We need a second wind!

DanOnKeys · Post by **DanOnKeys** » Wed Jun 25, 2003 11:06 am

Okay, we need another push forward. I'll step up as much as I can. I can add several machines to the effort if I can work out a good solution...

I've looked around a lot and found that lots of folks want to do what I need to do, and apparently some folks have figured this out, but none of them have written instructions in english.

I have access to several machines P4 2.4G and lower running W2k. I need to run FAH as a service and can't install that (good) FireDaemon software to make it work. I'd like to make the install as automatic (and fast) as possible -- ideally, I'd like to just have to stage a config file somewhere and run an install, and never have to worry about it again. I can add this to the images we push out on new machines as well, but again, it pretty much has to be invisible. I have to run the installs directly on each machine (over the network is okay, plus the images) -- I don't have access to login scripts.

Can anyone make this easy for me?

Post by **Rusty075** » Wed Jun 25, 2003 11:26 am

This might be what you're looking for:
HOW TO: Running F@H As A Service - WinNT/2K/XP

That's the system I use. Once you do the rewrites to the files once you can just copy everything over and over to each machine.

One catch is that you have to run the F@H config individually on each machine. Do not just copy one config file over and over. Each machine must contact Stanford individually to get a unique ID#. If you just image the config file they'll all have the same ID, and Stanford will get confused, and just throw the units away.

Giev that a read, and if you need any help PM me, I can probably walk you through it.

aphonos · Post by **aphonos** » Wed Jun 25, 2003 11:33 am

DanOnKeys wrote:I have access to several machines P4 2.4G and lower running W2k. I need to run FAH as a service and can't install that (good) FireDaemon software to make it work. I'd like to make the install as automatic (and fast) as possible -- ideally, I'd like to just have to stage a config file somewhere and run an install, and never have to worry about it again. I can add this to the images we push out on new machines as well, but again, it pretty much has to be invisible. I have to run the installs directly on each machine (over the network is okay, plus the images) -- I don't have access to login scripts.

Can anyone make this easy for me?

[highlights in the above quote are mine] Are you wanting to make this invisible because you don't want your end users noticing that it is running and/or playing with it? Or because it needs to be hidden from a sys admin? If the latter, make sure you aren't violating the F@H licensing agreement.

DanOnKeys · Post by **DanOnKeys** » Wed Jun 25, 2003 11:35 am

Yeah, I found that and:
http://www.nelliott.demon.co.uk/distrib ... rvice.html

plus this looked really promising:
http://www.alliancefrancophone.org/outils_fahr.html

I'd like something that'll take out the requirement to run the config separately (and use a static config file somewhere that takes care of most of the details, then have the client go out and get its own Stanford ID). -- It seems like a remote install ought to be possible as well.

If I'm dreamin', I'll hunker down and try out your method, Rusty. Thanks!

DanOnKeys · Post by **DanOnKeys** » Wed Jun 25, 2003 11:46 am

aphonos -- thanks for the cya -- you can never be too careful. We own the machines -- we're just setup in a weird bureaucratic hierarchy that somehow keeps my section out of the login script loop. We have some 'high-up' admins (the grand high llama) afraid of Active Directory -- so our machines aren't even in our OU. Frustrating. Anyhow, our end-users can really wreck some havoc -- so we want them 'out of the know' -- and not able to tinker. Also, we're clear with FAH, but it'll be another story getting FireDaemon cleared -- and this can't take up too much in extra resources (our time setting up the machines).

edit: fixed grammatical errors

aphonos · Post by **aphonos** » Wed Jun 25, 2003 1:17 pm

DanOnKeys wrote:Anyhow, our end-users can really wreck some havoc -- so we want them 'out of the know' -- and not able to tinker.

I'll bet you didn't even mean to make a funny

Lockheed · Post by **Lockheed** » Wed Jun 25, 2003 1:27 pm

Post removed

bkh · Post by **bkh** » Wed Jun 25, 2003 1:48 pm

Whenever RedHat releases their supported update from glibc v27 in Linux version 9, I should be able to about double my output. At present there's about a 50% chance for each workunit that it will run to completion and then be discarded without registering any points.

