Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
![]() |
World Community Grid Forums
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
No member browsing this thread |
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 6
|
![]() |
Author |
|
rwremote
Cruncher U.K. Joined: Aug 27, 2009 Post Count: 36 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
This particular PC has been running HPF2 for over 8 Months with no problems on 603.
----------------------------------------Now with 617, I appear to have got caught up in multiple errors:- ![]() The errors are :- Result Name: ni723_ 00079_ 18-- <core_client_version>6.2.28</core_client_version> <![CDATA[ <message> Incorrect function. (0x1) - exit code 1 (0x1) </message> <stderr_txt> sin_cos_range ERROR: -1.#IND000 is outside of [-1,+1] range ERROR:: Exit at: c:\projects\workspace\hpf2\boinc\rosetta_hpf2_vs2008\utility/sin_cos_range.h line:66 </stderr_txt> ---------------------- Result Name: ni742_ 00008_ 10-- & Result Name: ni667_ 00036_ 14-- & Result Name: ni644_ 00060_ 16-- <core_client_version>6.2.28</core_client_version> <![CDATA[ <message> Incorrect function. (0x1) - exit code 1 (0x1) </message> <stderr_txt> ERROR:: Exit at: .\fullatom_energy.cc line:1858 </stderr_txt> PC is Intel 6400 Dual Core Win XP SP3 1GB mem So, was it likely something that was running on the PC at the time (All this PC does is display graphics of Satellite Data bandwidth, uses hardly any CPU, resources or memory) that caused this ? An AV scan for instance ? Should I stop crunching data for HPF2 on this PC do you think ? - - - - - - - - - - - - 09/05/10 08:36gmt - EDIT : Just had a load more errors - and looking in the quorum, so did quite a few others. The error invoked the BOINC Windows Runtime Debugger Version 6.3.3 and the output can be found here if its of any use to anyone :- BOINC Windows Runtime Debugger file output ![]() [Edit 1 times, last edit by rwremote at May 9, 2010 8:38:39 AM] |
||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Not errors of that nature here....
Occasionally now I get that error soon as a WU starts and cancels like it did with pre 617 applications.. not just as much... I was thinking of stopping again seeing so many errors in a row but over the course of time now I see a error here and there but for the most part my WUs are completing... goes with that 10% margin of error one of the CA's talked about earlier.. I rather deal with 10% errors then 95% of them.. I hope soon they will get this issue fully wacked out.. and will be full steam ahead for us all... :) |
||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
If I understand correctly, the work units are failing immediately about 10% of the time? This seems to be a big improvement from the previous version. I believe crunchers were getting errors after hours of runtime. At least this way you won't be wasting cpu cycles by running the project. You may not be able to predict for certain sequences, but there are many many many proteins queued up that you'll receive credit for.
|
||
|
rwremote
Cruncher U.K. Joined: Aug 27, 2009 Post Count: 36 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
If I understand correctly, the work units are failing immediately about 10% of the time? In my particular case (Intel 6400 Dual Core, Win XP SP3, 1GB mem) I'm having about 50% of the work units failing some hours in to the process. (from the last 7 days):- ![]() However, I should say that my Vista machines do not have any errors now, but my XP machines do have considerable errors. I would imagine that you will have the bigger picture on the type and frequency of these errors across other platforms. Thank you very much for your feedback and interest. ![]() |
||
|
uplinger
Former World Community Grid Tech Joined: May 23, 2005 Post Count: 3952 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
We are still monitoring the error rates for the new application, We hope to have a better picture later this week.
Thanks, -Uplinger |
||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Updating my runs here...
My XP box is still flawless running this project as with the previous science app version... E8600 Core 2 Duo 4 GB RAM 3 GB used due to 32bit limits. My Windows 7 64 Bit 860 I7 Lynnfield 8 GB RAM box has not shown up any errors since a few that occured on the 8th so far. I can tell with the long list of Pending Validations I now I have.. so to me it is a great improvement. The only worry I see for me is when I get new work units I see a dreaded status of "Waiting to be Sent" when I check the WU status which is telling me we are maxing out on available help for this project as far as membership out there.. not giving up hope here.. eventually the work will get done.. multicore cpus are getting cheaper as more better multis come out.. I can tell the road map will be changing more as time goes.. I love we are all crunching stuff breaking records more and more. I can't wait to see the day I am running 16 WU's on one box alone... it would be wonderful... sure it doubles the time.. but more output the better... I know it will take a bit for some to find trust back in this project.. I am sure they will come back some day... |
||
|
|
![]() |