I recently completed a WU and was waiting for the third person turned in their WU. The other two people received credit but I didn't. My WU was the second one turned in but was listed as invalid while the one before me and the one after were listed as valid. If someone could explain why the WU after being worked on for 4.5 hours was considered invalid it would be greatly appreciated. The WU in question is 249655496. Thank you in advance.

Warren Rogers

I recently completed a WU and was waiting for the third person turned in their WU. The other two people received credit but I didn't. My WU was the second one turned in but was listed as invalid while the one before me and the one after were listed as valid. If someone could explain why the WU after being worked on for 4.5 hours was considered invalid it would be greatly appreciated. The WU in question is 249655496. Thank you in advance.

Warren Rogers

I took a look and I can not seem to understand. Here is the link to the three computers that finished the unit. It looks like all three results had significant variations. By posting the link I hope some others will take a look and see what they can find.

---

I recently completed a WU and was waiting for the third person turned in their WU. The other two people received credit but I didn't. My WU was the second one turned in but was listed as invalid while the one before me and the one after were listed as valid. If someone could explain why the WU after being worked on for 4.5 hours was considered invalid it would be greatly appreciated. The WU in question is 249655496. Thank you in advance.

Warren Rogers

Hi Warren,
Due to the slight differences in different computers, each computer is capable of producing slightly different results. We have a "validation" procedure where these slight variations are considered. There are three levels, "strongly similar", "weakly similar" and "not similar". If two results are "strongly similar" which means the results returned are within one percent or so of the other, they are validated and both are issued credit. Any other situation requires a third result to be issued. If all three results are "weakly similar" then all three are validated and credit is issued. If however the third result is strongly similar to one or the other of the other two results, the two are validated and the third is determined to be "not similar" and is not issued credit. In your case, your result was found to be not similar to the others. In other words, the third result matched the first result within a percent or so. Yours was outside the limits for validation.

This can be caused by several things. Sometimes a work unit just returns varying results, but other times it can be caused by something in your computer. These can be heat buildup due to dust in the heatsinks/fans, a memory stick going bad, too aggressive of an overclock, and several other things. An occasional invalid result is nothing to worry about, but if you have more than one or two, or you notice it happening more often then it might be a good idea to check your system for the above mentioned problems.

---

Jim

Some people plan their life out and look back at the wealth they've had.
Others live life day by day and look back at the wealth of experiences and enjoyment they've had.

Hello Everyone,

Thank you for your help with my question. It was actually the first time I'd not get credit for a completed WU and was more than a little curious as to why. Thank you for your explanations, they helped out a lot.

Warren

I recently completed a WU and was waiting for the third person turned in their WU. The other two people received credit but I didn't. My WU was the second one turned in but was listed as invalid while the one before me and the one after were listed as valid. If someone could explain why the WU after being worked on for 4.5 hours was considered invalid it would be greatly appreciated. The WU in question is 249655496. Thank you in advance.

Warren Rogers

Hi Warren,
Due to the slight differences in different computers, each computer is capable of producing slightly different results. We have a "validation" procedure where these slight variations are considered. There are three levels, "strongly similar", "weakly similar" and "not similar". If two results are "strongly similar" which means the results returned are within one percent or so of the other, they are validated and both are issued credit. Any other situation requires a third result to be issued. If all three results are "weakly similar" then all three are validated and credit is issued. If however the third result is strongly similar to one or the other of the other two results, the two are validated and the third is determined to be "not similar" and is not issued credit. In your case, your result was found to be not similar to the others. In other words, the third result matched the first result within a percent or so. Yours was outside the limits for validation.

This can be caused by several things. Sometimes a work unit just returns varying results, but other times it can be caused by something in your computer. These can be heat buildup due to dust in the heatsinks/fans, a memory stick going bad, too aggressive of an overclock, and several other things. An occasional invalid result is nothing to worry about, but if you have more than one or two, or you notice it happening more often then it might be a good idea to check your system for the above mentioned problems.

---

I recently completed a WU and was waiting for the third person turned in their WU. The other two people received credit but I didn't. My WU was the second one turned in but was listed as invalid while the one before me and the one after were listed as valid. If someone could explain why the WU after being worked on for 4.5 hours was considered invalid it would be greatly appreciated. The WU in question is 249655496. Thank you in advance.

