Message boards :
Number crunching :
You might want to check this one Again...
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
TBar Send message Joined: 22 May 99 Posts: 5204 Credit: 840,779,836 RAC: 2,768 |
I have serious doubts about the results of this task... Workunit 1199573476 Task ---- Computer ----------- Sent ----------- Time reported ---------- Status -------- Run time - CPU time - Credit ---- Application 2899037611 4202271 30 Mar 2013, 10:58:09 UTC 30 Mar 2013, 13:12:55 UTC Completed and validated 15.30 11.98 2.39 SETI@home Enhanced Anonymous platform (NVIDIA GPU) 2899037612 6864181 30 Mar 2013, 10:58:15 UTC 31 Mar 2013, 2:05:58 UTC Completed, marked as invalid 1,415.40 100.99 0.00 SETI@home Enhanced Anonymous platform (NVIDIA GPU) 2900744232 6829067 31 Mar 2013, 5:49:03 UTC 4 Apr 2013, 14:03:02 UTC Completed, marked as invalid 10,004.00 9,842.60 0.00 SETI@home Enhanced v6.03 2904766778 6680152 4 Apr 2013, 19:45:26 UTC 5 Apr 2013, 5:25:27 UTC Completed and validated 49.10 12.54 2.39 SETI@home Enhanced Anonymous platform (NVIDIA GPU) The two validating computers don't have a very good history. |
betreger Send message Joined: 29 Jun 99 Posts: 11361 Credit: 29,581,041 RAC: 66 |
I wonder why people are so sloppy as to run machines like that. That of course does not say that your specific result was not bad, but they are producing a lot of garbage. |
TBar Send message Joined: 22 May 99 Posts: 5204 Credit: 840,779,836 RAC: 2,768 |
I wonder why people are so sloppy as to run machines like that. My results match the CPU results. Even the Host with the CPU results has problems with his GPU, but, I kinda trust his CPU. |
Wiggo Send message Joined: 24 Jan 00 Posts: 34841 Credit: 261,360,520 RAC: 489 |
Ah yes those pair, this was bound to happen sooner or later (just like the old v12 days all over again). I've sent these 2 guys so many PM's over the last year about their unstable rigs that it's far from a joke now. :-( Cheers. |
Grant (SSSF) Send message Joined: 19 Aug 99 Posts: 13746 Credit: 208,696,464 RAC: 304 |
I've sent these 2 guys so many PM's over the last year about their unstable rigs that it's far from a joke now. :-( The problem is most people don't come to the forums, and many of those that do probably aren't even aware of PMs. In the community preferences it has the option to be notified by PMs to the users email address (either for each PM or one email daily). It might be worth the team considering changing the default to Notify by email, and even changing all the current settings to that. Send a PM to each person (over several days) advising them of the change, and how to change it back. It would then allow people to send PMs to those with problem systems, and they would at least be notified they have a message even if they choose not to look at it. The only other option is for a Mod or Admin that is able to view email addresses to send or forward messages to each problem user individually. Grant Darwin NT |
Dimly Lit Lightbulb 😀 Send message Joined: 30 Aug 08 Posts: 15399 Credit: 7,423,413 RAC: 1 |
I've sent these 2 guys so many PM's over the last year about their unstable rigs that it's far from a joke now. :-( No none here can see any e-mail address, you'll have to send a PM and hope it's someone who watches such things, takes your advice and then corrects it. Although experience says at least nine times out of ten it'll be ignored, sadly. [EDIT]Discussion of Invalid Host Messaging thread bumped[/EDIT] Member of the People Encouraging Niceness In Society club. |
Grant (SSSF) Send message Joined: 19 Aug 99 Posts: 13746 Credit: 208,696,464 RAC: 304 |
The only other option is for a Mod or Admin that is able to view email addresses to send or forward messages to each problem user individually. So only the forum admin can access that information. They could set it so all mods are able to, or they could set it so one particular mod can do so, or they'd be the one to pass on such messages. Otherwise things stay as they are- systems pumpimg out rubbish continuously because their owns never check on them. Grant Darwin NT |
Horacio Send message Joined: 14 Jan 00 Posts: 536 Credit: 75,967,266 RAC: 0 |
But even if someone were able to send them an email or any other kind of message, there is no warranty that they will fix it... It was discussed a lot of times that the way in which BOINC handles errors is too permisive and that the real fix is to change that so it can effectively cut down the amount of task sent to those hosts... |
Grant (SSSF) Send message Joined: 19 Aug 99 Posts: 13746 Credit: 208,696,464 RAC: 304 |
But even if someone were able to send them an email or any other kind of message, there is no warranty that they will fix it... Nope. But no one will fix something if they don't know it's broken. If they know, then there's a chance. Grant Darwin NT |
Horacio Send message Joined: 14 Jan 00 Posts: 536 Credit: 75,967,266 RAC: 0 |
