| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Active Research
Forum: Africa Rainfall Project
Thread: Work Available |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 3312
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Jarl Ole Hank-Jensen
Senior Cruncher Norway Joined: Jun 8, 2019 Post Count: 223 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
|
||
|
|
Crystal Pellet
Veteran Cruncher Joined: May 21, 2008 Post Count: 1323 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
I got four 138s. All four failed to download 1 or more files due to several transient HTTP errors.
----------------------------------------WU download error: couldn't get input files: After a download error a zero byte file with the right project filename is created and it looks like that, when it's retry time, this zero byte file is causing a problem. When I delete that 0-file before a transfer-retry the problem does not appear. I'm unfortunately not always there to babysit the transfer process. Edit: I could save a fifth task by operating like described above The _1 is mine and running. I had to delete two 0-files that needed a retry download. I don't have issues with my internet connection. I needed the same treating for a 6th task. For 2 files even twice. 06 May 09:28:14 Scheduler request completed: got 1 new tasks [Edit 3 times, last edit by Crystal Pellet at May 6, 2023 7:45:40 AM] |
||
|
|
Crystal Pellet
Veteran Cruncher Joined: May 21, 2008 Post Count: 1323 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
I'm unfortunately not always there to babysit the transfer process. But I had the time to dig into this issue  A transfer retry found an already existing file with that name in the project folder mostly with a zero bytes size. Cause I had for testing purposes a setting in my cc_config.xml <dont_check_file_sizes>1</dont_check_file_sizes> the retransfered file did not overwrite the 0-byte file, resulting in the checksum errors. |
||
|
|
adriverhoef
Master Cruncher The Netherlands Joined: Apr 3, 2009 Post Count: 2171 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Thank you Jarl Ole! Thanks to your contribution I was able to find some other ARP1-workunits below generation 124:
ARP1_0034244_019 ARP1_0033791_106 ARP1_0033952_117 ARP1_0034317_120 I chose those — in the Extreme category — because they have less than 10 workunits in their generations (see generations.txt and state.txt). Adri |
||
|
|
Mike.Gibson
Ace Cruncher England Joined: Aug 23, 2007 Post Count: 12434 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Thanks, Guys. It is good to see those extremes moving again hopefully, especially the 3 ultras.
Some have validated already. Mike |
||
|
|
MJH333
Senior Cruncher England Joined: Apr 3, 2021 Post Count: 268 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Hi Adri,
I've now picked up the next generation of one of the tasks Jarl Ole mentioned. See ARP1_0033555_102 Cheers, Mark |
||
|
|
alanb1951
Veteran Cruncher Joined: Jan 20, 2006 Post Count: 979 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Hi Adri, I've now picked up the next generation of one of the tasks Jarl Ole mentioned. See ARP1_0033555_102 Cheers, Mark That's very interesting... Your WU was created about half an hour after it became possible to validate the previous generation, so it is [still] possible for a given cell to move up several places in a short time (as used to be the case!) What still puzzles me if that is so is this -- why have there been far fewer generation movements for the Extremes and Accelerated cells over the last few months?[1] Here's hoping that from now on the Normal units won't grab quite so much of the limelight - even a couple of percentage points less would go a long way towards catching up everything except our ultra-laggards (which will probably need special attention!) Cheers - Al. [1] Witness less than 0.5% of all WUs between return from the crash and the apparent batch end a couple of days ago. [Edit 1 times, last edit by alanb1951 at May 6, 2023 7:49:26 PM] |
||
|
|
adriverhoef
Master Cruncher The Netherlands Joined: Apr 3, 2009 Post Count: 2171 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Marvellous, Mark!
Thanks.And Al, good to think about the distance in time between validation of (the completed tasks in) the workunit and its next release. Thanks for investigating. I'm very glad to see that there is progress with the advancement to the next generation. If we keep reporting Extreme workunits here, then we can track the incremental 'growth' hopefully towards a non-Extreme (e.g. Accelerated) status. As an aside, the WCG Team doesn't have any means to favour running particular generations, I think (or seem to remember somewhere), however, if workunits keep advancing like what we've experienced just now - where the next generation is released right after completing and validating a workunit -, then this 'favouring means' wouldn't be necessary, of course.  Adri PS Does anyone remember how/what we called the number between 'ARP1' and the generation number in the name of workunit? (E.g. the number 0033555 in the name of task ARP1_0033555_101_2) |
||
|
|
|