http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=533443283

---

Hi floor! Make me a sammich!

[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

[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

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

Does Berkeley want WU Id's or Result Id's to report these?
Edit Never mind /Edit

534012154
534012142
533887003
533886922
533886909
533886600
533877383
533877262
533852962
533852893
532985055
532636278
532636262
532605675
532510135
532476611

Does Berkeley want WU Id's or Result Id's to report these?
Edit Never mind /Edit

The WUs.

---

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. :-(

---

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

---

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

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 --

---

WU 129861937 22 May 2007

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=128984407

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

---

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?

---

...
Please, could somebody explain why we get 'validate errors'?
AND what we could do, that we don't get them?

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.

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

---

...
Please, could somebody explain why we get 'validate errors'?
AND what we could do, that we don't get them?

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

...
Please, could somebody explain why we get 'validate errors'?
AND what we could do, that we don't get them?

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.

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.

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."

...
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.

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.

...
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.

Thanks msattler, Quads I know nought :D

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."

...
Please, could somebody explain why we get 'validate errors'?
AND what we could do, that we don't get them?

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