Validation inconclusive

Message boards : Number crunching : Validation inconclusive

1 · 2 · 3 · Next

Author	Message
ccappel Send message Joined: 27 Jan 00 Posts: 362 Credit: 1,516,412 RAC: 0	Message 889864 - Posted: 30 Apr 2009, 15:07:02 UTC Last modified: 30 Apr 2009, 15:15:38 UTC
	I'm seeing an increase in frequency of these "validation inconclusive" messages. I hope this doesn't mean there's something going on with my computers: http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/results.php?userid=652775&offset=0&show_names=0&state=2 edit: http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=432051318 http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=418871556 http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=432050525 ____________ "Life is a tragedy for those who feel, and a comedy for those who think." "I never get into an argument that I cannot win."
	ID: 889864 ·

Labbie Send message Joined: 19 Jun 06 Posts: 4083 Credit: 5,930,102 RAC: 0	Message 889865 - Posted: 30 Apr 2009, 15:08:48 UTC
	Your link doesn't work for the rest of us, but I know what you're talking about. I've been seeing more on mine too. I think a lot of it is the matching of CPU and CUDA as wingmen. ____________ Calm Chaos Forum...Join Calm Chaos Now
	ID: 889865 ·

ccappel Send message Joined: 27 Jan 00 Posts: 362 Credit: 1,516,412 RAC: 0	Message 889869 - Posted: 30 Apr 2009, 15:13:14 UTC - in response to Message 889865.
	I edited the links, should work now. I also should have mentioned theses are all AP, r112 SSE3 opt, 1 on each of 3 different computers. ____________ "Life is a tragedy for those who feel, and a comedy for those who think." "I never get into an argument that I cannot win."
	ID: 889869 ·

Labbie Send message Joined: 19 Jun 06 Posts: 4083 Credit: 5,930,102 RAC: 0	Message 889872 - Posted: 30 Apr 2009, 15:20:09 UTC
	Mine are all CPU MB, and usually tied to a CUDA wingman. ____________ Calm Chaos Forum...Join Calm Chaos Now
	ID: 889872 ·

MontagsMeeting Send message Joined: 16 Aug 99 Posts: 114 Credit: 6,351,033 RAC: 613	Message 889905 - Posted: 30 Apr 2009, 16:57:26 UTC
	very interesting especially the second link as your wingman has a validation error and so there is nothing you could validate against. i have some of them too http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=428964969 http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=417924802 http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=428964969 http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=431231896 http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=418487995 http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=434521033 http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=425639304 http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=429069735
	ID: 889905 ·

Raistmer Volunteer developer Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 16 Jun 01 Posts: 2546 Credit: 25,724,940 RAC: 39,305	Message 889918 - Posted: 30 Apr 2009, 17:58:31 UTC - in response to Message 889905.
	There is pretty big frequency range where shader will do work incorrectly but w/o any error reporting. GPU OCed to this freq area will produce lot of invalid results (validation incomplete first, then weakly similar or failed to validate with third wingman). Unfortunately it's hard to notice unless user will browse his host results. System will appear stable w/o any visual signs of excessive OCing...
	ID: 889918 ·

MontagsMeeting Send message Joined: 16 Aug 99 Posts: 114 Credit: 6,351,033 RAC: 613	Message 889977 - Posted: 30 Apr 2009, 21:26:50 UTC - in response to Message 889918.
	There is pretty big frequency range where shader will do work incorrectly but w/o any error reporting. GPU OCed to this freq area will produce lot of invalid results (validation incomplete first, then weakly similar or failed to validate with third wingman). Unfortunately it's hard to notice unless user will browse his host results. System will appear stable w/o any visual signs of excessive OCing... The linked WUs of ccappel and me are all AP
	ID: 889977 ·

john deneer Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 16 Nov 06 Posts: 331 Credit: 20,995,435 RAC: 0	Message 889986 - Posted: 30 Apr 2009, 22:08:18 UTC - in response to Message 889864.
	I'm seeing an increase in frequency of these "validation inconclusive" messages. I hope this doesn't mean there's something going on with my computers: I've had a couple of AP units with this message over the last few days as well. No idea what's causing it. Regards, John.
	ID: 889986 ·

Zydor Send message Joined: 4 Oct 03 Posts: 172 Credit: 491,020 RAC: 0	Message 890106 - Posted: 1 May 2009, 8:28:29 UTC - in response to Message 889986.
	I got one of those a couple of days ago. I had a look at the Task ID for those with similar errors, all have the same symptom. They appear to be from markedly slower machines, and all have the stderr message (or similar) several times over: 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_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 3072 In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 3200 In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 3328 In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 3456 No idea what that actually indicates on those machines - anyone know? Regards Zy ____________
	ID: 890106 ·

WinterKnight Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6822 Credit: 17,147,419 RAC: 26,086	Message 890108 - Posted: 1 May 2009, 8:34:14 UTC - in response to Message 890106.
	I got one of those a couple of days ago. I had a look at the Task ID for those with similar errors, all have the same symptom. They appear to be from markedly slower machines, and all have the stderr message (or similar) several times over: 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_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 3072 In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 3200 In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 3328 In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 3456 No idea what that actually indicates on those machines - anyone know? Regards Zy No idea what these msg's mean but they appear in the stderr for all tasks completed with the default Berkeley app. Here is task 1187117097 that has validated, against mine using the optimised app.
	ID: 890108 ·

