Message boards :
Number crunching :
Validate Errors II
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 . . . 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 . . . 21 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
Dick Send message Joined: 12 Nov 01 Posts: 6 Credit: 174,927 RAC: 0 |
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=143132783 http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=143171724 Cheers, Dick |
Dirk Sadowski Send message Joined: 6 Apr 07 Posts: 7105 Credit: 147,663,825 RAC: 5 |
|
Dirk Sadowski Send message Joined: 6 Apr 07 Posts: 7105 Credit: 147,663,825 RAC: 5 |
|
PhonAcq Send message Joined: 14 Apr 01 Posts: 1656 Credit: 30,658,217 RAC: 1 |
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=574352917 This one was listed as 'initial' but was not given credit. A second result was also listed as 'initial' and was given credit. Strangely, they claimed the same amount of credit. Is there an error here? |
Josef W. Segur Send message Joined: 30 Oct 99 Posts: 4504 Credit: 1,414,761 RAC: 0 |
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=574352917 Yes, you are running Chicken 2.2 which has a problem. Upgrade to 2.2B. Joe |
Dick Send message Joined: 12 Nov 01 Posts: 6 Credit: 174,927 RAC: 0 |
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=143825723 Cheers, Dick |
Dirk Sadowski Send message Joined: 6 Apr 07 Posts: 7105 Credit: 147,663,825 RAC: 5 |
|
Matthias Lehmkuhl Send message Joined: 5 Oct 99 Posts: 28 Credit: 10,832,348 RAC: 53 |
|
michael37 Send message Joined: 23 Jul 99 Posts: 311 Credit: 6,955,447 RAC: 0 |
I thought validate error were fixed... so what's going on here? http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=589276289 http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=589273431 http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=589247807 http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=588976539 |
Fivestar Crashtest Send message Joined: 10 Dec 99 Posts: 226 Credit: 5,377,978 RAC: 0 |
I thought validate error were fixed... so what's going on here? You need to pick up the 2.4 version of Simon's optimized app, I think that might take care of these. You are still using 2.2b. |
michael37 Send message Joined: 23 Jul 99 Posts: 311 Credit: 6,955,447 RAC: 0 |
OK, I just upgraded. What's happening now? http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=591151611 http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=591146066 http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=591146074 http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=590831149 |
Jim-R. Send message Joined: 7 Feb 06 Posts: 1494 Credit: 194,148 RAC: 0 |
I can't tell from the work unit, but I notice you are running the 64 bit application and the only thing I see in the core client version is the stock header. Are you running a 64 bit version of BOINC? If not, then you must either switch the BOINC client to a 64 bit version or use a 32 bit application. You can use a 32 bit application under 64 bit BOINC, but not the other way around. Jim Some people plan their life out and look back at the wealth they've had. Others live life day by day and look back at the wealth of experiences and enjoyment they've had. |
michael37 Send message Joined: 23 Jul 99 Posts: 311 Credit: 6,955,447 RAC: 0 |
I can't tell from the work unit, but I notice you are running the 64 bit application and the only thing I see in the core client version is the stock header. Are you running a 64 bit version of BOINC? If not, then you must either switch the BOINC client to a 64 bit version or use a 32 bit application. You can use a 32 bit application under 64 bit BOINC, but not the other way around. Yes, I've heard of that requirement. I've been running 32-bit Boinc and 64-bit Seti app for about a year on Linux and haven't had any problems. This is, however, a Windows machine, so I take this is a pure 64-bit Windows problem. Thank you for a hint, I no longer see any failed validations. |
michael37 Send message Joined: 23 Jul 99 Posts: 311 Credit: 6,955,447 RAC: 0 |
Just as I wrote my last post, a new validate problem appeared again! http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=594475631 Boinc is 64-bit Window version 5.10.13 from boinc.berkeley.edu Windows application is 2.4_Windows_x64_SSSE3. (from http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/beta/forum_thread.php?id=1002) Connect time is set to 3.25 days. Any ideas? |
Pappa Send message Joined: 9 Jan 00 Posts: 2562 Credit: 12,301,681 RAC: 0 |
