Astropulse Errors-Optimized version 5
Astropulse Errors-Optimized version 5 |
|
| log in |
Message boards : Number crunching : Astropulse Errors-Optimized version 5
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · Next
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
I've got an AP 5.0 wu running that has time to completion as 450 hours on a Core 2 Quad Q6700. Is that normal? I've never noticed a SETI work unit that took that long to crunch. Thanks. I noticed after I posted that just under 4 hours in the WU is 12% complete so I thought there must be something like that going on, | |
ID: 843402 ·  | |
I've got an AP 5.0 wu running that has time to completion as 450 hours on a Core 2 Quad Q6700. Is that normal? I've never noticed a SETI work unit that took that long to crunch. The work unit finished with a compute error. Here's the message: <core_client_version>6.4.5</core_client_version> <![CDATA[ <message> - exit code -202 (0xffffff36) </message> <stderr_txt> In ap_gfx_main.cpp: in ap_graphics_init(): Starting client. In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 896 In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 1024 In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 1152 In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 1280 In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 1408 In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 1536 In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 1664 In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 1792 In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 1920 In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 2048 In ap_gfx_main.cpp: in ap_graphics_init(): Starting client. In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 2048 In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 2176 In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 2304 In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 2432 In ap_gfx_main.cpp: in ap_graphics_init(): Starting client. In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 2432 In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 2560 In ap_gfx_main.cpp: in ap_graphics_init(): Starting client. In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 2560 In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 2688 In ap_gfx_main.cpp: in ap_graphics_init(): Starting client. In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 2688 In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 2816 In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 2944 In ap_gfx_main.cpp: in ap_graphics_init(): Starting client. In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 2944 In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 3072 No heartbeat from core client for 30 sec - exiting In ap_gfx_main.cpp: in ap_graphics_init(): Starting client. boinc_graphics_make_shmem failed: 0 </stderr_txt> ]]> What happened and how do I stop it from happening again? This WU took up 21871.03 of processor time, I'd rather this didn't happen again. | |
| ID: 843646 · | |
|
Raistmer Volunteer developer Volunteer tester  Send message Joined: 16 Jun 01 Posts: 2541 Credit: 25,538,402 RAC: 41,751  | |
|
Sorry, but you running NOT optimized AP V5 application. You running stock app. And this thread about optimized application. I recommend you to install current opt app version just as it recommended in first post you cited and to try again with AP. | |
| ID: 843873 · | |
|
A couple of units processed with the AP optimized client for OSX. | |
| ID: 845881 · | |
|
Josef W. Segur  Volunteer developer Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 30 Oct 99 Posts: 3930 Credit: 934,263 RAC: 14  | |
A couple of units processed with the AP optimized client for OSX. Neither of those used the optimized AP application, looks like a direct unoptimized port. The host has since converted to the optimized app, see for instance http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=1100332648 Joe | |
| ID: 846039 · | |
|
I finally saw the optimized output text for OSX. | |
| ID: 846041 · | |
 [seti.international] Philip J. FryVolunteer tester  Send message Joined: 6 Apr 07 Posts: 6566 Credit: 50,695,514 RAC: 20,093  | |
|
| |
| ID: 847528 · | |
|
Hi Crunchers, first of all, best wishes for 2009, since 10 days, I have UPdated 3 QUAD's from BOINC 5.10.45 to 6.4.5 and added the V5 optimized app. for AP (+altered app_info.xml file. | |
| ID: 847555 · | |
|
Josef W. Segur Volunteer developer Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 30 Oct 99 Posts: 3930 Credit: 934,263 RAC: 14 | |
I'm not up-to-date because of Astropulse. For clean WUs where the V5.00 radar blanking isn't needed it gives the same results as V4.3x, even some cases where a modest amount of blanking is done can produce strongly similar results. I don't know if the script is still being run periodically, but almost all hosts will be using V5.00 now. The few who set up V4.3x with an app_info.xml and stopped paying attention are just wasting their host's CPU time now. It's safe now to let run AP? Either stock or optimized 5.00 should produce results which validate. Absolute safety of credits cannot be expected; you might be paired with someone running an obsolete BOINC version, and that can be particularly painful on AP work. Joe | |
| ID: 847662 · | |
|
My system updated yesterday to Version 5.00 and then downloaded WO 389655491. The question I have is that the Time To Completion on this WU is 199 hrs. It's very strange. | |
| ID: 848244 · | |
My system updated yesterday to Version 5.00 and then downloaded WO 389655491. The question I have is that the Time To Completion on this WU is 199 hrs. It's very strange. Is that the first AstroPulse WU you have snagged? Processing time on AP is fairly linear (much better than the initial "estimate" for assessing likely run-time) so do your own estimate from 20 x the 5% completed or 10 x the 10% completed time. Bear in mind that if it runs to completion it is worth about 750 creds. F. ____________  | |
| ID: 848246 · | |
|
I've got AP workunits before but nothing that has had this kind of TTC. It kind of knocked me off my chair when I saw it. I'll keep an eye on it for the day to see where it's going. | |
| ID: 848293 · | |
|
I am a relative 'newbie' to all of this so if my question has been asked and I simply did not understand the answer, please excuse my ignorance. | |
| ID: 849518 · | |
I am a relative 'newbie' to all of this so if my question has been asked and I simply did not understand the answer, please excuse my ignorance. Two of the WUs were crunched with app 5.0 and one with 4.36 so evidently their results do not agree so it was sent to another wingman. When he finishes you'll get your credit. Tullio ____________ | |
| ID: 849555 · | |
|
[seti.international] Philip J. Fry Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 6 Apr 07 Posts: 6566 Credit: 50,695,514 RAC: 20,093 | |
It's safe now to let run AP? You mean <= BOINC V5.2.5 ? And then I would get 0 Credits? ____________ >Das Deutsche Cafe. The German Cafe.< | |
| ID: 849581 · | |
|
How's this for getting ripped: | |
| ID: 849584 · | |
|
For comparison, here's another unit, which i was given credit for. Note the consistent time it took for both wu's: | |
| ID: 849587 · | |
|
[seti.international] Philip J. Fry Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 6 Apr 07 Posts: 6566 Credit: 50,695,514 RAC: 20,093 | |
|
@ HSS Global Server | |
| ID: 849590 · | |
|
Oops! Apologies to all....thanks for the reply, though. :) | |
| ID: 849726 · | |
|
Josef W. Segur Volunteer developer Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 30 Oct 99 Posts: 3930 Credit: 934,263 RAC: 14 | |
It's safe now to let run AP? Maybe with any version of BOINC the application can occasionally fail to find the shared memory through which it reports CPU time and fpops_cumulative, though it does seem to be more prevalent on BOINC 4.x particularly with Mac systems. Then the application runs in standalone mode, but BOINC does sense when it finishes and can upload the result file. It's the lack of either time or fpops which causes O credit claims in those cases. The <= BOINC V5.2.5 cases will usually have the CPU time, and the claims will differ from yours using fpops_cumulative. The difference may go either way, someone is going to get less than claimed; maybe you, maybe the wingman. Joe | |
| ID: 849800 · | |
Message boards : Number crunching : Astropulse Errors-Optimized version 5
| Copyright © 2013 University of California |
