Inconclusive Work Units Running AP Ver 6


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Number crunching : Inconclusive Work Units Running AP Ver 6

Previous · 1 . . . 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · Next
Author Message
WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8630
Credit: 23,728,964
RAC: 19,326
United Kingdom
Message 1233480 - Posted: 19 May 2012, 15:47:41 UTC - in response to Message 1233438.

Just got one, my computer reported minutes ago.

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=975800759

So yours is the one with Jason's r557,
yes
against stock? Need to keep an eye on the final outcome of that one.
Will do. Don't think I am going anywhere in the next two weeks, after that not sure yet, waiting for confirmation of scheduled meeting down south, but don't think other party is ready yet.

Profile perryjay
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Aug 02
Posts: 3377
Credit: 15,324,526
RAC: 11,633
United States
Message 1233571 - Posted: 19 May 2012, 19:31:56 UTC

Here's another from me... http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=991437515
____________


PROUD MEMBER OF Team Starfire World BOINC

WinterKnight
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 8630
Credit: 23,728,964
RAC: 19,326
United Kingdom
Message 1235457 - Posted: 23 May 2012, 15:17:50 UTC - in response to Message 1233480.

Just got one, my computer reported minutes ago.

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=975800759

So yours is the one with Jason's r557,
yes
against stock? Need to keep an eye on the final outcome of that one.
Will do. Don't think I am going anywhere in the next two weeks, after that not sure yet, waiting for confirmation of scheduled meeting down south, but don't think other party is ready yet.

That task must have validated, as it no longer on the task list. It was there just before maintenance, but not there now. But I have zero invalid or errors.

Josef W. SegurProject donor
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 30 Oct 99
Posts: 4230
Credit: 1,042,929
RAC: 318
United States
Message 1235464 - Posted: 23 May 2012, 15:41:49 UTC - in response to Message 1235457.

Just got one, my computer reported minutes ago.

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=975800759

So yours is the one with Jason's r557,
yes
against stock? Need to keep an eye on the final outcome of that one.
Will do. Don't think I am going anywhere in the next two weeks, after that not sure yet, waiting for confirmation of scheduled meeting down south, but don't think other party is ready yet.

That task must have validated, as it no longer on the task list. It was there just before maintenance, but not there now. But I have zero invalid or errors.

I did download and run an offline check on that, just one of the 30 repetitive pulses was questionable, so a weakly similar credit grant was certain. The Lunatics FFA code is vectorized while stock isn't, so there will always be some very small differences leading to occasional disagreement.
Joe

JohnDKProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 28 May 00
Posts: 840
Credit: 43,037,389
RAC: 74,498
Denmark
Message 1235476 - Posted: 23 May 2012, 16:05:43 UTC

I have one, Linux stock vs r1305

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=986876189

Urs EchternachtProject donor
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 540
Credit: 51,132,805
RAC: 5,683
Germany
Message 1235757 - Posted: 24 May 2012, 9:22:02 UTC - in response to Message 1235476.

I have one, Linux stock vs r1305

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=986876189

Your link points at a wu done by two stock OSX and one NV opencl wingcrew. Is the link correct ?
____________
_\|/_
U r s

JohnDKProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 28 May 00
Posts: 840
Credit: 43,037,389
RAC: 74,498
Denmark
Message 1235772 - Posted: 24 May 2012, 11:22:15 UTC - in response to Message 1235757.

I have one, Linux stock vs r1305

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=986876189

Your link points at a wu done by two stock OSX and one NV opencl wingcrew. Is the link correct ?

Yes, thought it was Linux but it may be OSX.

StickProject donor
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 26 Feb 00
Posts: 84
Credit: 1,676,097
RAC: 721
United States
Message 1242123 - Posted: 6 Jun 2012, 11:26:53 UTC

Another one: wuid=999173464
____________

Josef W. SegurProject donor
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 30 Oct 99
Posts: 4230
Credit: 1,042,929
RAC: 318
United States
Message 1242234 - Posted: 6 Jun 2012, 15:02:30 UTC - in response to Message 1242123.