Michael You are running a 64 bit BOINC Application and an optimised Seti Application. While Simon and Crew do not test (nor have the people/resources) to test everything... You may have been caught. So to an extent, I recommend going out to lunatics.at and posting this information. Please includes links to the Results that have failed to validate. That said if you are running an optimized Seti Application it is not Seti's fault. Just as I wrote my last post, a new validate problem appeared again! Please consider a Donation to the Seti Project. |
kittyman Send message Joined: 9 Jul 00 Posts: 51478 Credit: 1,018,363,574 RAC: 1,004 |
Michael I do not have a clue as to what might be going wrong. I am running crunch3r's 64 bit Boinc client (5.9 vintage) and his latest 64 bit app (as posted on Simon's site) on XP x64. I just checked my OCd x64 quad's results, and I do not have a single validation error. Maybe it is with the 5.10.13 Boinc client? One would not think the client could cause validation errors but???? "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 |
... Sutaru's Because of the 'validate errors' thread identifies one way the core client could cause validate errors, by not getting the right "command" into what it POSTs to the upload handler. I still think that case may be a firewall or something borking the POSTs, though. The same could apply to Michael's case, I recommend he look at the messages around the time the uploads occur. Or perhaps the apparent issue of reporting too soon after the upload completes is in play. Reporting is tied to work fetch calculations, so can happen at any time. Having something other than zero for connect interval makes it less likely the report will be sent immediately, but does not prevent it from happening. The "Received" time on a result page identifies when it was reported, checking the messages just before that time to see if the upload was close is recommended. Joe |
michael37 Send message Joined: 23 Jul 99 Posts: 311 Credit: 6,955,447 RAC: 0 |
|
Dirk Sadowski Send message Joined: 6 Apr 07 Posts: 7105 Credit: 147,663,825 RAC: 5 |
michael37, could you look in 'stdoutdae.txt' in your BOINC-folder and look for 'no command' entries? Open this file with your Editor and then [work on] and then [search] Because I have sometimes 'no command' entries and then 'validate errors' You don't overclock your PC, or? I thought my 'validate errors' are because of bad OC.. so I reduced the OC.. But if you have 'no command' entries too and you don't OC, then it must be a problem with my LAN-connection.. BTW. If I have a bad OC, the LAN-port (connection) could be disturbed because of this? I OC only with increase the FSB without changing the voltage of the CPU. I changed ONLY the voltage of the RAM from 1.84 to 2.12 (800 RAM @ 937 MHz)(with active cooling) It could be that I have an old driver for the LAN-port? This could make this problem? Or an other software prob? |
michael37 Send message Joined: 23 Jul 99 Posts: 311 Credit: 6,955,447 RAC: 0 |
michael37, No, no 'no command' entries.
Those are several identical rackmounted servers with ECC RAM and other goodies. They are not even over-clockable :) And they all experience validate errors Speaking of parsing the log, check this out. This is the failed to validate result http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/result.php?resultid=594959001. I think this is clearly a core client error, not Seti application error. Only three seconds betwee computation finish and result upload. Note that I DO NOT use the '-return_results_immedeately' option. 2007-08-22 08:53:50 [SETI@home] Computation for task 16fe07ac.4898.6207.11.5.20_0 finished 2007-08-22 08:53:51 [Einstein@Home] Restarting task h1_0534.55_S5R2__335_S5R2c_1 using einstein_S5R2 version 430 2007-08-22 08:53:52 [SETI@home] Sending scheduler request: To fetch work 2007-08-22 08:53:52 [SETI@home] Requesting 4638 seconds of new work, and reporting 1 completed tasks 2007-08-22 08:53:53 [SETI@home] [file_xfer] Started upload of file 16fe07ac.4898.6207.11.5.20_0_0 2007-08-22 08:53:56 [SETI@home] [file_xfer] Finished upload of file 16fe07ac.4898.6207.11.5.20_0_0 2007-08-22 08:53:56 [SETI@home] [file_xfer] Throughput 57742 bytes/sec 2007-08-22 08:53:57 [SETI@home] Scheduler RPC succeeded [server version 511] 2007-08-22 08:53:57 [SETI@home] Deferring communication for 11 sec 2007-08-22 08:53:57 [SETI@home] Reason: requested by project As a reminder, * Boinc is 64-bit Window version 5.10.13 from boinc.berkeley.edu * Windows application is 2.4_Windows_x64_SSSE3. * (from http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/beta/forum_thread.php?id=1002) Connect time is set to 3.25 days. |
©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.