pfb

10-09-2003, 04:00 AM

Originally posted by Paratima
Sorry, pfb, we post WAY too many inquiries to this forum, WAY too fast for me to keep up with! :jester:

However, at least one other item that changed was the subject of this thread (http://www.free-dc.org/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4120) .

that's ok - just trying to see what (if anything) is different - especially as there isn't any info in the whatsnew.txt file...

DocWardo

10-09-2003, 07:47 AM

as far as I understand, howard hasn't posted the new package to the main webserver yet, we have only seen the exe as we he asked us to find problems with it, because he had an issue with it. since we have just seen the .exe we and not the whole package, we don't have an updated whatsnew.txt file to look at yet.

of course I can be wrong and it could be way to early in the morning for me to be reading and replying ;)

pfb

10-09-2003, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by DocWardo
as far as I understand, howard hasn't posted the new package to the main webserver yet, we have only seen the exe as we he asked us to find problems with it, because he had an issue with it. since we have just seen the .exe we and not the whole package, we don't have an updated whatsnew.txt file to look at yet.

of course I can be wrong and it could be way to early in the morning for me to be reading and replying ;)

but the Linux package was updated - well, the executable I have on my Linux box is up-to-date and producing the extra info in the log so why doesn't the Linux 'whatsnew.txt' cover that?

Not bothered - just curious :looney:

Brian the Fist

10-09-2003, 11:49 AM

Here's the whatsnew. It was not included in the package updates due to the fact that I forgot to update it before making the packages :eek: It will be there for the next update though of course.

10/03/2003

- Changed delays to sleeps (that dont use CPU time)
- Improved messages when auto-update fails
- Fatal errors will not print to screen in quiet
mode anymore
- Fixed bug in patch downloading - will try ALL
mirrors now before giving up (if first one fails
for example)
- Time stamps should appear on all logged error
messages now
- A message is printed to error log on startup
giving build date, to aid debugging

pfb

10-09-2003, 12:07 PM

Thanks for the info :cheers:

Stardragon

10-09-2003, 12:15 PM

The full packages for Windows client and screensaver are now available from the Downloads page.

bwkaz

10-09-2003, 06:15 PM

Does the Linux client not have the timestamp code for some reason?

Neither of my autoupdated boxen are doing timestamps, and a fresh (temporary) installation from the download page doesn't do it either...

(Or am I getting confused about which update was supposed to start them?)

pfb -- where'd you get your Linux executable from, the autoupdate? Was it gcc or icc?

pfb

10-09-2003, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by bwkaz
pfb -- where'd you get your Linux executable from, the autoupdate? Was it gcc or icc?

Mine was an auto-update of the ICC version - if that helps :)

bwkaz

10-09-2003, 09:36 PM

Raises more questions, actually... because so were mine.

:confused:

Howard / Elena, anything that you can think of that would prevent it from running, even on a fresh install?

bwkaz

10-11-2003, 09:25 AM

Another thought -- pfb, what command line switches are you using? When I tried the other fresh downloads, I just copied handle.txt and the foldit script over to the other directory, so the switches remained the same.

I'm using -qt -rt -it currently.

rsbriggs

10-11-2003, 10:00 AM

Windows version doesn't seem to have time stamps in the error.log either, unless they are just on selected messages. I've got a 214K error log, with nary a timestamp to be seen on the entries in the file.

pfb

10-11-2003, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by bwkaz
Another thought -- pfb, what command line switches are you using? When I tried the other fresh downloads, I just copied handle.txt and the foldit script over to the other directory, so the switches remained the same.

I'm using -qt -rt -it currently.

On my Linux boxen: -qt -rt -g 1

bwkaz

10-11-2003, 11:44 AM

OK, and -it is the default.

Hmmm, this definitely seems weird. If you wouldn't mind, could you send me your foldtrajlite executable? gzipped is fine, or whatever. My email address is in my profile. Thanks. :)

tpdooley

10-11-2003, 04:01 PM

Originally posted by rsbriggs
Windows version doesn't seem to have time stamps in the error.log either, unless they are just on selected messages. I've got a 214K error log, with nary a timestamp to be seen on the entries in the file.

The last automantic update (at least for windows) was JUST the protein; if you want the updated .exe file (with the time stamps) you should download the whole client from the download site, and install it from there. :)

bwkaz

10-14-2003, 09:09 PM

Originally posted by bwkaz
OK, and -it is the default.

Hmmm, this definitely seems weird. If you wouldn't mind, could you send me your foldtrajlite executable? gzipped is fine, or whatever. My email address is in my profile. Thanks. :) Thanks pfb, that version is timestamping. It's not printing the mtime of the foldtrajlite executable on startup (which was why I thought it wouldn't timestamp the errors either...), but I am getting timestamps on the socket timeout errors that I'm currently getting.

(BTW -- it appears that sometime around 7 PM Eastern time, the database may have started having issues. I can connect to the DF website just fine, but can't always login (the browser times out). My DF client has only been able to upload sporadically since then, too; I got timeouts at 7:02, 7:03, 7:08, 7:40, 8:02, 8:21, 8:43, 8:50, 8:58, and 8:59, but none between 8:59 and now, and only one generation buffered at this point. I also was able to complete an upload a minute ago. FYI.

Not a huge deal for me, but some others may care a bit more, especially those trying to do large dumps. ;))