Message boards :
Number crunching :
Validate errors: Are we getting paid?
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
Kim Vater Send message Joined: 27 May 99 Posts: 227 Credit: 22,743,307 RAC: 0 |
Are we getting paid for all these validate errors that have popped up here the last week or so? Were do we post them in the case someone wants to look into them? I just (all of a sudden) lost many hours of crunching hours and it's not related to any "bad overclock" og "heating" problems - as some of the 'cheerleaders' suggested!! Regards Kim Greetings from Norway Crunch3er & AK-V8 Inside |
popandbob Send message Joined: 19 Mar 05 Posts: 551 Credit: 4,673,015 RAC: 0 |
yes you will if you report them in the validate errors thread at the top. ~BoB Do you Good Search for Seti@Home? http://www.goodsearch.com/?charityid=888957 Or Good Shop? http://www.goodshop.com/?charityid=888957 |
Kim Vater Send message Joined: 27 May 99 Posts: 227 Credit: 22,743,307 RAC: 0 |
yes you will if you report them in the validate errors thread at the top. Hi Bob, Thanks for reply ;) I guess I'll have to wait 'till they fix the problem at the server end. Othervise the "Vallidate error" reporting will be a daily painstaking routine! Kiva Greetings from Norway Crunch3er & AK-V8 Inside |
kittyman Send message Joined: 9 Jul 00 Posts: 51469 Credit: 1,018,363,574 RAC: 1,004 |
yes you will if you report them in the validate errors thread at the top. Kim....check to see if your validate errors are being awarded...this thread seems to indicate that they are being fixed without individual reporting or posting of the errors...... "Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster |
douglas Send message Joined: 1 Jul 02 Posts: 1 Credit: 967,658 RAC: 1 |
yes you will if you report them in the validate errors thread at the top. Mine have all been credited without me reporting or posting them. |
Eric Korpela Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 1382 Credit: 54,506,847 RAC: 60 |
I've finally gotten around to making a script that mostly works at repairing the Validate errors. It's very expensive in terms of searching the database, so it'll only be run once a day or so. There seem to be some fraction of validate errors that the script doesn't fix. So there's still some work to do on it. Eric @SETIEric@qoto.org (Mastodon) |
kittyman Send message Joined: 9 Jul 00 Posts: 51469 Credit: 1,018,363,574 RAC: 1,004 |
I've finally gotten around to making a script that mostly works at repairing the Validate errors. It's very expensive in terms of searching the database, so it'll only be run once a day or so. Thank you very much Eric! Both for working on it, and for letting us know that you are doing so. "Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster |
Geek@Play Send message Joined: 31 Jul 01 Posts: 2467 Credit: 86,146,931 RAC: 0 |
I've finally gotten around to making a script that mostly works at repairing the Validate errors. It's very expensive in terms of searching the database, so it'll only be run once a day or so. This is fine for repairing the damage after it happens. Is there a fix in for the validation errors to stop them from happening? |
Keith T. Send message Joined: 23 Aug 99 Posts: 962 Credit: 537,293 RAC: 9 |
I've finally gotten around to making a script that mostly works at repairing the Validate errors. It's very expensive in terms of searching the database, so it'll only be run once a day or so. Eric, Thanks for working on this. I have not been hit by any of the current round of problems, but have had my share in the past. Some other BOINC projects use a deferral time every time a client contacts the scheduler. The ones that I am aware of are: LHC@home 909 seconds = 15 minutes 15 seconds Rosetta@home 242 seconds = 4 minutes 2 seconds RALPH@home 242 seconds = 4 minutes 2 seconds Leiden Classical 181 seconds = 3 minutes 1 seconds If SETI implemented somthing like this instead of the current: 11 seconds for SETI 7 seconds for SETI Beta It might improve things a bit. Is it difficult to change these settings at the server side? LHC have changed their deferral time several times over the last few weeks from about 1 hour, then ~ 30 minutes, to the current 15 minutes. Sir Arthur C Clarke 1917-2008 |
Ingleside Send message Joined: 4 Feb 03 Posts: 1546 Credit: 15,832,022 RAC: 13 |
Is it difficult to change these settings at the server side? No, changing the deferral-time is fairly easily done by changing a text-file, and SETI@home was earlier using 10 minutes. But, atleast then it comes to this problem, it's doubtful changing the deferral-time will help, since the Scheduler-connections that seems to give validation-errors is either due to "report result immediately" or due to wanting more work just after finished a wu, and in both instances there's a good chance there's 1h+ since last connection. "I make so many mistakes. But then just think of all the mistakes I don't make, although I might." |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.