Byron S Goodgame Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 16 Jan 06 Posts: 1151 Credit: 3,936,993 RAC: 0	Message 890109 - Posted: 1 May 2009, 8:40:20 UTC - in response to Message 890108. Last modified: 1 May 2009, 8:45:30 UTC
	No idea what these msg's mean but they appear in the stderr for all tasks completed with the default Berkeley app. Here is task 1187117097 that has validated, against mine using the optimised app. My guess was they refer to the checkpoints made while the app is running. Guess now is good time as any to test that theory. ____________
	ID: 890109 ·

Raistmer Volunteer developer Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 16 Jun 01 Posts: 2546 Credit: 25,724,940 RAC: 39,305	Message 890110 - Posted: 1 May 2009, 8:46:49 UTC - in response to Message 890109.
	It's debug message indicating that new iteration over large DM chunk begins.
	ID: 890110 ·

perryjay Send message Joined: 20 Aug 02 Posts: 3359 Credit: 9,665,981 RAC: 10,160	Message 890588 - Posted: 2 May 2009, 16:53:00 UTC
	How about this one? http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=433362764 Four of us have completed it. two on Cuda and two on CPU. It has gone out again today to another cruncher. Wonder what is wrong with it? ____________ PROUD MEMBER OF Team Starfire World BOINC
	ID: 890588 ·

Raistmer Volunteer developer Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 16 Jun 01 Posts: 2546 Credit: 25,724,940 RAC: 39,305	Message 890893 - Posted: 3 May 2009, 18:14:40 UTC - in response to Message 890588.
	How about this one? http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=433362764 Four of us have completed it. two on Cuda and two on CPU. It has gone out again today to another cruncher. Wonder what is wrong with it? well, it's MB result so my former post fully applies to it. Weakly similar most probably due to excessive GPU OCing or overheating. When two strongly similar results were recived all (including weakly similar) recived credit. I consider it as very dangerous practice - to give credit for weakly similar results cause such not stable hosts actually counterproductive to project - their results needed additional verification - waste of processing time and server bandwith.
	ID: 890893 ·

perryjay Send message Joined: 20 Aug 02 Posts: 3359 Credit: 9,665,981 RAC: 10,160	Message 890904 - Posted: 3 May 2009, 19:00:36 UTC - in response to Message 890893.
	Hmmm, just noticed something else now. It looks like they averaged them instead of giving the lowest credit. That's strange. I have been getting a few of the inconclusive. I'm not OCd and most of my work is coming in valid. Wonder if it is just luck of the draw or something of mine going bad? I'll keep an eye on my pendings to see if many more of them go inconclusive. ____________ PROUD MEMBER OF Team Starfire World BOINC
	ID: 890904 ·

Alinator Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 19 Apr 05 Posts: 4118 Credit: 3,013,248 RAC: 8,739	Message 890932 - Posted: 3 May 2009, 20:41:04 UTC - in response to Message 890904. Last modified: 3 May 2009, 20:46:17 UTC
	Nothing strange there, it did exactly what it should have. The BOINC scoring rules for WU with 3 valid tasks is to throw out the high and low claims and grant the middle one. For 4 or more it throws out the high and low and grants the average of the remaining ones. I guess it's just been a long time since most people have seen a WU with 4 or more valid tasks in play. ;-) <edit> BTW, with what looks to be two CUDA hosts in the mix, you ended up getting a little 'premium' paid on the WU over what it would have been if paid for straight CPU tasks. :-) Alinator
	ID: 890932 ·

perryjay Send message Joined: 20 Aug 02 Posts: 3359 Credit: 9,665,981 RAC: 10,160	Message 890965 - Posted: 3 May 2009, 21:55:34 UTC - in response to Message 890932.
	You're right, it has been a long time since I've seen 4 or more valid results. Oh, and I'm one of those Cudas. ____________ PROUD MEMBER OF Team Starfire World BOINC
	ID: 890965 ·

Raistmer Volunteer developer Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 16 Jun 01 Posts: 2546 Credit: 25,724,940 RAC: 39,305	Message 891069 - Posted: 4 May 2009, 3:29:52 UTC - in response to Message 890904.
	Hmmm, just noticed something else now. It looks like they averaged them instead of giving the lowest credit. That's strange. I have been getting a few of the inconclusive. I'm not OCd and most of my work is coming in valid. Wonder if it is just luck of the draw or something of mine going bad? I'll keep an eye on my pendings to see if many more of them go inconclusive. Cause I OCing my GPU I trying to look on results regularly - now 1 inconclusive per 2 pages of results approx. All that I noticed in "definitive" state was failures of wingmans. Sometimes I meet CUDA wingman that totally broken. Unfortunately, current "quota" politics allows such host continue to trash results always w/o reducing its quota (so user can just not know what going on with his GPU and only wonder why RAC is so low).
	ID: 891069 ·

Stick Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 26 Feb 00 Posts: 70 Credit: 1,210,681 RAC: 1,315	Message 891178 - Posted: 4 May 2009, 14:29:25 UTC
	http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=435875813 The above AP workunit now has 3 "inconclusive" results (mine was the 3rd one). Anyone care to bet on whether the 4th will settle anything? ____________
	ID: 891178 ·

MontagsMeeting Send message Joined: 16 Aug 99 Posts: 114 Credit: 6,351,033 RAC: 613	Message 891192 - Posted: 4 May 2009, 14:59:21 UTC
	I think it's very interesting as it looks like there are two stock apps that don't validate against each other.
	ID: 891192 ·

1 · 2 · 3 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : Validation inconclusive