Message boards :
Number crunching :
No Credit Given
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
Warren Rogers Send message Joined: 6 Aug 99 Posts: 6 Credit: 493,939 RAC: 0 |
I recently completed a WU and was waiting for the third person turned in their WU. The other two people received credit but I didn't. My WU was the second one turned in but was listed as invalid while the one before me and the one after were listed as valid. If someone could explain why the WU after being worked on for 4.5 hours was considered invalid it would be greatly appreciated. The WU in question is 249655496. Thank you in advance. Warren Rogers |
Carlos Send message Joined: 9 Jun 99 Posts: 29848 Credit: 57,275,487 RAC: 157 |
I recently completed a WU and was waiting for the third person turned in their WU. The other two people received credit but I didn't. My WU was the second one turned in but was listed as invalid while the one before me and the one after were listed as valid. If someone could explain why the WU after being worked on for 4.5 hours was considered invalid it would be greatly appreciated. The WU in question is 249655496. Thank you in advance. I took a look and I can not seem to understand. Here is the link to the three computers that finished the unit. It looks like all three results had significant variations. By posting the link I hope some others will take a look and see what they can find. |
Jim-R. Send message Joined: 7 Feb 06 Posts: 1494 Credit: 194,148 RAC: 0 |
I recently completed a WU and was waiting for the third person turned in their WU. The other two people received credit but I didn't. My WU was the second one turned in but was listed as invalid while the one before me and the one after were listed as valid. If someone could explain why the WU after being worked on for 4.5 hours was considered invalid it would be greatly appreciated. The WU in question is 249655496. Thank you in advance. Hi Warren, Due to the slight differences in different computers, each computer is capable of producing slightly different results. We have a "validation" procedure where these slight variations are considered. There are three levels, "strongly similar", "weakly similar" and "not similar". If two results are "strongly similar" which means the results returned are within one percent or so of the other, they are validated and both are issued credit. Any other situation requires a third result to be issued. If all three results are "weakly similar" then all three are validated and credit is issued. If however the third result is strongly similar to one or the other of the other two results, the two are validated and the third is determined to be "not similar" and is not issued credit. In your case, your result was found to be not similar to the others. In other words, the third result matched the first result within a percent or so. Yours was outside the limits for validation. This can be caused by several things. Sometimes a work unit just returns varying results, but other times it can be caused by something in your computer. These can be heat buildup due to dust in the heatsinks/fans, a memory stick going bad, too aggressive of an overclock, and several other things. An occasional invalid result is nothing to worry about, but if you have more than one or two, or you notice it happening more often then it might be a good idea to check your system for the above mentioned problems. 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. |
Warren Rogers Send message Joined: 6 Aug 99 Posts: 6 Credit: 493,939 RAC: 0 |
Hello Everyone, Thank you for your help with my question. It was actually the first time I'd not get credit for a completed WU and was more than a little curious as to why. Thank you for your explanations, they helped out a lot. Warren I recently completed a WU and was waiting for the third person turned in their WU. The other two people received credit but I didn't. My WU was the second one turned in but was listed as invalid while the one before me and the one after were listed as valid. If someone could explain why the WU after being worked on for 4.5 hours was considered invalid it would be greatly appreciated. The WU in question is 249655496. Thank you in advance. |
Josef W. Segur Send message Joined: 30 Oct 99 Posts: 4504 Credit: 1,414,761 RAC: 0 |
I recently completed a WU and was waiting for the third person turned in their WU. The other two people received credit but I didn't. My WU was the second one turned in but was listed as invalid while the one before me and the one after were listed as valid. If someone could explain why the WU after being worked on for 4.5 hours was considered invalid it would be greatly appreciated. The WU in question is 249655496. Thank you in advance. The problem discussed in SETI Beta Overflow (-9) with 5.27 under Vista OS looks like the cause. I apologize, that bug was my fault. Joe |
Dennis Send message Joined: 26 Jun 07 Posts: 153 Credit: 15,826,319 RAC: 0 |
I recently completed a WU and was waiting for the third person turned in their WU. The other two people received credit but I didn't. Overflow (-9) with 5.27 under Vista OS looks like the cause. I apologize, that bug was my fault.Joe Josef, Shame on you! Just teasing you Josef, seen your post here and just want to say Thanks for all your efforts I read about here and every time I look at a WU result. /salute |
