Message boards :
Number crunching :
surprising validation. Surprising Invalid
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
David Anderson (not *that* DA) Send message Joined: 5 Dec 09 Posts: 215 Credit: 74,008,558 RAC: 74 |
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. |
Donald L. Johnson Send message Joined: 5 Aug 02 Posts: 8240 Credit: 14,654,533 RAC: 20 |
Workunit 1251297698 seemingly makes a surprising choice of what to validate 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 |
David Anderson (not *that* DA) Send message Joined: 5 Dec 09 Posts: 215 Credit: 74,008,558 RAC: 74 |
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! |
Wiggo Send message Joined: 24 Jan 00 Posts: 34744 Credit: 261,360,520 RAC: 489 |
It was interesting the way it paid the errored work instead of the valid 1's. Cheers. |
Donald L. Johnson Send message Joined: 5 Aug 02 Posts: 8240 Credit: 14,654,533 RAC: 20 |
It was interesting the way it paid the errored work instead of the valid 1's. 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 Send message Joined: 3 Jul 02 Posts: 1256 Credit: 13,565,513 RAC: 13 |
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. Segur Send message Joined: 30 Oct 99 Posts: 4504 Credit: 1,414,761 RAC: 0 |
Have a look at this WU: 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 |
Wiggo Send message Joined: 24 Jan 00 Posts: 34744 Credit: 261,360,520 RAC: 489 |
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. |
©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.