AstroPulse errors - Reporting

Message boards : Number crunching : AstroPulse errors - Reporting
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 14 · Next

AuthorMessage
Richard Haselgrove Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 99
Posts: 14658
Credit: 200,643,578
RAC: 874
United Kingdom
Message 793641 - Posted: 6 Aug 2008, 8:07:17 UTC

I think this was my first full Astropulse through here at Main: WU 309779893.
940091886 2901600 3 Aug 2008 10:48:00 UTC 6 Aug 2008 5:34:43 UTC Over Success Done 229,879.30 719.06 0.00
940091887 4488327 3 Aug 2008 10:48:00 UTC 5 Aug 2008 15:01:10 UTC Over Success Done 136,022.40 719.06 0.00
943961779 1235151 6 Aug 2008 7:39:37 UTC 5 Sep 2008 7:39:37 UTC In progress --- New --- --- ---

Both tasks ran on Intel Core2-class machines under Windows - my Vista 32, his XP 64.

Both say 'Success' and 'Valid' in all the right places, yet it's gone out to a third host for re-crunching.

Another one for the Berkeley Boys, methinks.
ID: 793641 · Report as offensive
Richard Haselgrove Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 99
Posts: 14658
Credit: 200,643,578
RAC: 874
United Kingdom
Message 793645 - Posted: 6 Aug 2008, 8:16:09 UTC

I'd better link in Matt's technical news from Monday 04 August: Message 792874.
However the validator stopped granting credit for these workunits - something we'll fix and we can also retroactively give people their credit.

(my emphasis)

So don't worry, credit will be granted eventually - I just want to make sure it stays on their 'to do' list.
ID: 793645 · Report as offensive
Profile JDWhale
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 6 Apr 99
Posts: 921
Credit: 21,935,817
RAC: 3
United States
Message 794211 - Posted: 7 Aug 2008, 16:32:06 UTC

wuid=309707897

945415709 4369968 7 Aug 2008 7:13:26 UTC 6 Sep 2008 7:13:26 UTC In progress --- New --- --- --- 
939936711 3622100 3 Aug 2008 5:43:31 UTC 6 Aug 2008 23:32:53 UTC Over Success Done 186,108.40 719.06 0.00 
945190258 4041963 7 Aug 2008 3:22:44 UTC 7 Aug 2008 3:24:20 UTC Over Client error Compute error 0.00 0.00 --- 
939936710 4068471 3 Aug 2008 5:43:30 UTC 5 Aug 2008 23:50:53 UTC Over Success Done 155,793.30 719.06 0.00 


2 hosts have already completed successfully... That is my instance on top...

To crunch or not to crunch... That is the question.
ID: 794211 · Report as offensive
chassell

Send message
Joined: 23 Jul 00
Posts: 3
Credit: 3,285,099
RAC: 0
United States
Message 794441 - Posted: 8 Aug 2008, 1:45:44 UTC

Why do I get the following error on all astropulse files?

Task ID 942835096
Name ap_29fe08af_B5_P0_00258_20080805_03010.wu_0
Workunit 311073436
Created 5 Aug 2008 12:53:58 UTC
Sent 5 Aug 2008 15:28:39 UTC
Received 5 Aug 2008 15:56:48 UTC
Server state Over
Outcome Client error
Client state Compute error
Exit status -185 (0xffffffffffffff47)
Computer ID 4066202
Report deadline 4 Sep 2008 15:28:39 UTC
CPU time 0
stderr out <core_client_version>6.2.14</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<message>
CreateProcess() failed -
</message>
]]>

Validate state Invalid
Claimed credit 0
Granted credit 0
application version 4.35

ID: 794441 · Report as offensive
Koodausvirhe

Send message
Joined: 17 Jun 08
Posts: 6
Credit: 148,125
RAC: 0
Finland
Message 794464 - Posted: 8 Aug 2008, 3:02:29 UTC

Hey. I have had seti for some time and it done one packake about an 5 hours. now tho its doing some package called astropulse 4.35. How its different than normal packages? Estimate time is 80 hours. Thanks.
ID: 794464 · Report as offensive
Profile Fuzzy Hollynoodles
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 3 Apr 99
Posts: 9659
Credit: 251,998
RAC: 0
Message 794467 - Posted: 8 Aug 2008, 3:11:05 UTC - in response to Message 794464.  
Last modified: 8 Aug 2008, 3:13:15 UTC

Hey. I have had seti for some time and it done one packake about an 5 hours. now tho its doing some package called astropulse 4.35. How its different than normal packages? Estimate time is 80 hours. Thanks.


They are sending two kinds of WU's out at the moment, normal Seti WU's and Astropulse WU's.

You can read about Astropulse here.

Yes, the Astropulse WU's take significant longer time to crunch, so those 80 hours may not be too far from how much time, your WU will take to finish, dependent on your computer's processor and others.

I haven't had any AP WU's here yet, I am waiting for a new app-info.xml file to be released because I run an optimized client here, but the AP WU's I have crunched on the Beta/Astropulse project have taken about 150 or more to crunch on my computer, but they are test WU's so they may have some debug functions inbuilt in them.

