Validate Errors II

Message boards : Number crunching : Validate Errors II
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 . . . 21 · Next

AuthorMessage
Dick

Send message
Joined: 12 Nov 01
Posts: 6
Credit: 174,927
RAC: 0
Australia
Message 610415 - Posted: 28 Jul 2007, 5:58:00 UTC

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=143132783
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=143171724

Cheers, Dick
ID: 610415 · Report as offensive
Profile Sutaru Tsureku
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 6 Apr 07
Posts: 7105
Credit: 147,663,825
RAC: 5
Germany
Message 611796 - Posted: 30 Jul 2007, 20:33:27 UTC

ID: 611796 · Report as offensive
Profile Sutaru Tsureku
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 6 Apr 07
Posts: 7105
Credit: 147,663,825
RAC: 5
Germany
Message 612619 - Posted: 31 Jul 2007, 20:30:23 UTC

ID: 612619 · Report as offensive
PhonAcq

Send message
Joined: 14 Apr 01
Posts: 1656
Credit: 30,658,217
RAC: 1
United States
Message 612939 - Posted: 1 Aug 2007, 12:20:06 UTC

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?
ID: 612939 · Report as offensive
Josef W. Segur
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 30 Oct 99
Posts: 4504
Credit: 1,414,761
RAC: 0
United States
Message 612965 - Posted: 1 Aug 2007, 13:13:09 UTC - in response to Message 612939.  

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?

Yes, you are running Chicken 2.2 which has a problem. Upgrade to 2.2B.
                                                                Joe
ID: 612965 · Report as offensive
Dick

Send message
Joined: 12 Nov 01
Posts: 6
Credit: 174,927
RAC: 0
Australia
Message 613731 - Posted: 2 Aug 2007, 23:54:51 UTC

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=143825723

Cheers, Dick


ID: 613731 · Report as offensive
Profile Sutaru Tsureku
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 6 Apr 07
Posts: 7105
Credit: 147,663,825
RAC: 5
Germany
Message 614648 - Posted: 4 Aug 2007, 6:25:35 UTC
Last modified: 4 Aug 2007, 6:28:34 UTC

ID: 614648 · Report as offensive
Matthias Lehmkuhl Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 5 Oct 99
Posts: 28
Credit: 10,832,348
RAC: 53
Germany
Message 615916 - Posted: 6 Aug 2007, 21:19:02 UTC
Last modified: 6 Aug 2007, 21:19:57 UTC

ID: 615916 · Report as offensive
Profile michael37
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Jul 99
Posts: 311
Credit: 6,955,447
RAC: 0
United States
Message 618960 - Posted: 14 Aug 2007, 5:52:48 UTC
Last modified: 14 Aug 2007, 5:53:10 UTC

ID: 618960 · Report as offensive
Profile Fivestar Crashtest
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 10 Dec 99
Posts: 226
Credit: 5,377,978
RAC: 0
United States
Message 619555 - Posted: 15 Aug 2007, 13:54:53 UTC - in response to Message 618960.  

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


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.
ID: 619555 · Report as offensive
Profile michael37
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Jul 99
Posts: 311
Credit: 6,955,447
RAC: 0
United States
Message 620815 - Posted: 17 Aug 2007, 5:42:22 UTC - in response to Message 619555.  


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.


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

ID: 620815 · Report as offensive
Profile Jim-R.
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 7 Feb 06
Posts: 1494
Credit: 194,148
RAC: 0
United States
Message 620977 - Posted: 17 Aug 2007, 11:24:03 UTC - in response to Message 620815.  


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.


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


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.
ID: 620977 · Report as offensive
Profile michael37
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Jul 99
Posts: 311
Credit: 6,955,447
RAC: 0
United States
Message 623792 - Posted: 21 Aug 2007, 4:08:22 UTC - in response to Message 620977.  

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.

ID: 623792 · Report as offensive
Profile michael37
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Jul 99
Posts: 311
Credit: 6,955,447
RAC: 0
United States
Message 624094 - Posted: 21 Aug 2007, 23:14:48 UTC

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?

ID: 624094 · Report as offensive
Profile Pappa
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Jan 00
Posts: 2562
Credit: 12,301,681
RAC: 0
United States
Message 624586 - Posted: 23 Aug 2007, 2:29:29 UTC - in response to Message 624094.  

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!

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?


Please consider a Donation to the Seti Project.

ID: 624586 · Report as offensive
kittyman Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 00
Posts: 51468
Credit: 1,018,363,574
RAC: 1,004
United States
Message 624664 - Posted: 23 Aug 2007, 6:44:11 UTC - in response to Message 624586.  
Last modified: 23 Aug 2007, 6:46:24 UTC

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!

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?



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????
"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

ID: 624664 · Report as offensive
Josef W. Segur
Volunteer developer
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 30 Oct 99
Posts: 4504
Credit: 1,414,761
RAC: 0
United States
Message 624802 - Posted: 23 Aug 2007, 14:06:53 UTC - in response to Message 624664.  

...
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????

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
ID: 624802 · Report as offensive
Profile michael37
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Jul 99
Posts: 311
Credit: 6,955,447
RAC: 0
United States
Message 625076 - Posted: 23 Aug 2007, 21:02:26 UTC - in response to Message 624802.  
Last modified: 23 Aug 2007, 21:10:01 UTC

I will try to downgrade to the Crunch3r's 5.9 core client and see if the problem goes away. I will let you know in a day or two...

Update: 8/23/2007 5:05:18 PM 64 Platform changed from windows_x86_64 to windows_intelx86 - resetting projects

Argh :)

ID: 625076 · Report as offensive
Profile Sutaru Tsureku
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 6 Apr 07
Posts: 7105
Credit: 147,663,825
RAC: 5
Germany
Message 625249 - Posted: 24 Aug 2007, 1:17:59 UTC
Last modified: 24 Aug 2007, 1:31:45 UTC



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?


ID: 625249 · Report as offensive
Profile michael37
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Jul 99
Posts: 311
Credit: 6,955,447
RAC: 0
United States
Message 625274 - Posted: 24 Aug 2007, 2:11:46 UTC - in response to Message 625249.  
Last modified: 24 Aug 2007, 2:13:20 UTC

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'

No, no 'no command' entries.


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..

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.

ID: 625274 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 . . . 21 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : Validate Errors II


 
©2022 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.