Another one: wuid=999173464

That's fairly unusual:

single pulses: 30 repetitive pulses: 1

I'll run an offline test on it, most likely there really are many single pulses but even CPU processing can sometimes glitch and manufacture false pulses.
Joe

StickProject donor
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 26 Feb 00
Posts: 84
Credit: 1,676,097
RAC: 721
United States
Message 1243116 - Posted: 7 Jun 2012, 23:40:08 UTC - in response to Message 1242234.

Another one: wuid=999173464

That's fairly unusual:

single pulses: 30 repetitive pulses: 1

I'll run an offline test on it, most likely there really are many single pulses but even CPU processing can sometimes glitch and manufacture false pulses.
Joe


The 3rd task has reported and, surprisingly, all three validated/received credit.
____________

Josef W. SegurProject donor
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 30 Oct 99
Posts: 4230
Credit: 1,042,929
RAC: 318
United States
Message 1243131 - Posted: 8 Jun 2012, 0:49:13 UTC - in response to Message 1243116.

Another one: wuid=999173464

That's fairly unusual:

single pulses: 30 repetitive pulses: 1

I'll run an offline test on it, most likely there really are many single pulses but even CPU processing can sometimes glitch and manufacture false pulses.
Joe


The 3rd task has reported and, surprisingly, all three validated/received credit.

Not really surprising, the more signals there are the more likely for a very small difference in calculations to make a difference. My offline run with ap_6.01r557_SSE2_331_AVX.exe finished and found the 30 single and 1 repetitive pulses, the run with stock 6.01 is at about 57% progress and has found 14 single and 1 repetitive all of which match very closely. It should finish about when I get up tomorrow, then I'll check in detail.
Joe

Sirius B
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 10923
Credit: 1,591,037
RAC: 2,681
Israel
Message 1243331 - Posted: 8 Jun 2012, 15:41:44 UTC
Last modified: 8 Jun 2012, 15:42:28 UTC

scrub this..looked at wrong list.. apologies.
____________

Josef W. SegurProject donor
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 30 Oct 99
Posts: 4230
Credit: 1,042,929
RAC: 318
United States
Message 1243384 - Posted: 8 Jun 2012, 17:26:55 UTC - in response to Message 1243131.

Another one: wuid=999173464

That's fairly unusual:

single pulses: 30 repetitive pulses: 1

I'll run an offline test on it, most likely there really are many single pulses but even CPU processing can sometimes glitch and manufacture false pulses.
Joe

The 3rd task has reported and, surprisingly, all three validated/received credit.

Not really surprising, the more signals there are the more likely for a very small difference in calculations to make a difference. My offline run with ap_6.01r557_SSE2_331_AVX.exe finished and found the 30 single and 1 repetitive pulses, the run with stock 6.01 is at about 57% progress and has found 14 single and 1 repetitive all of which match very closely. It should finish about when I get up tomorrow, then I'll check in detail.
Joe

As it turned out, the stock app's 26th single pulse was only 0.0036% above threshold, and r557 must have calculated it as just below threshold so didn't report it. That wouldn't directly affect validation because only single pulses which are at least 1% above threshold are considered, but indirectly it meant that the 30th single pulse from stock was only the 29th for r557. So r557 actually analyzed that pulse better, stock quit when it first got above threshold by 0.27% but r557 found it was stronger at a higher dispersion and reported it as about 3% above threshold. The Validator calls that a mismatch since it only considers the r557 version. There was another mismatch because r557's 30th single pulse was 3.25% above threshold so also included in the Validator's checking, so two of the pulses checked from the r557 result weren't found in the stock result. Still, in terms of how the Validator works, 27 of 29 checked signals did match so the r557 result was granted credit as being "weakly similar".
Joe

StickProject donor
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 26 Feb 00
Posts: 84
Credit: 1,676,097
RAC: 721
United States
Message 1243460 - Posted: 8 Jun 2012, 19:22:01 UTC - in response to Message 1243384.

