Message boards :
Number crunching :
This is not fair
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
William Send message Joined: 14 Feb 13 Posts: 2037 Credit: 17,689,662 RAC: 0 |
Oh dear, that looks like the new Brook app is having problems. One for Raistmer. Yes, dear, I saw Eric's posts. You may wish to note that I posted that before Eric found the files were damaged. :P A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. (Mark Twain) |
TBar Send message Joined: 22 May 99 Posts: 5204 Credit: 840,779,836 RAC: 2,768 |
Is it safe to allow new tasks yet? When I saw all those 'problem' work units headed my way I just hit No New Tasks to wait out the storm. No sense in running a task when there were already 6 errors in the unit. BTW, I'm seeing a couple of these cal_ati tasks return a 'repetitive pulses: 30' when the wingperson reports much less. The GPU has proven itself with many completed OpenCL tasks, so, I don't think it's the card. The only thing I can think of is there might be a problem running more than 1 cal task at a time. single pulses: 0 repetitive pulses: 30 percent blanked: 80.95 |
kittyman Send message Joined: 9 Jul 00 Posts: 51468 Credit: 1,018,363,574 RAC: 1,004 |
Eric sent me a message about 9 hours ago, whilst I was away at work. At that time, he said new versions were being sent out. He asked that we monitor the error situation and I should let him know how it goes. If there are still too many errors, he will pull the new versions. I will monitor this thread for your reports. Thanks and meow. "Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster |
terencewee* Send message Joined: 10 Oct 09 Posts: 53 Credit: 7,022,510 RAC: 0 |
Encountering similar problem, so far 2 completed but can't validate. You are correct. Most (ati_opencl_100) errors caused by old drivers and we know (cal_ati) errors are due to corrupt brook dll (fixing). Please take a look at this WU: 1266476872 Specifically Host:5335631. Coprocessors AMD ATI Radeon HD5800 series (Cypress) (1024MB) driver: 1.4.1385 <core_client_version>6.10.18</core_client_version> <![CDATA[ <message> - exit code -1073741515 (0xc0000135) </message> ]]> EDIT: An outlier as it's having computing errors, when using >1.4.1016. Maybe it is time someone more knowledgeable put together a minimum system requirement to run AP-Opencl-ATI (and other apps)? e.g. Min BOINC version, min device spec & min driver version A sticky post in News/Number Crunching will help answer most "Why don't I get <insert-plan-class> tasks?". This will also ease troubleshooting (most) help-request cases. Clear/defined scheduler rules should help tremendously at the server-end, user-end and support-end. terencewee* Sicituradastra. |
Tim Send message Joined: 19 May 99 Posts: 211 Credit: 278,575,259 RAC: 0 |
I think Host:5335631 is a ‘’set and forget machine’’. That’s why he is using boinc version 6.10.18. But yes, minimum system requirement is a good idea. Tim |
Grant (SSSF) Send message Joined: 19 Aug 99 Posts: 13720 Credit: 208,696,464 RAC: 304 |
I think Host:5335631 is a ‘’set and forget machine’’. A lot of people chose to stay with v6 due to the some of the more annoying things about v7. I only recently upgraded from v6 to v7. Not sure i'll ever get used to the layout of v7. Grant Darwin NT |
Richard Haselgrove Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 14649 Credit: 200,643,578 RAC: 874 |
exit code -1073741515 (0xc0000135) is a missing DLL problem - but it doesn't tell you which DLL. |
Tim Send message Joined: 19 May 99 Posts: 211 Credit: 278,575,259 RAC: 0 |
It is like that at the beginning, but when you go to v7, you will see that it is very good. Yes there are some minor thinks, but you will use to it. I am using it almost from the beginning, and if you tell me now go back to v6, I will say a big NO. Tim |
tullio Send message Joined: 9 Apr 04 Posts: 8797 Credit: 2,930,782 RAC: 1 |
I am still using BOINC 6.10.58 on my Linux boxes. SETI@home V7 and AP 6.01 by Lunatics run flawlessly. Same for other 5 BOINC projects. Tullio |
Tim Send message Joined: 19 May 99 Posts: 211 Credit: 278,575,259 RAC: 0 |
I am still using BOINC 6.10.58 on my Linux boxes. SETI@home V7 and AP 6.01 by Lunatics run flawlessly. Same for other 5 BOINC projects. How can you say that? You have 1 in progress a and 2 pendings at your machines. But when you have a big amount of wu’s like me, eventually the problem will appear. Tim |
