surprising validation. Surprising Invalid


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Number crunching : surprising validation. Surprising Invalid

Author Message
Profile David Anderson (not *that* DA)Project donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 Dec 09
Posts: 108
Credit: 23,155,345
RAC: 5,438
United States
Message 1384312 - Posted: 24 Jun 2013, 18:19:52 UTC

Workunit 1251297698 seemingly makes a surprising choice of what to validate
and what to mark Invalid. I actually don't know how things
are supposed to work, so this could be ok. Just surprised.

Tasks 3010746740 and 3010746741 validated though they gave an error.
3011108564 and 3011301483 declared Invalid though they seemed
to run ok. The only computer (in the group
of 4 computers involved here) with a poor Valid record is 6142175
so perhaps that contributed to the somewhat surprising validation
decision. My computer in this group is 5766757.

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=1251297698

Not worried about credit.
I'm wondering if this is one of those cases where fails get marked
as ok for what we humans might think is a bad reason.
Worried just a little about bad machines causing problems for the science.

Profile Donald L. JohnsonProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 Aug 02
Posts: 6262
Credit: 738,967
RAC: 1,159
United States
Message 1384433 - Posted: 25 Jun 2013, 3:35:54 UTC - in response to Message 1384312.

Workunit 1251297698 seemingly makes a surprising choice of what to validate
and what to mark Invalid. I actually don't know how things
are supposed to work, so this could be ok. Just surprised.

Tasks 3010746740 and 3010746741 validated though they gave an error.
3011108564 and 3011301483 declared Invalid though they seemed
to run ok. The only computer (in the group
of 4 computers involved here) with a poor Valid record is 6142175
so perhaps that contributed to the somewhat surprising validation
decision. My computer in this group is 5766757.

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=1251297698

Not worried about credit.
I'm wondering if this is one of those cases where fails get marked
as ok for what we humans might think is a bad reason.
Worried just a little about bad machines causing problems for the science.

Not seeing the WorkUnit on your Status page, may have been deleted already.
Eric mentioned here that he had a script running to clean up some v6 problems, maybe that's what happened to you.
____________
Donald
Infernal Optimist / Submariner, retired

Profile David Anderson (not *that* DA)Project donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 Dec 09
Posts: 108
Credit: 23,155,345
RAC: 5,438
United States
Message 1384437 - Posted: 25 Jun 2013, 3:58:25 UTC

Aha. As you say Donald, the WU is gone from the WU
records now. I had not imagined this WU might be one
of the things Eric was referring to!

Happy Seti Computing!

Profile Wiggo
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 24 Jan 00
Posts: 7355
Credit: 96,876,854
RAC: 66,533
Australia
Message 1384453 - Posted: 25 Jun 2013, 5:09:49 UTC - in response to Message 1384437.

It was interesting the way it paid the errored work instead of the valid 1's.

Cheers.

Profile Donald L. JohnsonProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 5 Aug 02
Posts: 6262
Credit: 738,967
RAC: 1,159
United States
Message 1384563 - Posted: 25 Jun 2013, 15:10:35 UTC - in response to Message 1384453.

It was interesting the way it paid the errored work instead of the valid 1's.

Cheers.

Yes, that was brought to Eric's atention. I've seen it on v7 tasks, too, mostly on wingmen with GPU errors. That may also put some bad results into the Science databases. Maybe they can go back and scan the Science databases for late v6 and early v7 results with error flags and cull tehm out and resent them......
____________
Donald
Infernal Optimist / Submariner, retired

Ulrich Metzner
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 3 Jul 02
Posts: 993
Credit: 8,753,618
RAC: 10,522
Germany
Message 1385798 - Posted: 29 Jun 2013, 13:47:08 UTC

Have a look at this WU:
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=1255321058
My computer was "stupid enough" to crunch it and a nvidia gpu trashed the wu completely.
Nonetheless both got (albeit low) credit and another instance is waiting to get back to the server... :?
____________
Aloha, Uli

Josef W. SegurProject donor
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 30 Oct 99
Posts: 4305
Credit: 1,073,325
RAC: 1,209
United States
Message 1385810 - Posted: 29 Jun 2013, 15:17:06 UTC - in response to Message 1385798.

Have a look at this WU:
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=1255321058
My computer was "stupid enough" to crunch it and a nvidia gpu trashed the wu completely.
Nonetheless both got (albeit low) credit and another instance is waiting to get back to the server... :?

A credit granting script was run which changes the Status to "Completed and validated" even though the GPU result was an error. That was meant to pay hosts which errored due to the unversioned cufft.dll and cudart.dll problem, but it also pays for other kinds of error.

Because validation has not actually been done there's no canonical result. When that P4 system returns its stock 6.03 result the Validator will check it against yours and they should match. The P4 has a good consecutive valid count but a turnaround time of ~22 days.
Joe

Profile Wiggo
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 24 Jan 00
Posts: 7355
Credit: 96,876,854
RAC: 66,533
Australia
Message 1386211 - Posted: 30 Jun 2013, 20:49:55 UTC - in response to Message 1385810.

Here's 1 that I got, http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=1253391435, the valid work was mark invalid and the invalid returns get paid. :-(

Cheers.

Message boards : Number crunching : surprising validation. Surprising Invalid

Copyright © 2014 University of California