You will get a nice amount of credit for your finished AP WU's here. ;-)

I hope this answers your question. Else there are several threads about this issue. :-)
"I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me

ID: 794467 · Report as offensive
Koodausvirhe

Send message
Joined: 17 Jun 08
Posts: 6
Credit: 148,125
RAC: 0
Finland
Message 794468 - Posted: 8 Aug 2008, 3:20:02 UTC - in response to Message 794467.  

Thanks. It did answr and my computer is fast enough for that and usually its on 24/7. Hopefully it found something some time too =)
ID: 794468 · Report as offensive
Alan Johnson

Send message
Joined: 3 Nov 00
Posts: 3
Credit: 4,770,453
RAC: 2
United States
Message 794480 - Posted: 8 Aug 2008, 4:13:57 UTC

Finished an Astropulse crunch.
940322137 309888091 3 Aug 2008 16:52:28 UTC 5 Aug 2008 23:41:36 UTC Over Success Done 168,830.40 719.06 0.00

719.06 credits requested
0.00 credits given

That was alot of CPU time to get squat. :-(

Next time I see an astropulse work item, I'll be sure to cancel/abort it.

ID: 794480 · Report as offensive
Profile arkayn
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 May 99
Posts: 4438
Credit: 55,006,323
RAC: 0
United States
Message 794493 - Posted: 8 Aug 2008, 5:27:55 UTC

I would bet that they will be going back through and fixing these type of errors as there is something wrong on the AP validators.

ID: 794493 · Report as offensive
Profile zoom3+1=4
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 65898
Credit: 55,293,173
RAC: 49
United States
Message 794494 - Posted: 8 Aug 2008, 5:38:28 UTC - in response to Message 794493.  

I would bet that they will be going back through and fixing these type of errors as there is something wrong on the AP validators.

Yeah I would hope so, I'm crunching one now and I have another one in addition to the Seti WU's and the Rosetta WU's that I do. It's been working on this one for nearly 8 hours and It has about 12 hours and 46 minutes to go, Maybe. At least the app_info.xml file I made is working good for both the Optimized XP x64 Seti app and the AP app that I downloaded, So far so good. :D
The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's
ID: 794494 · Report as offensive
Richard Haselgrove Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 99
Posts: 14658
Credit: 200,643,578
RAC: 874
United Kingdom
Message 794515 - Posted: 8 Aug 2008, 8:24:51 UTC - in response to Message 794441.  

Why do I get the following error on all astropulse files?

Exit status -185 (0xffffffffffffff47)
CreateProcess() failed -

You get that error message if you install the Astropulse application yourself (perhaps to run alongside an optimised SETI application), and something goes wrong with the file download for the Astropulse program files.

Check that you have all three of these files in your project directory, and that they are all the correct size.
astropulse_4.35_windows_intelx86.exe .... 452 KB (462,848 bytes)
ap_graphics_4.35_windows_intelx86.exe ... 288 KB (294,912 bytes)
libfftw3f-3-1-1a_upx.dll ................ 438 KB (448,600 bytes)

ID: 794515 · Report as offensive
Ingleside
Volunteer developer

Send message
Joined: 4 Feb 03
Posts: 1546
Credit: 15,832,022
RAC: 13
Norway
Message 794536 - Posted: 8 Aug 2008, 10:34:31 UTC - in response to Message 794480.  

Finished an Astropulse crunch.
940322137 309888091 3 Aug 2008 16:52:28 UTC 5 Aug 2008 23:41:36 UTC Over Success Done 168,830.40 719.06 0.00

719.06 credits requested
0.00 credits given

That was alot of CPU time to get squat. :-(

Next time I see an astropulse work item, I'll be sure to cancel/abort it.


It was posted in Technical News a couple days ago that there's a problem with the Astropulse-validator giving zero credit, but users will be credited manually for their work.

"I make so many mistakes. But then just think of all the mistakes I don't make, although I might."
ID: 794536 · Report as offensive
Profile Mumps [MM]
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Feb 08
Posts: 4454
Credit: 100,893,853
RAC: 30
United States
Message 794558 - Posted: 8 Aug 2008, 11:40:15 UTC

Well, I've got to disable AstroPulse on my main box. So far, every AstroPulse WU has failed out after 2-8 hours of work. (See 946111958, 945705757, 943747957 for examples.) And the WU output doesn't give enough information to let me understand why. My current suspicion is RAM, but it surprises me that I haven't noticed any big problem with MB WU's. And I've never had any problems with any other application on the system.

Anybody with any suggestions? I have saved a few of the dump files that would have been sent to Microsoft. I just don't have access to Visual Studio to evaluate them.

Yeah, I'm dropping the OC, but it's definitely not "bleeding edge" OC either. ;-)
ID: 794558 · Report as offensive
Profile JDWhale
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 6 Apr 99
Posts: 921
Credit: 21,935,817
RAC: 3
United States
Message 794559 - Posted: 8 Aug 2008, 11:41:47 UTC

wuid=310493783

34+ hours CPU time only to get:

 The extended attributes are inconsistent. (0xff) - exit code 255 (0xff)

and Validate state Invalid

I'm not a "happy camper"!!!
ID: 794559 · Report as offensive
Profile magpie2005
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Dec 05
Posts: 9
Credit: 464,062
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 794564 - Posted: 8 Aug 2008, 11:55:11 UTC

I noticed that Astropulse was downloaded and started automatically at the begining of the week with one work unit that should be taking approx 111hrs.