Warren Rogers

I took a look and I can not seem to understand. Here is the link to the three computers that finished the unit. It looks like all three results had significant variations. By posting the link I hope some others will take a look and see what they can find.

The problem discussed in SETI Beta Overflow (-9) with 5.27 under Vista OS looks like the cause. I apologize, that bug was my fault.

                                                                 Joe

I recently completed a WU and was waiting for the third person turned in their WU. The other two people received credit but I didn't. Overflow (-9) with 5.27 under Vista OS looks like the cause. I apologize, that bug was my fault.

                                                                 Joe

Josef, Shame on you! Just teasing you Josef, seen your post here and just want to say Thanks for all your efforts I read about here and every time I look at a WU result. /salute

There is also a visual guide in the UBW where it talks to validation ... though it does not (I don't hink" go into strong vs. weak validation.

But it shows a validation based on ONE spike and how the detection process KINDA looks ...

For those in the know, if you can come up with a better and simpler example ... :)

---

I recently completed a WU and was waiting for the third person turned in their WU. The other two people received credit but I didn't. My WU was the second one turned in but was listed as invalid while the one before me and the one after were listed as valid. If someone could explain why the WU after being worked on for 4.5 hours was considered invalid it would be greatly appreciated. The WU in question is 249655496. Thank you in advance.

Warren Rogers

I took a look and I can not seem to understand. Here is the link to the three computers that finished the unit. It looks like all three results had significant variations. By posting the link I hope some others will take a look and see what they can find.

The problem discussed in SETI Beta Overflow (-9) with 5.27 under Vista OS looks like the cause. I apologize, that bug was my fault.

                                                                 Joe

What about this one? Mine is the first one. I run XP x64. Here are the outputs:

<core_client_version>5.10.20</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<stderr_txt>
Optimized SETI@Home Enhanced application
Optimizers: Ben Herndon, Josef Segur, Alex Kan, Simon Zadra
Version: Windows SSSE3 64-bit based on S@H V5.15 'Noo? No - Ni!'
Revision: R-2.4V|xT|FFT:IPP_SSSE3|Ben-Joe
CPUID: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz
Speed: 4 x 3060 MHz
Cache: L1=64K L2=4096K
Features: MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 x86_64

Work Unit Info
WU Credit multi. is: 2.85
WU True angle range: 0.607532
SETI@Home Informational message -9 result_overflow
NOTE: The number of results detected exceeds the storage space allocated.

</stderr_txt>
]]>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
<core_client_version>5.4.11</core_client_version>
<stderr_txt>
setiathome_enhanced 5.27 DevC++/MinGW

Work Unit Info:
...............
WU true angle range is : 0.607532
Optimal function choices:
-----------------------------------------------------
name
-----------------------------------------------------
v_BaseLineSmooth (no other)
v_vGetPowerSpectrumUnrolled 0.00016 0.00000
sse3_ChirpData_ak 0.01670 0.00000
v_vpfTranspose8x4ntw 0.00781 0.00000
BH SSE folding 0.00122 0.00000
Restarted at 42.51 percent.

Flopcounter: 12903373328534.736000

Spike count: 3
Pulse count: 0
Triplet count: 0
Gaussian count: 0

</stderr_txt>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
<core_client_version>5.10.30</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<stderr_txt>
setiathome_enhanced 5.27 DevC++/MinGW

Work Unit Info:
...............
WU true angle range is : 0.607532
Optimal function choices:
-----------------------------------------------------
name
-----------------------------------------------------
v_BaseLineSmooth (no other)
v_vGetPowerSpectrumUnrolled 0.00017 0.00000
sse3_ChirpData_ak 0.01718 0.00000
v_vTranspose4x8ntw 0.00868 0.00000
AK SSE folding 0.00143 0.00000
Restarted at 89.37 percent.