Joe,
Thank you for the explanation!
Stick

As it turned out, the stock app's 26th single pulse was only 0.0036% above threshold, and r557 must have calculated it as just below threshold so didn't report it. That wouldn't directly affect validation because only single pulses which are at least 1% above threshold are considered, but indirectly it meant that the 30th single pulse from stock was only the 29th for r557. So r557 actually analyzed that pulse better, stock quit when it first got above threshold by 0.27% but r557 found it was stronger at a higher dispersion and reported it as about 3% above threshold. The Validator calls that a mismatch since it only considers the r557 version. There was another mismatch because r557's 30th single pulse was 3.25% above threshold so also included in the Validator's checking, so two of the pulses checked from the r557 result weren't found in the stock result. Still, in terms of how the Validator works, 27 of 29 checked signals did match so the r557 result was granted credit as being "weakly similar".
Joe


____________

Profile Fred E.Project donor
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 22 Jul 99
Posts: 768
Credit: 24,139,004
RAC: 233
United States
Message 1243463 - Posted: 8 Jun 2012, 19:35:10 UTC

Not sure if you're still looking for these, but I have one:

workunit 986977542


Josef W. SegurProject donor
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 30 Oct 99
Posts: 4230
Credit: 1,042,929
RAC: 318
United States
Message 1243622 - Posted: 9 Jun 2012, 2:40:06 UTC - in response to Message 1243463.

Not sure if you're still looking for these, but I have one:

workunit 986977542

If it were practical, we'd analyze all cases of inconclusive results from Lunatics apps. There's too little time and/or equipment for that, but I'll check this one too on general principles. Should be done sometime Sunday. The WU may well be resoved before then and I expect as usual all completed tasks will get credit, but there's always the possibility analysis will point to some lurking bug.
Joe

Profile perryjay
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 20 Aug 02
Posts: 3377
Credit: 15,324,526
RAC: 11,633
United States
Message 1244135 - Posted: 9 Jun 2012, 22:11:12 UTC

Here's one from me too...
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=997551999
____________


PROUD MEMBER OF Team Starfire World BOINC

Josef W. SegurProject donor
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 30 Oct 99
Posts: 4230
Credit: 1,042,929
RAC: 318
United States
Message 1244861 - Posted: 12 Jun 2012, 2:56:37 UTC - in response to Message 1243622.

Not sure if you're still looking for these, but I have one:

workunit 986977542

If it were practical, we'd analyze all cases of inconclusive results from Lunatics apps. There's too little time and/or equipment for that, but I'll check this one too on general principles. Should be done sometime Sunday. The WU may well be resoved before then and I expect as usual all completed tasks will get credit, but there's always the possibility analysis will point to some lurking bug.
Joe

That one turned out to be simple to analyze, the stock app found one more repetitive pulse than optimized. The peak power was 5170.0068359375 and the threshold 5170 (FFA thresholds are truncated to integer values). So it's just one of the inevitable cases where a tiny difference in calculation is enough to cause an inconclusive validation.
Joe

fataldog187
Send message
Joined: 4 Nov 02
Posts: 42
Credit: 1,271,261
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1244993 - Posted: 12 Jun 2012, 10:16:17 UTC

I couldn't read the whole thread but...

I have 3 APv6 with 30 repetitive pulses that are inconclusive
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=997100145
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=1008642492
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=1007059107

And one was marked invalid after being sent to a 3rd wingman
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=1005838187

There are also two others with 30 repetitive pulses that are awaiting validation, and these are all out of only 8 that are listed with AstroPulse v6 Anonymous platform, something seems a little glitchy
____________

Josef W. SegurProject donor
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 30 Oct 99
Posts: 4230
Credit: 1,042,929
RAC: 318
United States
Message 1245088 - Posted: 12 Jun 2012, 15:39:24 UTC - in response to Message 1244993.

I couldn't read the whole thread but...

I have 3 APv6 with 30 repetitive pulses that are inconclusive
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=997100145
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=1008642492
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=1007059107

And one was marked invalid after being sent to a 3rd wingman
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=1005838187

There are also two others with 30 repetitive pulses that are awaiting validation, and these are all out of only 8 that are listed with AstroPulse v6 Anonymous platform, something seems a little glitchy

Although the r555 ATi OpenCL application has been reliable on most systems, there are exceptions. You might be able to stabilize processing by tuning voltages, clock rates, or command line parameters.
Joe

Previous · 1 . . . 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : Inconclusive Work Units Running AP Ver 6

Copyright © 2014 University of California