Index  | Recent Threads  | Unanswered Threads  | Who's Active  | Guidelines  | Search
 

Quick Go »
No member browsing this thread
Thread Status: Active
Total posts in this thread: 3
[ Jump to Last Post ]
Post new Thread
Author
Previous Thread This topic has been viewed 714 times and has 2 replies Next Thread
littlepeaks
Veteran Cruncher
USA
Joined: Apr 28, 2007
Post Count: 748
Status: Offline
Project Badges:
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Not the answer we're looking for?

I've noticed a peculiarity on two CEP2 WUs, and wonder if the WCG admins have looked into this.

I have a WU that is waiting for the validator to be turned back on again:

It is E225060_ 964_ S.262.C29H21N5S2.JGOZEPIRKAQOEE-UHFFFAOYSA-N.1_ s1_ 14

My wingman and I, who are both in PV status exited in job 6:
[22:45:03] Starting job 6,CPU time has been restored to 13009.250992.
Application exited with RC = 0x1
[00:41:25] Finished Job #6

Two other "contestants", who are in error status, exited in job 0:
[09:08:12] Starting job 0,CPU time has been restored to 0.000000.
Application exited with RC = 0x1
[10:21:55] Finished Job #0

I received another CEP2 WU, where myself and another contestant both received an error for exiting in job 0 (RC = 0x1), while the two successful finalists received valid, while exiting in a later job.

Seems something strange is going on here -- almost like those who errored got a good answer, but not the one WCG is looking for. Wonder if it is really an error that is generating these results and why PCs would exit in different jobs. Could it be a memory thingy, or something else? Anyone else notice this? confused confused confused
----------------------------------------
[Edit 1 times, last edit by littlepeaks at Aug 19, 2014 12:24:28 AM]
[Aug 19, 2014 12:00:47 AM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
Mike.Gibson
Ace Cruncher
England
Joined: Aug 23, 2007
Post Count: 11812
Status: Offline
Project Badges:
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: Not the answer we're looking for?

I suggest that you look at the recent posts by Uplinger and cleanenergy. They have withdrawn the new series E225... for further testing. There are some units already in the system which are being resent after errors reported, but, personally, I have aborted any I received and have temporarily switched to MCM.

Mike
[Aug 19, 2014 2:11:30 PM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
armstrdj
Former World Community Grid Tech
Joined: Oct 21, 2004
Post Count: 695
Status: Offline
Project Badges:
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: Not the answer we're looking for?

We are testing a memory limit increas in beta which might explain this. Once the project starts back up let me know if you see this on new workunits.

Thanks,
armstrdj
[Aug 21, 2014 3:49:46 PM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
[ Jump to Last Post ]
Post new Thread