But no one will fix something if they don't know it's broken. If they know, then there's a chance. That's true, but I think that they (BOINC/Projects) dont't want people freaking out on paranoia about their personal data beeing made available... |
TBar Send message Joined: 22 May 99 Posts: 5204 Credit: 840,779,836 RAC: 2,768 |
Something that would work in this instance would be a simple script that precludes sending a tie-breaker to Hosts with over a set number of invalids. That might prevent the broken clock from being correct twice a day... |
Cosmic_Ocean Send message Joined: 23 Dec 00 Posts: 3027 Credit: 13,516,867 RAC: 13 |
I haven't had many "error" WUs myself over the years (I think I've had maybe 10 in total?). I have noticed that the "maximum per day" does reset back to 100 if you were anywhere over 100, and it is supposed to cut in half for every consecutive error, down to 1. By those rules.. if you were at say.. 1500/day and one became an error, you are down to 100. The next one is valid, so you are at 101. Next one is an error, and you're at 100 again, etc. I'm thinking that should be reduced to something smaller to keep runaway machines from going rampant. Something like 10 or 25 should do. If your machine does good work and just had one bad WU, then you won't have a problem rebuilding back up to a decent number again. If your machine is a runaway, then it won't have a detrimental effect on the overall science. Linux laptop: record uptime: 1511d 20h 19m (ended due to the power brick giving-up) |
Terror Australis Send message Joined: 14 Feb 04 Posts: 1817 Credit: 262,693,308 RAC: 44 |
This problem runs all the way up to the top rigs. 6656656 which is currently number 8 on the RAC scoreboard has a crook GTX580 that has been producing bad results for months. I've PM'ed the owner a couple of times but nothing has been done about it. T.A. |
Wiggo Send message Joined: 24 Jan 00 Posts: 34841 Credit: 261,360,520 RAC: 489 |
This problem runs all the way up to the top rigs. 6656656 which is currently number 8 on the RAC scoreboard has a crook GTX580 that has been producing bad results for months. I've PM'ed the owner a couple of times but nothing has been done about it. Yes, that is another one but at least it's not as bad as it use to be. Cheers. |
Horacio Send message Joined: 14 Jan 00 Posts: 536 Credit: 75,967,266 RAC: 0 |
The way it works is more complex than that, it takes into account the basic quota, the success or error outcome (how was it reported: normally finished or as a computation error) and the validation outcome (after compairing the different results of wingmen) Given this project's setting of 100 for daily_result_quota:(quoted from a post by Josef Segur in this thread) Some of my hosts have currently a daily quota of more than a thousand, if one of them start to fail only on the validation then it will take a lot of time to get the quota reduced specially because they will have a lot of previous tasks that are going to succeed on validation (rising the quota) while the invalids will need a 3rd wingman and are going to take more time to get the invalid mark... As it is, it works for avoiding seriuos hardware issues, but not to effectively throttle subtle errors... |
andybutt Send message Joined: 18 Mar 03 Posts: 262 Credit: 164,205,187 RAC: 516 |
TA Sorry but I have only received the one PM this morning. I know the card is playing up a little and have been playing around with it to see if it was something i'd changed but to no avail. Just off to the computer store to get a new card so should be replaced today. Andy |
Terror Australis Send message Joined: 14 Feb 04 Posts: 1817 Credit: 262,693,308 RAC: 44 |
TA Thanks Andy. I've seen that rig with over 1000 invalid tasks and 1500 inconclusives which was a worry. The only gripe I have is that now you're going to get further ahead of me :) T.A. |
andybutt Send message Joined: 18 Mar 03 Posts: 262 Credit: 164,205,187 RAC: 516 |
TA I don't remember being anywhere near that high! Just ordered two more 690's, should be here Monday Andy |
Terror Australis Send message Joined: 14 Feb 04 Posts: 1817 Credit: 262,693,308 RAC: 44 |
It was few months ago. Before the last couple of extended outages. T.A. |
Floyd Send message Joined: 19 May 11 Posts: 524 Credit: 1,870,625 RAC: 0 |
I haven't had many "error" WUs myself over the years (I think I've had maybe 10 in total?). I have noticed that the "maximum per day" does reset back to 100 if you were anywhere over 100, and it is supposed to cut in half for every consecutive error, down to 1. Well there has been a bit of an unknown issue of abandoned tasks , by boinc or the seti servers , that show up as errors , that shouldn't effect our max per day quota , as it doesn't seem to be caused by anything our machines have done . As shown in the abandoned tasks thread : http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=70946 |
©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.