Message boards :
Number crunching :
Validate Errors II
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 21 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
Boston Send message Joined: 1 Apr 03 Posts: 9 Credit: 310,827 RAC: 0 |
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=533443283 Hi floor! Make me a sammich! |
Baz Send message Joined: 15 Feb 07 Posts: 27 Credit: 50,586 RAC: 0 |
[quote] Credit was granted for all of the validate errors (and any other problem with pending credit). In some cases it might not have gotten credited to the proper host (if the host id had changed). But the users have gotten credit. If you didn't see a jump in your credit, it might be that you had already been granted credit. Most of the items listed as pending had already been granted proper credit. I have had a couple of the following messages lately. Tue 22 May 23:21:37 2007|SETI@home|Message from server: Completed result 16fe05ab.10775.20736.9656.3.244_3 refused: result already reported as success 1. Does this mean I will still be given credit for the hours used? 2. Why does this happen? Baz Alien Pet Lover |
Josef W. Segur Send message Joined: 30 Oct 99 Posts: 4504 Credit: 1,414,761 RAC: 0 |
[quote] That is not a validate error, and has been addressed in other threads. However, the brief answer is that your host had already reported the work and simply failed to get the acknowledgement from the server that it had been accepted, so the retry was redundant. Joe |
gomeyer Send message Joined: 21 May 99 Posts: 488 Credit: 50,370,425 RAC: 0 |
|
Dirk Sadowski Send message Joined: 6 Apr 07 Posts: 7105 Credit: 147,663,825 RAC: 5 |
Does Berkeley want WU Id's or Result Id's to report these? The WUs. |
Dirk Sadowski Send message Joined: 6 Apr 07 Posts: 7105 Credit: 147,663,825 RAC: 5 |
Credit was granted for all of the validate errors (and any other problem with pending credit). In some cases it might not have gotten credited to the proper host (if the host id had changed). But the users have gotten credit. If you didn't see a jump in your credit, it might be that you had already been granted credit. Most of the items listed as pending had already been granted proper credit. I cannot confirm that. Look to my posted results, nothing happened. Some are not longer available, the other nothing. Or how they will give me my Credits? They don't show it then at the results- overview? They will cancel the overview? BUT, after a determined time, the results are not longer available on the server! OR? For example, from my first post in this thread: http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=128969390 Available and nothing happened. :-( |
MarkS Send message Joined: 26 Apr 03 Posts: 18 Credit: 97,370,569 RAC: 97 |
I recieved some WU on the 17 and 20 May, which i then crunched and sent back. From my end everything looks fine. But when I look in the results for user it says I haven't done anything. What does this mean as a couple have now time expired |
Grant (SSSF) Send message Joined: 19 Aug 99 Posts: 13847 Credit: 208,696,464 RAC: 304 |
But when I look in the results for user it says I haven't done anything. Once the results have been returned & validated they are then deleted once they have been assimilated into the main science database to help reduce the load on the system. Grant Darwin NT |
MarkS Send message Joined: 26 Apr 03 Posts: 18 Credit: 97,370,569 RAC: 97 |
What I mean is they are still there, as though I haven't done anything. The Server State is In Progress, the outcome is l unknow, cpu time --, claimed credit -- and claimed credit -- |
Richard Haselgrove Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 14679 Credit: 200,643,578 RAC: 874 |
WU 129861937 22 May 2007 |
Dirk Sadowski Send message Joined: 6 Apr 07 Posts: 7105 Credit: 147,663,825 RAC: 5 |
This is little 'amusing'! ;-) If I had no 'validate error', I got for this 67.24 WU 73.20 Credits (the other 78.10!) because of two 4.45 BOINC-Versions. So it's possible to get more than normally Credit with BOINC V4.x |
Dirk Sadowski Send message Joined: 6 Apr 07 Posts: 7105 Credit: 147,663,825 RAC: 5 |
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=130326232 http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=129876464 http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=129777285 Please, could somebody explain why we get 'validate errors'? AND what we could do, that we don't get them? |
jason_gee Send message Joined: 24 Nov 06 Posts: 7489 Credit: 91,093,184 RAC: 0 |
Is that a heavily OC'd Quad running chicken 2.2B apps? You might want too chat with msattler about your rig. I think i have seen reports about some probs validating on c2qs with a hefty O/C. I guess you could try backing off a little on your O/C but like I said, msattler might be the best help there. "Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions. |
Rayburner Send message Joined: 25 Nov 03 Posts: 18 Credit: 11,745,976 RAC: 0 |
These are mine: http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=129861571 http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=129861548 http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=129861531 Regards Rayburner |
Dirk Sadowski Send message Joined: 6 Apr 07 Posts: 7105 Credit: 147,663,825 RAC: 5 |
No, he's not hefty OC. QX6700- 2.66 GHz @ 2.93 GHz. If I remember correct, I had validate errors with 2.66 too. So I don't know where the prob is. |
jason_gee Send message Joined: 24 Nov 06 Posts: 7489 Credit: 91,093,184 RAC: 0 |
Well, What I was also getting at is that, I remember seeing a post that there IS the occasional validate error no matter what with those CPU's, and that this will be fixed( or improved ) in an upcoming release of a new optimised application, along with the 'stuttering' that occurs with 2.2B apps, but only Simon or Josef can clarify that ( I can't find that post now, I may have read it wrong :S) "Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions. |
kittyman Send message Joined: 9 Jul 00 Posts: 51477 Credit: 1,018,363,574 RAC: 1,004 |
Well, the clock speed certainly shouldn't be a problem here, but any time you OC a lot of factors come into play......... The CPU temperature and cooling/heatsink used for it. The combination of FSB and CPU multiplier used to get the clock speed. The combination of FSB and RAM multiplier used to get the RAM bandwidth. The RAM timings being used at that RAM bandwidth. The myriad of voltage settings available in the BIOS of most of the OCing oriented motherboards. In short, although the speed he is running at is certainly within the capabilities of the OCd QX6700 (mine is currently at 3.816ghz) it is possible to have problems or errors occur even at stock speed if any of the above parameters are out of range. "Time is simply the mechanism that keeps everything from happening all at once." |
jason_gee Send message Joined: 24 Nov 06 Posts: 7489 Credit: 91,093,184 RAC: 0 |
Thanks msattler, Quads I know nought :D "Living by the wisdom of computer science doesn't sound so bad after all. And unlike most advice, it's backed up by proofs." -- Algorithms to live by: The computer science of human decisions. |
kittyman Send message Joined: 9 Jul 00 Posts: 51477 Credit: 1,018,363,574 RAC: 1,004 |
You're quite welcome, although the general OCing statements I made would apply to almost any OC, not just the quad. If you don't have a good idea of what you are playing with, you can mess any number of things up. And if you have a really GOOD idea of what you are playing with, you WILL mess any number of things up. "Time is simply the mechanism that keeps everything from happening all at once." |
Josef W. Segur Send message Joined: 30 Oct 99 Posts: 4504 Credit: 1,414,761 RAC: 0 |
... The official description is: Validate error - The result was reported but could not be validated, typically because the output files were lost on the server. IOW, it's almost certainly a server-side problem and there's nothing a user can do to prevent them. There were quite a few created when Kryten was losing NFS mounts and then couldn't find the result files to validate. It's not clear what is causing them now. Perhaps it is just that the servers are so busy that sometimes the Validator fails to open a result file, similar to a dropped connection or other symptom of the heavy loading. Joe |
©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.