Flopcounter: 12903362450915.736000

Spike count: 3
Pulse count: 0
Triplet count: 0
Gaussian count: 0

</stderr_txt>
]]>




806705661 3683570 6 Apr 2008 1:38:43 UTC 6 Apr 2008 10:24:19 UTC Over Success Done 11,324.81 42.58 42.58
806705660 3871365 6 Apr 2008 1:38:29 UTC 12 Apr 2008 18:29:26 UTC Over Success Done 3,509.66 33.50 0.00
814480911 3326177 13 Apr 2008 14:21:43 UTC 14 Apr 2008 12:19:55 UTC Over Success Done 11,529.33 42.58 42.58

---

Clk2HlpSetiCty:::PayIt4ward

What about this one? Mine is the first one. I run XP x64. Here are the outputs:

<core_client_version>5.10.20</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<stderr_txt>
Optimized SETI@Home Enhanced application
Optimizers: Ben Herndon, Josef Segur, Alex Kan, Simon Zadra
Version: Windows SSSE3 64-bit based on S@H V5.15 'Noo? No - Ni!'
Revision: R-2.4V|xT|FFT:IPP_SSSE3|Ben-Joe
CPUID: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz
Speed: 4 x 3060 MHz
Cache: L1=64K L2=4096K
Features: MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 x86_64

Work Unit Info
WU Credit multi. is: 2.85
WU True angle range: 0.607532
SETI@Home Informational message -9 result_overflow
NOTE: The number of results detected exceeds the storage space allocated.

</stderr_txt>
]]>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
<snip>

Well you're overclocking almost 28%. So if the machine is stable from a lockup or BSOD POV, then this almost always indicates a localized thermal problem in the FPU. The rub is that it doesn't necessarily indicate itself as a problem from the CPU/core temps.

Alinator

What about this one? Mine is the first one. I run XP x64. Here are the outputs:

<core_client_version>5.10.20</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<stderr_txt>
Optimized SETI@Home Enhanced application
Optimizers: Ben Herndon, Josef Segur, Alex Kan, Simon Zadra
Version: Windows SSSE3 64-bit based on S@H V5.15 'Noo? No - Ni!'
Revision: R-2.4V|xT|FFT:IPP_SSSE3|Ben-Joe
CPUID: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz
Speed: 4 x 3060 MHz
Cache: L1=64K L2=4096K
Features: MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 x86_64

Work Unit Info
WU Credit multi. is: 2.85
WU True angle range: 0.607532
SETI@Home Informational message -9 result_overflow
NOTE: The number of results detected exceeds the storage space allocated.

</stderr_txt>
]]>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
<snip>

Well you're overclocking almost 28%. So if the machine is stable from a lockup or BSOD POV, then this almost always indicates a localized thermal problem in the FPU. The rub is that it doesn't necessarily indicate itself as a problem from the CPU/core temps.

Alinator

As I responded before [as the servers went down (darn slow fat finges of mine...)], it's funny you mentioned a BSOD. That PC did experience a BSOD right after it started throwing errors. When I rebooted, I got the dreaded 'ntfs.sys is missing or corrupted' error. Since that PC doesn't have a DVD drive in it anymore, I shut it down and got a new DVD and did the reinstall/repair of x64. I did have a power outage in the early morning of the 11th, and the farm was down for a while. That might have caused the problem also. I will have to check on it more often to make sure it is going OK. Thanks for the info, Alinator...

---

Clk2HlpSetiCty:::PayIt4ward

Hi Warren,
Due to the slight differences in different computers, each computer is capable of producing slightly different results. We have a "validation" procedure where these slight variations are considered. There are three levels, "strongly similar", "weakly similar" and "not similar". If two results are "strongly similar" which means the results returned are within one percent or so of the other, they are validated and both are issued credit. Any other situation requires a third result to be issued. If all three results are "weakly similar" then all three are validated and credit is issued. If however the third result is strongly similar to one or the other of the other two results, the two are validated and the third is determined to be "not similar" and is not issued credit.

Not completely correct, SETI@home always needs 2 "strongly similar" results to pass validation. Also, after found a pair of results to be "strongly similar", any other results is only checked if "weakly similar", and can still be given credit.

If it had been possible to validate with 3 "weakly similar", each of the 3 results could include a signal none of the others had detected...

---

"I make so many mistakes. But then just think of all the mistakes I don't make, although I might."