kittyman Send message Joined: 9 Jul 00 Posts: 51468 Credit: 1,018,363,574 RAC: 1,004 |
Well.... Just got word from Eric that the revised edition of the cal_ati apps did not fare too much better than the first. So they have been disabled as well. In addition he adds..."The fix may get complicated." So, I would not look for those apps to be reactivated any time real soon. Back to the drawing board, I guess. "Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster |
TBar Send message Joined: 22 May 99 Posts: 5204 Credit: 840,779,836 RAC: 2,768 |
Well.... This may not be a bad thing. After my initial success with Brook+ all my completions, while running 2 at a time, are giving 'repetitive pulses: 30'. Too Bad really. I was getting run times of around 35k with r557, and around 30k with Brook+. Some are much less than 30k, that's a nice speedup...if it worked. Run time: 25,554.97 CPU time: 25,809.73 single pulses: 0 repetitive pulses: 30 percent blanked: 2.98 |
Jeff Buck Send message Joined: 11 Feb 00 Posts: 1441 Credit: 148,764,870 RAC: 0 |
Guess I'll add my 2 cents (or 13,428.89 seconds of wasted run time) to this thread, just for the sake of piling on the evidence: http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=1266538088 This is my very first invalid. Does that count as a milestone? :-( |
bluestar Send message Joined: 5 Sep 12 Posts: 6995 Credit: 2,084,789 RAC: 3 |
Supposedly nVidia is doing this thing a little better... |
Cosmic_Ocean Send message Joined: 23 Dec 00 Posts: 3027 Credit: 13,516,867 RAC: 13 |
Guess I'll add my 2 cents (or 13,428.89 seconds of wasted run time) to this thread, just for the sake of piling on the evidence: And if it even matters for you, that particular error does not reset your "consecutive valid tasks" count over on your application details for that machine. I had an issue similar to that over a year ago where I just got a bad luck WU where my CPU app was the only one that actually ran all the way through it, and I thought for sure my streak of 1700+ consecutive was going to get reset, but it didn't. Linux laptop: record uptime: 1511d 20h 19m (ended due to the power brick giving-up) |
S@NL - John van Gorsel Send message Joined: 5 Jul 99 Posts: 193 Credit: 139,673,078 RAC: 0 |
And here's another one: 1266412592 14 hours of CPU time against 6 ATi's that failed to run this Astropulse task Seti@Netherlands website |
juan BFP Send message Joined: 16 Mar 07 Posts: 9786 Credit: 572,710,851 RAC: 3,799 |
And here's another one: 1266412592 I like to see this WU reproceced by CPU or a NV and see what happens... That´s could be interesting. |
Sakletare Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 132 Credit: 23,423,829 RAC: 0 |
I fear that changing the scheduler so that it spreads problematic units across different platforms requires a fair bit of coding on David's part. Not something easily set in motion. They really should get it fixed. Science/workunits are wasted. ET could be hiding in one of them. |
JohnDK Send message Joined: 28 May 00 Posts: 1222 Credit: 451,243,443 RAC: 1,127 |
I have one, wonder if I'll get credits ;) http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=1266352994 |
BetelgeuseFive Send message Joined: 6 Jul 99 Posts: 158 Credit: 17,117,787 RAC: 19 |
I fear that changing the scheduler so that it spreads problematic units across different platforms requires a fair bit of coding on David's part. Not something easily set in motion. There may be an easier solution. Most of the hosts involved here consistently report errors on GPU tasks. I think the number of tasks sent to these hosts should be limited to 1 (or only a couple) per day (so people have a chance to fix the problem and get tasks again). Right now they get a (single) task, it fails immediately and 5 minutes later they report the task that has the error and get a new task. This means that a single host can still send hundreds of invalid/error tasks every day. Would it be difficult to check if a host (once it has processed a number of tasks) has at least a certain percentage of valid results (during the last say 50 reported tasks) and limit the number of new tasks to a single task (or a couple of tasks) per day ? Most of the information required is already available (I can find it in my host details). Tom |
©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.