This is a known problem that the Pande group appears uninterested in working around.

http://forum.folding-community.org/view ... 328bee3e4d

Since we aren't going to install RedHat's preproduction releases ("rawhide") on our production machines, we will just wait.

riffst3r · Post by **riffst3r** » Wed Jun 25, 2003 3:16 pm

i've added 8 more cpus... two celery 766mhz, four duron 800s, and two 1500+ laptops. however, only four of them are cashing in their workunits. i've checked some of the logs, and most of the time i see WU's getting deleted. they don't fold 24/7, so i don't know exactly why that's happening.

i don't have access to the laptops very often, i just installed it as a service and let it run. but i do check up on the other boxen every now then. i've been doing good so far, i'm finally back in the top 30.

Lockheed · Post by **Lockheed** » Wed Jun 25, 2003 9:02 pm

Post removed

DanOnKeys · Post by **DanOnKeys** » Thu Jun 26, 2003 4:56 am

Sounds good folks. Lockheed! You're my only potential threat (currently) -- Your last name wouldn't be Martin, would it? Glad to have you pushing us up the ranks (not that I've been here much longer)!

WarpedPlatter · Post by **WarpedPlatter** » Thu Jun 26, 2003 7:43 am

Please don't take this as an attempt to rain on your parade. I hope you get things worked out to do it, since it would be great for the team, but be careful. Even if you are technically in charge of the administration of the computers and are "clear with FAH", you might be violating some company rule.

All it takes is the wrong person in the bureacratic hierarchy you mention to find out and you could get into big trouble. Those type of people typically react poorly to someone bypassing their authority. A couple years ago a computer lab supervisor at some college was fired and sued for misuse of resources for installing SETI@HOME on all the PCs.

If you go ahead with this, you might want to consider limiting the CPU usage in order to prevent possible thermal problems and premature failure of components. Some of the machines could easily be put in places that prevent good airflow.

miker · Post by **miker** » Thu Jun 26, 2003 7:47 am

I had similar concerns. That's why I only install on PC's that I am directly responsible for. Theoretically I could use SMS to distribute this to all 650 clients on our network, and I could have about 800 Ghz folding for me.

I would imagine about 20% of our PC's would die in the process

riffst3r · Post by **riffst3r** » Thu Jun 26, 2003 8:11 am

WarpedPlatter wrote:... you might want to consider limiting the CPU usage in order to prevent possible thermal problems and premature failure of components. Some of the machines could easily be put in places that prevent good airflow.

i can understand that last bit... but i've never noticed a temperature rise of more than 2 or 3C on my machine (since its passively cooled, almost zero airflow, ambient 25C) or hardly any increase on a 766mhz celeron. i thought F@H had a very minor effect in raising the cpu die temperature?

DanOnKeys · Post by **DanOnKeys** » Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:16 am

WarpedPlatter wrote:Even if you are technically in charge of the administration of the computers . . .

Thanks for the continued cya! Glad to see we've got plenty of proper-minded folks looking out for us! Don't worry about me -- I'm still in the process of negotiating to get these machines running FAH -- I just asked this board for suggestions on how to do this to make 'my people' satisfied with the setup enough to give me the go ahead. I'm still negotiating. I'm optimistic if I can make the 'as a service' installation to go easily. I had already decided to make cpu utilization 80% or possibly less -- I'll let you know if we do dive in -- I might put these machines under a different user name (but still the right team).

Happy Folding!

aphonos · Post by **aphonos** » Thu Jun 26, 2003 11:07 am

Perhaps a bit off topic, but related to the work Mr. Smartepants is doing.....

Anyone seen any info on running F@H during a businesses' off hours (ie 5:30pm to 6am)? In addition to setting the work hours, I'd also be interested in setting the machines to turn off in the morning as well, so that the user is greated by a powered-down machine first thing in the morning.

My management would view running during the day as a conflict with our resources, but might take a pitch to run at night.

Any ideas/links? Thanks.

Lockheed · Post by **Lockheed** » Thu Jun 26, 2003 11:32 pm

Post removed

Fingle · Post by **Fingle** » Fri Jun 27, 2003 10:15 am

I could add another machine only a PIII 800 but it's only used for surfing the web so may as well get some use out of the CPU! I'll try setting that up tonight.

I am impressed with the team

When I joined not long ago there was 129 members and we were at 52 I think. Now we have 142 members and I saw us at 48th place. Great idea by Stanford to have user and team ranking's. It keeps the interest there.

Go team SPCR

We need a second wind!

We need a second wind!

Re: We need a second wind!