So you got a resend, but before you got round to it, the orignal host came back online and reported in. It validated, so yours was quite properly declared redundant - the mechanism worked as designed.

That makes sense. Thanks Richard!

---

Eric's scripts usually cover all circumstances on Beta site, so would assume the correct validation errors script here will work the same way, if results are still in database.

I have two WUs (one and two) that have been "Canceled by server" as redundant.

Have we gone back to Initial Replication=3 (IR=3)?

Not according to my task list, we haven't/

'Two' is easy. Host 3359531 took a week's holiday, and missed the deadline on a shorty:

Sent 28 Oct 2007 11:34:32 UTC
Received 6 Nov 2007 21:51:17 UTC
Report deadline 6 Nov 2007 3:54:32 UTC

So you got a resend, but before you got round to it, the orignal host came back online and reported in. It validated, so yours was quite properly declared redundant - the mechanism worked as designed.

'One' is more difficult, because there hasn't been time for a deadline expiry: your copy was issued well after the other two had both reported. Perhaps it was a validate error? One of the ones that Eric ran his script over? The validator worked at the second attempt (plausible if the cause is "reporting too soon"), and so the re-issue wasn't needed after all. The upper wingman used BOINC v5.5.0, which I suspect is one of Crunch3r's RRI stable, which lends weight to the theory.

In which case, we've learnt something new and useful. Neither of the two wingpersons has ever posted even a single message on these boards, so I think we can take it that they didn't 'report in' the validate error. So Eric's script works on all the validation errors that meet its parameters, not just the ones painstakingly listed in the sticky thread. Which is rather how I expected that Eric would work.

Richard, I reported 2 validate errors out of 9 just as examples, and all 9 were finally credited. So I think you`re right about Eric`s skript.

Regards
Kurt

---

I have two WUs (one and two) that have been "Canceled by server" as redundant.

Have we gone back to Initial Replication=3 (IR=3)?

Not according to my task list, we haven't/

'Two' is easy. Host 3359531 took a week's holiday, and missed the deadline on a shorty:

Sent 28 Oct 2007 11:34:32 UTC
Received 6 Nov 2007 21:51:17 UTC
Report deadline 6 Nov 2007 3:54:32 UTC

So you got a resend, but before you got round to it, the orignal host came back online and reported in. It validated, so yours was quite properly declared redundant - the mechanism worked as designed.

'One' is more difficult, because there hasn't been time for a deadline expiry: your copy was issued well after the other two had both reported. Perhaps it was a validate error? One of the ones that Eric ran his script over? The validator worked at the second attempt (plausible if the cause is "reporting too soon"), and so the re-issue wasn't needed after all. The upper wingman used BOINC v5.5.0, which I suspect is one of Crunch3r's RRI stable, which lends weight to the theory.

In which case, we've learnt something new and useful. Neither of the two wingpersons has ever posted even a single message on these boards, so I think we can take it that they didn't 'report in' the validate error. So Eric's script works on all the validation errors that meet its parameters, not just the ones painstakingly listed in the sticky thread. Which is rather how I expected that Eric would work.

I have two WUs (one and two) that have been "Canceled by server" as redundant.

Have we gone back to Initial Replication=3 (IR=3)?

---