Hi,
We're trying to setup a galaxy server, but where we want some of the
tools to run on a cluster.
This cluster is supporting mosix so at the moment we cannot use any of
the drmaa stuff available (or can we?).
The way we're setting it up at the moment is to run the command we want
to run on the
Hi guys,
I have setup a test galaxy and configured Apache as proxy. It's been
running fine when I did all testing on my machine with Chrome.
Recently, I let some of my colleagues to try it out, then they experience
some file download issues.
On one machine, both FireFox and IE8 downloaded empty
Hello,
I am still working on trying to solve the failures that I have with some
functional tests. I have been working today on Interval2Maf_pairwise1
functional test from the 'Extract Pairwise MAF blocks' tool
(maf/interval2maf_pairwise.xml) and made some progress but I still do have a
failure
I have been struggling with setting up my local Galaxy instance for the past
two days.
Can anyone post a copy of their universe_wsgi.ini file , with the sensitive
info commented / removed?
I need an instance that can handle local files greater than 2 GB (ie: does not
go through POST method of
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 7:07 PM, wrote:
> Awesome, I'll take a look. And, if you're able to pull it together easily
> enough, clean branches are always nice.
>
> -Dannon
It is all on one new branch, but this covers FASTA splitting (ready),
splitting in the BLAST+ wrapper (ready bar merging data
Hi Chris,
We are running DESEQ_VERSION 1.6.0 at our instance
http://galaxy.tuebingen.mpg.de/tool_runner?tool_id=deseq
thanks,
--Vipin T S
Which version of DESeq does this tool use?
>
> Note that there are significant differences between DESeq 1.4 (the version
> described in the paper) and 1.6.
Which version of DESeq does this tool use?
Note that there are significant differences between DESeq 1.4 (the version
described in the paper) and 1.6.x (current release). The differences are
both in functionality and results.
Regards,
Chris
On 23/02/2012 02:27, "Greg Von Kuster" wrote:
>Lisa,
I confirm the same strange behaviour since some of the last updates on the
central version. We are at the latest now.
It is also with medium (10Mb+ tarballs) AND large files! Furthermore its seems
to be in FireFox only They upload fine using IE8 or 9. Didn't test other
browsers though.
Ann
