Message boards :
Number crunching :
If one thing goes sour . . .
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
Fred J. Verster Send message Joined: 21 Apr 04 Posts: 3252 Credit: 31,903,643 RAC: 0 |
Hi crunchers, yesterday evening, was browsing the SETI forums, BOINC(6.1.0.) crashes.X9650 @ 3.4G 8 G RAM, WIN XP64. Somehow, I don't trust the RAM A BSOD tell's me that an error in 0000000F has occurred. Normal BOOT after that and BOINC also starts. In a few seconds 30 to 40 WU's were 'calculated/destroyed', to fast to stop it. They all had time till the end off july or the first week in august. Apologies to my wingman for this inconvenient event. No error's to be found, using it now for this message. This morning, saturday, 19 july, i looked at my other host's and the Q6600 HP with VISTA (32BIT), had stopped??? It had tried to install service pack 1, but somehow failed and stopped. Is now installing SP1 again, looks OK, this time. Looks like Murphy's Law :( |
Keck_Komputers Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 1575 Credit: 4,152,111 RAC: 1 |
I'm surprized you get anything returned successfully. 6.1.0 was a very unstable test version that did not even make it to alpha testing. Currently there is a 6.2.14 release candidate that should be better than that version. BOINC WIKI BOINCing since 2002/12/8 |
Fred J. Verster Send message Joined: 21 Apr 04 Posts: 3252 Credit: 31,903,643 RAC: 0 |
I'm surprized you get anything returned successfully. 6.1.0 was a very unstable test version that did not even make it to alpha testing. Currently there is a 6.2.14 release candidate that should be better than that version. Hi, this isn't the first time it crashed without any reason, I think to replace it inmediatly. Never heard off any problems, with this 6.1.0. version. Thanks for your reply :) |
Fred W Send message Joined: 13 Jun 99 Posts: 2524 Credit: 11,954,210 RAC: 0 |
I'm surprized you get anything returned successfully. 6.1.0 was a very unstable test version that did not even make it to alpha testing. Currently there is a 6.2.14 release candidate that should be better than that version. I think this was the Crunch3r (pseudo) 6.1.0 version, IIRC F. |
1mp0£173 Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 8423 Credit: 356,897 RAC: 0 |
I'm surprized you get anything returned successfully. 6.1.0 was a very unstable test version that did not even make it to alpha testing. Currently there is a 6.2.14 release candidate that should be better than that version. It seems IOTTMCO that if someone is going to release a customized version of something that they keep the numbering really clean -- like maintain the original number plus add their own, just so we don't get this kind of confusion. |
Fred J. Verster Send message Joined: 21 Apr 04 Posts: 3252 Credit: 31,903,643 RAC: 0 |
I'm surprized you get anything returned successfully. 6.1.0 was a very unstable test version that did not even make it to alpha testing. Currently there is a 6.2.14 release candidate that should be better than that version. That's right, never knew, there were difficulties, with this version. In the past days, i've updated 2 quad's to BOINC 6.2.14 Work's OK, also has more (local)options in the CPU settings. |
©2025 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.