1) Questions and Answers : Windows : message new version available for wrong platform (Message 75653) Posted 31 Jan 2005 by Errabee Post: > You should post at pirates so their admin can see it, and if I remember > corrrectly they were doing some test on a mac installer.. > It looked like a BOINC Core Client bug, so I posted it here. But I will post this message at pirates as well.

2) Questions and Answers : Windows : message new version available for wrong platform (Message 75611) Posted 31 Jan 2005 by Errabee Post: I'm running BOINC v4.13 on a Windows XP SP2 machine, and get the following message from Pirates@Home: Pirates@Home - 2005-01-31 12:55:33 - Sending request to scheduler: http://pirates.vassar.edu/cgi-bin/scheduler Pirates@Home - 2005-01-31 12:55:36 - Scheduler RPC to http://pirates.vassar.edu/cgi-bin/scheduler succeeded Pirates@Home - 2005-01-31 12:55:36 - Message from server: A new version (4.38) of the BOINC core client is available from this project's web site. Now I know BOINC v4.19 is out (still waiting to see if this is going to be stable for a while), but v4.38 is for Mac OS X only.

3) Questions and Answers : Windows : Why am I not being credited for this result? (Message 37723) Posted 17 Oct 2004 by Errabee Post: > > > does it. On at least one of his WUs, he returned between (in time) two > > others, his claimed credit was between theirs, and he go none and they > both > > got some. > > The <a> href="http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=10418618">Result[/url] > in question has a Validation State = Invalid > > It means, quite simply that it differed from the other returned results. > > The link that Pascal provided for the <a> href="http://boinc.berkeley.edu/backend_state.php">Validator States[/url] is > quite informative if you care to read it. > > @Ken, Paul and Pascal: Thanks so far for (partially) clearing up this mystery. So, let me get this straight. A canonical result is when several results agree. Because my result is invalid, my result has to differ from the canonical result. But now, the question is: why is it different? I have crunched several wu's that were equal to the canonical result (5000+ S@HII credits) I don't believe that this could be caused by an erroneous computation, because this would reflect in all or at least many wu's. I still think something is wrong with the validator.

4) Questions and Answers : Windows : Why am I not being credited for this result? (Message 37213) Posted 16 Oct 2004 by Errabee Post: > > > The validator was running behind again - See > > > http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/sah/tech_news.php > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry, but your answer is not correct. This result went through the > > validator successfully, but returned zero credit for me, and 26 credit > for the > > other two. > > > > I suspect there is a serious bug in the validator. > > > > Post a link to the WorkUnit results page so we can see and compare > OK, here's the link: http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=2613639 BTW, there are several wu's that behave like this. For instance: http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=2653269 and http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=2653259 For these last two I have been credited, but someone else has not received credit.

5) Questions and Answers : Windows : Why am I not being credited for this result? (Message 37023) Posted 16 Oct 2004 by Errabee Post: > The validator was running behind again - See > http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/sah/tech_news.php > > > I'm sorry, but your answer is not correct. This result went through the validator successfully, but returned zero credit for me, and 26 credit for the other two. I suspect there is a serious bug in the validator.

6) Questions and Answers : Windows : Why am I not being credited for this result? (Message 36854) Posted 15 Oct 2004 by Errabee Post: I absolutely haven't got a clue why I am not being credited for this result. This is already the fifth result for which i have not received any credit. 10418616 26455 30 Sep 2004 5:52:59 UTC 12 Oct 2004 14:02:27 UTC Over Success Done 13,046.25 49.64 26.24 10418617 53509 30 Sep 2004 5:52:06 UTC 1 Oct 2004 13:39:48 UTC Over Success Done 15,468.70 26.24 26.24 10418618 272246 30 Sep 2004 5:52:14 UTC 1 Oct 2004 6:13:22 UTC Over Success Done 10,704.44 40.36 0.00

7) Message boards : Number crunching : Some WU's give no credits? (Message 35993) Posted 13 Oct 2004 by Errabee Post: > The exact boundaries of what that means is also semi-undefined. But, in > general, we have work that creates a "valid" result and will allow the > granting of credit, others that are so bad that no usable science is available > within the result (for example due to RFI - it is defined in the glossary) and > will not result in the granting of credit. > {Some other interesting stuff left out.} > If the quorum cannot be established after a specificed mumber of issues the WU > is no longer issued. WIth the data available to the project they can look at > doing a number of things with WU of this kind ... issue them to identical type > machines to see if that allows a quorum, process the WU on a lab machine to > see the in process work, etc. > > I hope this helps ... > The reason why no credit is given still eludes me. These results have been computed honestly, and if Berkeley can't do science with them, well that's a pity but not a reason to skip giving credits. In fact, as you put it, they DO some science with these wu's: they analyse why a quorum cannot be established, so that they can specify to which kind of machine these results should be sent in order to receive a scientifically meaningful result. Just my 2 cts.

8) Questions and Answers : Windows : Error in granting credits (Message 35886) Posted 13 Oct 2004 by Errabee Post: If you look at the following result, it is obvious that an incorrect amount of credits was granted: http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=1473458 5734692 147047 28 Aug 2004 7:21:32 UTC 28 Aug 2004 8:13:45 UTC Over Client error Downloading 0.00 0.00 --- 5734693 8955 28 Aug 2004 7:20:53 UTC 30 Aug 2004 1:51:22 UTC Over Couldn't validate - missing file Done 0.00 0.00 0.00 5734694 145216 28 Aug 2004 7:20:54 UTC 28 Aug 2004 10:53:53 UTC Over Client error Downloading 0.00 0.00 --- 5997780 162942 29 Aug 2004 23:15:40 UTC --- Over No reply New 0.00 --- --- 5997781 217633 29 Aug 2004 23:15:41 UTC 31 Aug 2004 19:34:55 UTC Over Success Done 81,670.95 23.45 0.00 8265198 181060 16 Sep 2004 7:29:01 UTC 17 Sep 2004 6:50:51 UTC Over Success Done 11,237.73 47.96 0.00 9202026 205318 22 Sep 2004 6:05:07 UTC --- Over No reply New 0.00 --- --- 11131990 223131 6 Oct 2004 18:52:36 UTC 7 Oct 2004 9:00:16 UTC Over Success Done 24,143.25 38.57 0.00 As you can see, there were three succesful computations, and 38.57 credits should have been awarded. Instead, it seems that all unsuccessful attempts were taken into account as well, resulting in zero credit. There are several other wu that display similar behaviour. Wuid: 1456469 (0 vs 42.34 credits), 1472840 (0 vs 35.86), 1473926 (0 vs 42.37)

9) Message boards : Number crunching : Upload/Download thread (Message 33561) Posted 7 Oct 2004 by Errabee Post: I have just lost three results because the server rejected the upload file; the most recent failed upload was half an hour ago. I'm now switching to another BOINC project temporarily, until things get definitely fixed.

10) Questions and Answers : Preferences : average upload/download rate wrong? (Message 4194) Posted 4 Jul 2004 by Errabee Post: On the "My computer" page, the average upload rate is displayed as 4.11 Kb/sec, and average download rate as 1.97 Kb/sec whereas in the Messages tab from the BOINC GUI, the download of new wu's consistently occurs at 60+ Kb/sec. What could cause such a large difference?

11) Questions and Answers : Wish list : Send work_units and not receive + that message tab (Message 3015) Posted 1 Jul 2004 by Errabee Post: I also have this question, because I turn off my computer when I go on holiday. I don't want to download any wu's that I cannot finish in time.

 
©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.