Rogue 560 Ti's |
![]() |
| log in |
Message boards : Number crunching : Rogue 560 Ti's
1 · 2 · Next
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
Now that we have a "Validation Inconclusive" tag on our results pages, it it making it easier to track down machines that are producing large numbers of invalid results or errors. | |
| ID: 1297435 · | |
|
Not sure however several iterations ago the optimization app fixed this issue with 560ti's totally. | |
| ID: 1297436 · | |
Not sure however several iterations ago the optimization app fixed this issue with 560ti's totally. Have the copyright issues with the Lunatics Optimized Apps been resolved? Can't ask 560TI users to upgrade to Opt. Apps. when they are not available to download. ____________ Donald Infernal Optimist / Submariner, retired | |
| ID: 1297448 · | |
Not sure however several iterations ago the optimization app fixed this issue with 560ti's totally. We should have a resolution on that soon. (I know that's vague as heck, sorry) ____________ Executive Director GPU Users Group Inc. - brad@gpuug.org | |
| ID: 1297449 · | |
Now that we have a "Validation Inconclusive" tag on our results pages, it it making it easier to track down machines that are producing large numbers of invalid results or errors. It has improved though since the "Sleepy driver" problem, coupled with them was a real nightmare not long back. Cheers. ____________ | |
| ID: 1297456 · | |
|
I have to agree with Mark. Stop sending them tasks. It shows up you have what ever GPU card running with such and such driver. Seems it wouldnt be to hard to shut down the rogues turning in junk. I plan on using a 560Ti but not untill I get the new updates from lunatics.( When they resolve the legal issues ) And you can bet I sure will keep an eye on that card also. And as an open invitation if it starts messing up please feel free to PM and tell me. | |
| ID: 1297636 · | |
|
Work should not be distributed to machines with a | |
| ID: 1297658 · | |
Work should not be distributed to machines with a The server code only recognizes tasks that error out as 'Errors', while tasks that fail validation at a later date (could be up to a month or two after the task is submitted) aren't counted as 'Errors'. ____________ Donate with your searches and online buys: http://www.goodsearch.com/toolbar/university-of-california-setihome | |
| ID: 1297769 · | |
|
ouch ... just noticed another wave of inconclusive ... a quick look at the wingmen ... gtx 560 ti .... | |
| ID: 1297771 · | |
I have to agree with Mark. Stop sending them tasks. It shows up you have what ever GPU card running with such and such driver. Seems it wouldnt be to hard to shut down the rogues turning in junk. I plan on using a 560Ti but not untill I get the new updates from lunatics.( When they resolve the legal issues ) And you can bet I sure will keep an eye on that card also. And as an open invitation if it starts messing up please feel free to PM and tell me. It'll have to be a clever system to avoid involuntarily shutting down someone. It'll also need a mechanism to start sending tasks (like we already do w/ # of valids = # of tasks sent) once they get their machine back working properly. One way it'll need to be clever is for people who do stupid stuff like me. I was testing an Op App that was in Beta and typo'd one component and auto errored out thousands of tasks. While that sucks for everyone involved it wasn't indicative of a broken machine, just a stupid user. ____________ Executive Director GPU Users Group Inc. - brad@gpuug.org | |
| ID: 1297773 · | |
|
The thing with the server side fix, which has been pointed out before and I've seen in action, is that once a person is blocked/restricted then they can just detach and then re-attach which just resets their corruption again with a new PC ID. | |
| ID: 1297818 · | |
The thing with the server side fix, which has been pointed out before and I've seen in action, is that once a person is blocked/restricted then they can just detach and then re-attach which just resets their corruption again with a new PC ID. Well thats just malicious and a reasonable justification for banning. | |
| ID: 1297821 · | |
The thing with the server side fix, which has been pointed out before and I've seen in action, is that once a person is blocked/restricted then they can just detach and then re-attach which just resets their corruption again with a new PC ID. And how are you suppose to ban someone when I just pointed out the way that they are getting around it? I don't want them banned, I want them fixed, and that is why I'll keep sending out PM's. Cheers. ____________ | |
| ID: 1297830 · | |
ouch ... just noticed another wave of inconclusive ... a quick look at the wingmen ... gtx 560 ti .... It's "kind of" being tracked in the "Validation Inconclusive" thread. Maybe you could post this in there. T.A. | |
| ID: 1297871 · | |
The thing with the server side fix, which has been pointed out before and I've seen in action, is that once a person is blocked/restricted then they can just detach and then re-attach which just resets their corruption again with a new PC ID. Hopefully, if they are savvy enough to do that they are probably savvy enough to sort out their computer before they re-attach. T.A. | |
| ID: 1297873 · | |
ouch ... just noticed another wave of inconclusive ... a quick look at the wingmen ... gtx 560 ti .... Fancy starting up a new thread where we can track folks and try to get them some PC help? ____________ Executive Director GPU Users Group Inc. - brad@gpuug.org | |
| ID: 1297880 · | |
|
One of my wingmen, DG71, has | |
| ID: 1297904 · | |
Message boards : Number crunching : Rogue 560 Ti's
| Copyright © 2013 University of California |