Message boards :
Number crunching :
No signed_xml section means failed upload?
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
Walt Gribben Send message Joined: 16 May 99 Posts: 353 Credit: 304,016 RAC: 0 |
Two systems sitting side-by-side, One uploads results OK, the other hasn't since the "fixes" on Oct 5/6. Tracing (using Ethereal) upload requests shows several key tags left blank, specifically the ones in [file_info]. What gets sent is: (changed tags to use [] instead of the less than/greater than symbols) [file_info] [xml_signature] [/xml_signature] [/file_info] Comparing the client_state.xml files, the results that don't upload don't have [signed_xml] tags, with the file info repeated. Results that are successfully uploaded do have this section. WU's with [signed_xml] were all downloaded on October 3. Due date shows Oct 17, went back two weeks for the download date. Results for these have been uploading successfully. WU's that fail were all downloaded after Oct 5, some just a few minutes ago. So what happened to the [signed_xml] section? Does this mean that _all_ the WU's downloaded since Oct 5 are no good? Taken from the client_state.xml file: Section for one of the WU's downloaded just this afternoon: [file_info] [name]14mr04aa.17223.8864.784646.92_1_0[/name] [nbytes]0.000000[/nbytes] [max_nbytes]65536.000000[/max_nbytes] [generated_locally/] [status]0[/status] [upload_when_present/] http://setiboincdata.ssl.berkeley.edu/sah_cgi/file_upload_handler [/file_info] Section from one of the WU's downloaded on Oct 3 (and not processed yet). [file_info] [name]06my04ab.10554.10176.853420.38_3_0[/name] [nbytes]0.000000[/nbytes] [max_nbytes]65536.000000[/max_nbytes] [generated_locally/] [status]0[/status] [upload_when_present/] http://setiboincdata.ssl.berkeley.edu/sah_cgi/file_upload_handler [signed_xml] [name]06my04ab.10554.10176.853420.38_3_0[/name] [generated_locally/] [upload_when_present/] [max_nbytes]65536[/max_nbytes] http://setiboincdata.ssl.berkeley.edu/sah_cgi/file_upload_handler [/signed_xml] [xml_signature] (signature removed) [/xml_signature] [/file_info] |
Ned Slider Send message Joined: 12 Oct 01 Posts: 668 Credit: 4,375,315 RAC: 0 |
I noticed the exact same thing with regards to the date the failing WUs were downloaded. The one box I have that is still working through older units is fine whereas all the rest with the newer units downloaded on the 5th onwards fail. Guess I might as well turn them off now until it's fixed :( Ned |
©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.