However, after a few days we have CPU time of 94.5 hrs but still 60 hrs to go!!!! Now I'm no rainman but my math tells me something just don't add up here... 111 - 94.5 should be around... say... oh... let me see now... 16.5... which is way, way different to the 60 hrs still to go.

At this rate not only will I never make the report deadline and therefore not get any credit, I just don't think this will ever end...

Anybody else having this problem or has any idea what is going on and why??????
What the ................
Is that really ..........
It can't be .............
no... NO... NO... NOOOOOO
aaaaaAAAAAARRRRGGGGHHHHHHHHH
ID: 794564 · Report as offensive
Richard Haselgrove Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 4 Jul 99
Posts: 14658
Credit: 200,643,578
RAC: 874
United Kingdom
Message 794566 - Posted: 8 Aug 2008, 12:20:49 UTC - in response to Message 794559.  

wuid=310493783

34+ hours CPU time only to get:

 The extended attributes are inconsistent. (0xff) - exit code 255 (0xff)

and Validate state Invalid

I'm not a "happy camper"!!!

That's odd. Claggy and I used to get these all the time in early testing, but I haven't seen one since 23 October 2007 (2716 Beta tasks ago - took some finding! Thought to be fair, most of those are MB, not AP). At that time, we were testing v4.19

I've only ever seen them on my Vista box, which is consistent as that's what you're using. And my Vista box is the dual Xeon Dell Precision Workstation 490, which is pretty much insulated against errors arising from overclocking (you can't) or overheating - even the RAM has its own special fan.

I see your wingmate has errored out as well, but for a different reason. Let's keep an eye on the resends, and see if there's anything odd about the data. In the meantime, I'll report it at Beta.
ID: 794566 · Report as offensive
Claggy
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 5 Jul 99
Posts: 4654
Credit: 47,537,079
RAC: 4
United Kingdom
Message 794570 - Posted: 8 Aug 2008, 12:37:47 UTC - in response to Message 794559.  

wuid=310493783

34+ hours CPU time only to get:

 The extended attributes are inconsistent. (0xff) - exit code 255 (0xff)

and Validate state Invalid

I'm not a "happy camper"!!!


Richard and I have both seen this error before, the last time it was reported
was on AP v4.19, Message ID 30378

Claggy
ID: 794570 · Report as offensive
Profile [KWSN]John Galt 007
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Nov 99
Posts: 2444
Credit: 25,086,197
RAC: 0
United States
Message 794571 - Posted: 8 Aug 2008, 12:44:06 UTC - in response to Message 794564.  

I noticed that Astropulse was downloaded and started automatically at the begining of the week with one work unit that should be taking approx 111hrs.

However, after a few days we have CPU time of 94.5 hrs but still 60 hrs to go!!!! Now I'm no rainman but my math tells me something just don't add up here... 111 - 94.5 should be around... say... oh... let me see now... 16.5... which is way, way different to the 60 hrs still to go.

At this rate not only will I never make the report deadline and therefore not get any credit, I just don't think this will ever end...

Anybody else having this problem or has any idea what is going on and why??????


Welcome to the forums...

A quick answer to your problem is in the Astropulse FAQ:

How long does an Astropulse workunit take to run?
The run times compared to SETI@home enhanced are long (sometimes a week or more), but you should receive the same number of credits per second for astropulse as for seti@home. credits/time should be in line with those using the default enhanced MB application.


The overclocked Q6600s are doing them in 40-80 hours, so your run time is not out of the ordinary. Let it crunch, and see what happens...
Clk2HlpSetiCty:::PayIt4ward

ID: 794571 · Report as offensive
MarkJ Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Feb 08
Posts: 1139
Credit: 80,854,192
RAC: 5
Australia
Message 794593 - Posted: 8 Aug 2008, 13:25:21 UTC - in response to Message 794571.  

The overclocked Q6600s are doing them in 40-80 hours, so your run time is not out of the ordinary. Let it crunch, and see what happens...


None of my machines are overclocked (they are Q6600's @ 2.4Ghz) and they are taking 40 hours give or take a few minutes.
BOINC blog
ID: 794593 · Report as offensive
Wandering Willie
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 136
Credit: 2,127,073
RAC: 0
United Kingdom
Message 794595 - Posted: 8 Aug 2008, 13:32:22 UTC - in response to Message 794593.  

The overclocked Q6600s are doing them in 40-80 hours, so your run time is not out of the ordinary. Let it crunch, and see what happens...


None of my machines are overclocked (they are Q6600's @ 2.4Ghz) and they are taking 40 hours give or take a few minutes.


My average over here and at Beta for a normal Intel Q6600 2.4 GHz machine is between 40 44 hours.

So just let it run.

Michael
ID: 794595 · Report as offensive
1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 14 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : AstroPulse errors - Reporting


 
©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.