Paul D. Buck Send message Joined: 19 Jul 00 Posts: 3898 Credit: 1,158,042 RAC: 0 |
There is also a visual guide in the UBW where it talks to validation ... though it does not (I don't hink" go into strong vs. weak validation. But it shows a validation based on ONE spike and how the detection process KINDA looks ... For those in the know, if you can come up with a better and simpler example ... :) |
[KWSN]John Galt 007 Send message Joined: 9 Nov 99 Posts: 2444 Credit: 25,086,197 RAC: 0 |
I recently completed a WU and was waiting for the third person turned in their WU. The other two people received credit but I didn't. My WU was the second one turned in but was listed as invalid while the one before me and the one after were listed as valid. If someone could explain why the WU after being worked on for 4.5 hours was considered invalid it would be greatly appreciated. The WU in question is 249655496. Thank you in advance. What about this one? Mine is the first one. I run XP x64. Here are the outputs: <core_client_version>5.10.20</core_client_version> <![CDATA[ <stderr_txt> Optimized SETI@Home Enhanced application Optimizers: Ben Herndon, Josef Segur, Alex Kan, Simon Zadra Version: Windows SSSE3 64-bit based on S@H V5.15 'Noo? No - Ni!' Revision: R-2.4V|xT|FFT:IPP_SSSE3|Ben-Joe CPUID: Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz Speed: 4 x 3060 MHz Cache: L1=64K L2=4096K Features: MMX SSE SSE2 SSE3 x86_64 Work Unit Info WU Credit multi. is: 2.85 WU True angle range: 0.607532 SETI@Home Informational message -9 result_overflow NOTE: The number of results detected exceeds the storage space allocated. </stderr_txt> ]]> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- <core_client_version>5.4.11</core_client_version> <stderr_txt> setiathome_enhanced 5.27 DevC++/MinGW Work Unit Info: ............... WU true angle range is : 0.607532 Optimal function choices: ----------------------------------------------------- name ----------------------------------------------------- v_BaseLineSmooth (no other) v_vGetPowerSpectrumUnrolled 0.00016 0.00000 sse3_ChirpData_ak 0.01670 0.00000 v_vpfTranspose8x4ntw 0.00781 0.00000 BH SSE folding 0.00122 0.00000 Restarted at 42.51 percent. Flopcounter: 12903373328534.736000 Spike count: 3 Pulse count: 0 Triplet count: 0 Gaussian count: 0 </stderr_txt> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- <core_client_version>5.10.30</core_client_version> <![CDATA[ <stderr_txt> setiathome_enhanced 5.27 DevC++/MinGW Work Unit Info: ............... WU true angle range is : 0.607532 Optimal function choices: ----------------------------------------------------- name ----------------------------------------------------- v_BaseLineSmooth (no other) v_vGetPowerSpectrumUnrolled 0.00017 0.00000 sse3_ChirpData_ak 0.01718 0.00000 v_vTranspose4x8ntw 0.00868 0.00000 AK SSE folding 0.00143 0.00000 Restarted at 89.37 percent. Flopcounter: 12903362450915.736000 Spike count: 3 Pulse count: 0 Triplet count: 0 Gaussian count: 0 </stderr_txt> ]]> 806705661 3683570 6 Apr 2008 1:38:43 UTC 6 Apr 2008 10:24:19 UTC Over Success Done 11,324.81 42.58 42.58 806705660 3871365 6 Apr 2008 1:38:29 UTC 12 Apr 2008 18:29:26 UTC Over Success Done 3,509.66 33.50 0.00 814480911 3326177 13 Apr 2008 14:21:43 UTC 14 Apr 2008 12:19:55 UTC Over Success Done 11,529.33 42.58 42.58 Clk2HlpSetiCty:::PayIt4ward |
Alinator Send message Joined: 19 Apr 05 Posts: 4178 Credit: 4,647,982 RAC: 0 |
Well you're overclocking almost 28%. So if the machine is stable from a lockup or BSOD POV, then this almost always indicates a localized thermal problem in the FPU. The rub is that it doesn't necessarily indicate itself as a problem from the CPU/core temps. Alinator |
[KWSN]John Galt 007 Send message Joined: 9 Nov 99 Posts: 2444 Credit: 25,086,197 RAC: 0 |
As I responded before [as the servers went down (darn slow fat finges of mine...)], it's funny you mentioned a BSOD. That PC did experience a BSOD right after it started throwing errors. When I rebooted, I got the dreaded 'ntfs.sys is missing or corrupted' error. Since that PC doesn't have a DVD drive in it anymore, I shut it down and got a new DVD and did the reinstall/repair of x64. I did have a power outage in the early morning of the 11th, and the farm was down for a while. That might have caused the problem also. I will have to check on it more often to make sure it is going OK. Thanks for the info, Alinator... Clk2HlpSetiCty:::PayIt4ward |
Ingleside Send message Joined: 4 Feb 03 Posts: 1546 Credit: 15,832,022 RAC: 13 |
Hi Warren, Not completely correct, SETI@home always needs 2 "strongly similar" results to pass validation. Also, after found a pair of results to be "strongly similar", any other results is only checked if "weakly similar", and can still be given credit. If it had been possible to validate with 3 "weakly similar", each of the 3 results could include a signal none of the others had detected... "I make so many mistakes. But then just think of all the mistakes I don't make, although I might." |
©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.