My Quad6600 overclocked to 3.5gig has errored out with AP 4.35 work units and the resulting message is:

<core_client_version>6.2.19</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<message>
CreateProcess() failed -
</message>
]]>

This has happened with more than one AP unit so I have set this system not to receive AP work units.

All the other type of WUs complete without errors.

---

Come and Visit Us at
BBR TeamStarFire


****My 9th year of Seti****A Founding Member of the Original Seti Team Starfire at Broadband Reports.com ****

My Quad6600 overclocked to 3.5gig has errored out with AP 4.35 work units and the resulting message is:

<core_client_version>6.2.19</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<message>
CreateProcess() failed -
</message>
]]>

This has happened with more than one AP unit so I have set this system not to receive AP work units.

All the other type of WUs complete without errors.

Your task list shows that you use an optimised app for the ordinary SETI tasks, so I guess you downloaded the AP files manually and tweaked your app_info.xml file.

You can get this error message if the AP executable files you downloaded are incomplete. If you try again, check the file sizes of the AP files you download - they're posted in the AP FAQ thread (there's no significant difference between v4.35 and v4.36).

...
process exited with code 193 (0xc1, -63)
...
terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::bad_alloc'
what(): St9bad_alloc
SIGABRT: abort called

In very few circumstances the MacOS application crashs with these error messages on PPC and Intel. With he preferences option "leave application in memory while supspended" it looks better and the application crashs not so often. But it could also happens...
I will contact Eric about this issue.

In the moment we're testing the Astropulse 4.36 for MacOS, which hopefully fix this crashs...
If anyone is interest to help test the new application in the Beta project, feel free to contact me.

Did not know that Astropulse would run on a Mac. We have Tiger not Leopard, i.e., we are running OS X 10.4 something - whatever the latest 10.4 is. Do you need 10.5 to run the Astropulse for Mac? Probably 8^O We got the latest Mac available - like three years ago, then wham they started selling the Intel's with 2 cpu's - even though apple didn't give OS X 10.5 for some time after. Aside from the digression here, can we run Astropulse on the apple G4/(or 5) with The Tiger OS?

Astropulse works fine on Tiger on G5 PPC systems.
Binaries are available at my homepage http://www.dotsch.de/seti. There is also a MacOS AP forum thread

Where did it go?

Yesterday I completed an Astropulse unit, but, this time, somehow, it vanished into the wuild space...! I wonder if someone can find it!

Here are the details:

TaskID: 989243006
WorkUnitId: 332602657
Sent: 14 Sep 2008 22:35:11
Reported: 4 Oct 2008 20:20:09
Server State: Over
Outcome: Success
Client state: Done
CPU Time: 170,454.10
claimed credit: 767.42
granted credit: 0.00

So, right now, I have 3 AP units on a "pending" granted credit status and this last one in a nowhere status, as it didn´t increase at least my pending credits... Any clues? I still have 3 more APs unit in my queue and I would like to know what will happen to them when completed... One likes to know the results of the dedicated CPU cycles...

Will it be needed some kind of bailout to rescue this credit? Are we facing some kind of collateral effects coming from Wall Street?

Just joking but please help me on this!

Keep on the great job!

Greetings

---

A third WU has been assigned to it, so no outcome for credits has been decided yet. Though it does seem to have a valid state.

---

A third WU has been assigned to it, so no outcome for credits has been decided yet. Though it does seem to have a valid state.

So the AstroPulse validator is still not behaving itself.

Should be sorted out by Eric's script.

F.

---

I and my wingman both claimed 761.35 for this and got nothing.
Can someone please explain? If no genuine explanation is forthcoming then I shall simply abort any astropulse units that come my way. Why should I waste so much time on failure?

Task ID 997071368
Name ap_17au08ab_B2_P1_00003_20080920_22719.wu_0
Workunit 336307108
Created 21 Sep 2008 3:51:26 UTC
Sent 21 Sep 2008 4:59:31 UTC
Received 6 Oct 2008 5:41:57 UTC
Server state Over
Outcome Success
Client state Done
Exit status 0 (0x0)
Computer ID 4386320
Report deadline 21 Oct 2008 4:59:31 UTC
CPU time 453951.6
stderr out

<core_client_version>6.2.16</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<stderr_txt>
In ap_gfx_main.cpp: in ap_graphics_init(): Starting client.
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 896
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 1024
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 1152
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 1280
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 1408
In ap_gfx_main.cpp: in ap_graphics_init(): Starting client.
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 1408
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 1536
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 1664
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 1792
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 1920
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 2048
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 2176
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 2304
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 2432
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 2560
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 2688
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 2816
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 2944
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 3072
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 3200
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 3328
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 3456
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 3584
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 3712
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 3840
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 3968
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 4096
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 4224
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 4352
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 4480
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 4608
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 4736
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 4864
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 4992
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 5120
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 5248
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 5376
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 5504
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 5632
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 5760
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 5888
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 6016
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 6144
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 6272
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 6400
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 6528
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 6656
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 6784
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 6912
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 7040
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 7168
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 7296
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 7424
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 7552
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 7680
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 7808
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 7936
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 8064
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 8192
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 8320
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 8448
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 8576
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 8704
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 8832
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 8960
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 9088
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 9216
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 9344
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 9472
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 9600
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 9728
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 9856
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 9984
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 10112
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 10240
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 10368
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 10496
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 10624
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 10752
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 10880
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 11008
In ap_gfx_main.cpp: in ap_graphics_init(): Starting client.
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 11008
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 11136
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 11264
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 11392
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 11520
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 11648
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 11776
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 11904
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 12032
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 12160
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 12288
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 12416
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 12544
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 12672
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 12800
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 12928
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 13056
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 13184
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 13312
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 13440
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 13568
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 13696
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 13824
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 13952
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 14080
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 14208
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 14336
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 14464
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 14592
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 14720
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 14848
In ap_client_main.cpp: in mainloop(): at dm_chunk_large 14976
called boinc_finish

</stderr_txt>
]]>

Validate state Valid
Claimed credit 761.347047500911
Granted credit 0
application version 4.35

---

I and my wingman both claimed 761.35 for this and got nothing.
Can someone please explain? If no genuine explanation is forthcoming then I shall simply abort any astropulse units that come my way. Why should I waste so much time on failure?

