Nasir (Mar 05 2009)


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Technical News : Nasir (Mar 05 2009)

Author Message
Profile Matt Lebofsky
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project scientist
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 1 Mar 99
Posts: 1389
Credit: 74,079
RAC: 0
United States
Message 872638 - Posted: 5 Mar 2009, 22:01:59 UTC

Once again not much hardware/server stuff to report. I guess the ap_validator "2" is failing due to seg faults. A fact that is obscured on the server status page (due to automatic parsing of configuration files) is that the ap_validator "2" does strictly astropulse_v5 workunits, while ap_validator "1" validates older astropulse workunits. In any case, I warned Josh, he's looking into it, etc. Probably a broken result file/database entry is causing it to seg fault and quit before doing very much.

Today was mostly conceptualizing/programming again for me, though focused back on radar blanking stuff as I should really get this done. I'm getting bogged down with "ragged files" - where the chunks of data aren't nearly ordered, thus causing confusion about where the software/hardware blanking bits are. This usually isn't a problem, except when a particular raw data file is ragged at the top or bottom, and the chunk containing blanking information needed by adjacent chunks is actually at the end of the previous file, or at the beginning of the next, or nowhere to be found at all.

- Matt

____________
-- BOINC/SETI@home network/web/science/development person
-- "Any idiot can have a good idea. What is hard is to do it." - Jeanne-Claude

Profile Neil Blaikie
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 17 May 99
Posts: 142
Credit: 6,466,200
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 872642 - Posted: 5 Mar 2009, 22:09:36 UTC

Thank you as always for the update.

Hope you manage to progress with the Blanking code soon, your work will be very much appreciated by all, no matter how long it takes to complete.

Yosemite thread titles for this month? ? :-)
____________

Profile gizbar
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 7 Jan 01
Posts: 586
Credit: 21,087,774
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 872764 - Posted: 6 Mar 2009, 6:12:59 UTC - in response to Message 872638.

Once again not much hardware/server stuff to report. I guess the ap_validator "2" is failing due to seg faults. A fact that is obscured on the server status page (due to automatic parsing of configuration files) is that the ap_validator "2" does strictly astropulse_v5 workunits, while ap_validator "1" validates older astropulse workunits. In any case, I warned Josh, he's looking into it, etc. Probably a broken result file/database entry is causing it to seg fault and quit before doing very much.


- Matt


Thanks for the info Matt. I guess that's why my pendings are so high for astropulse.

regards, Gizbar.

____________


A proud GPU User Server Donor!

Invisible Man
Send message
Joined: 24 Jun 01
Posts: 22
Credit: 1,129,336
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 873533 - Posted: 7 Mar 2009, 22:00:11 UTC - in response to Message 872764.

I don't care what they say, seti or not. The answer is still 42 !

From one Brit to another, I always thought "The answer was a Lemon".

archae86
Send message
Joined: 31 Aug 99
Posts: 888
Credit: 1,572,688
RAC: 5
United States
Message 873563 - Posted: 7 Mar 2009, 23:55:47 UTC - in response to Message 872638.

I guess the ap_validator "2" is failing due to seg faults.
It came to life a little while ago, and has already run the reported WU waiting for validation number down to one from a peak near twelve thousand.

____________

Profile Bigsheff1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 24 Apr 03
Posts: 4
Credit: 817,643
RAC: 3,369
United Kingdom
Message 873851 - Posted: 8 Mar 2009, 21:54:18 UTC

Well I am gratefull for these post by you Matt, never had so much fun reading them keep up the good work, I need to play lottery to help you out, (Dream on)

Cheers Dude
____________

PhonAcq
Send message
Joined: 14 Apr 01
Posts: 1622
Credit: 22,179,774
RAC: 3,775
United States
Message 874057 - Posted: 9 Mar 2009, 14:51:30 UTC

<ying>
I, for one, want to commend Matt and related staff for what appears to be a very stable server system in recent days. Things seem to be rock solid and no obvious problems. Plus, the system seems robust enough to handle the mid-night bursts of traffic. Good job!
</ying>

<yang>
Now what is on the agenda to improve things to the next level of performance??
</yang>

Profile RandyC
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Oct 99
Posts: 714
Credit: 1,704,345
RAC: 0
United States
Message 874062 - Posted: 9 Mar 2009, 15:20:22 UTC - in response to Message 874057.


<yang>
Now what is on the agenda to improve things to the next level of performance??
</yang>


Convincing people not to remark on how well things are going, so we can avoid the wrath of Murphy. ;)

PhonAcq
Send message
Joined: 14 Apr 01
Posts: 1622
Credit: 22,179,774
RAC: 3,775
United States
Message 874085 - Posted: 9 Mar 2009, 17:01:54 UTC

I respect Murphy, but Matt et all need a few kudos from us "rational objectivists" at times.

Message boards : Technical News : Nasir (Mar 05 2009)

Copyright © 2014 University of California