Seems to be similar with others in that a 3rd WU has been generated, but has yet to be assigned to someone.

---

Yes, I see that - but meanwhile two of us get no credit! What happens in these instances? Do we all get credit eventually or have the first two wasted their time?

---

Yes, I see that - but meanwhile two of us get no credit! What happens in these instances? Do we all get credit eventually or have the first two wasted their time?

Keep an eye on it. I believe that it is a manually-run script that sorts these out. We are approaching the beginning of Berkeley's working week so I would expect the credit to be granted in the next 24 hours.

F.

---

I and my wingman both claimed 761.35 for this and got nothing.
Can someone please explain? If no genuine explanation is forthcoming then I shall simply abort any astropulse units that come my way. Why should I waste so much time on failure?

Task ID 997071368
Name ap_17au08ab_B2_P1_00003_20080920_22719.wu_0
Workunit 336307108
...

No canonical result has yet been chosen for that WU, so when the third result is reported the Validator will check all three, and grant credit as appropriate. No credit can be granted until a canonical result is found, unless a manual script is run which gives credit even for totally corrupt results. The apparent problem is simply that the Validator returns a "Valid" state even when it means "Checked, but no consensus yet" and the web code therefor shows the 0 for granted credit simply because the granting has not yet been done. Note that AP work reports 10 "best" signals even if none are actually above threshold, it's not rare for those to give only a "weakly similar" comparison. Still, the 3rd host will almost certainly resolve a case like this where the initial 2 ran to completion so that all 3 get credit.

                                                                Joe

Thanks for the explanation.
Not really very happy with this situation so I have dropped any AP jobs that have not started yet and switched their option off as well. Perhaps when AP gets working better I shall start doing them again but it all smacks of being rather rough and ready at this stage and not suitable for the wheezy old machines I am using.

---

Thank you for answer.

Nevertheless, I'm not quite happy with it.
In fact, and since my last post (message 815023), one of my pending AP units has received credit. So now I have 3 AP units waiting for credit to be granted. I can see 2 of those 3 in my "Pending Credit" page. But the last one I complain, only appears in the "Tasks" page, with claimed credit but with granted credit = 0.
The other 2 (as all the others pending) have the granted credit status = pending and do appear and do count to my pending credit. Only that one a) doesn't appear on the "Pending Credit" page and b) doesn't have a granted crrdit status = pending.

In short, I'm not complaining about not having received the claimed credit! I'm just complaining about not seeing it, among my pending credit. Is this normal? Perhaps... for me it's a first...

Thank's anyway! I guess I'll just have to keep a closer look on this and see what will happen!

Regards and keep on the great job! Seti 4 ever!

---

In short, I'm not complaining about not having received the claimed credit! I'm just complaining about not seeing it, among my pending credit.

This is because technically it's no longer pending - it's got granted credit of 0.

I have one like this as well. Once it gets sent out to a third machine and verified, you'll get actual credit applied to your account (assuming your result was correct). They may have to do this manually, but it will be done.

---

Cruiser
Gateway GT5692 L-f-S Edition
-Phenom X4 9650 CPU
-4GB 667MHz DDR2 RAM
-500GB SATA HD
-Vista x64 SP1
-BOINC 6.2.19 32-bit client
-SSE3 optimized 32-bit apps

Can we review all of our prior results? Probably should read all of the FAQ's before asking, but the links through our account page only go back so far. The reason we're asking is that the first couple of AP WU's we crunched had interesting looking results, with notes like 'number of pulses found' and 'number of repeating pulses found". We are back on track with AP WU's crunching OK and waiting for quorum results on a couple of them now. Credits aside, the results don't show anything interesting. How does SETI decide how to create WU's for AP? Even the standard SETI WU results tell you how many pulses were found. Wherever SETI was looking on our first couple of AP crunches seemed promising. Does SETI (standard or AP) zero in on areas where pulses have been found? Now that we are crunching OK without errors again, the latest AP results dont give anything that makes any sense to mere SETI members like ourselves.

There is an option to switch off Astropulse units? Where, When, and How????? And is Sarah Palin involved????

---

Can we review all of our prior results?

You can review results of the work units you've crunched for about 24 hours after you've uploaded them. After that, they disappear. Keeping them accessible would take a gigantic amount of storage space that's better used elsewhere.

There is an option to switch off Astropulse units? Where, When, and How?????

The option is in your online SETI@home preferences. Just click the edit link and un-check Astropulse. Then click Update, and hit the Update button in the BOINC manager. No more Astropulse.

---

Cruiser
Gateway GT5692 L-f-S Edition
-Phenom X4 9650 CPU
-4GB 667MHz DDR2 RAM
-500GB SATA HD
-Vista x64 SP1
-BOINC 6.2.19 32-bit client
-SSE3 optimized 32-bit apps

1013776970 344174791 7 Oct 2008 8:46:10 UTC 8 Oct 2008 15:26:27 UTC Over Client error Compute error 9,021.08 56.65 ---
1012836377 342654872 6 Oct 2008 12:45:34 UTC 8 Oct 2008 15:26:27 UTC Over Client error Compute error 24,854.61 97.11 ---

well, some problems with astropulse...

---