AstroPulse errors - Reporting
Message boards :
Number crunching :
AstroPulse errors - Reporting
Message board moderation
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
Richard Haselgrove  Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 14673 Credit: 200,643,578 RAC: 874 
 |
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 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 ·  |
|
Richard Haselgrove Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 14673 Credit: 200,643,578 RAC: 874
|
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 · |
 JDWhale  Send message Joined: 6 Apr 99 Posts: 921 Credit: 21,935,817 RAC: 3 
|
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 · |
|
chassell Send message Joined: 23 Jul 00 Posts: 3 Credit: 3,285,099 RAC: 0
|
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 · |
|
Koodausvirhe Send message Joined: 17 Jun 08 Posts: 6 Credit: 148,125 RAC: 0 
|
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 · |
Fuzzy Hollynoodles  Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 9659 Credit: 251,998 RAC: 0 |
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 · |
|
Koodausvirhe Send message Joined: 17 Jun 08 Posts: 6 Credit: 148,125 RAC: 0
|
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 · |
|
Alan Johnson Send message Joined: 3 Nov 00 Posts: 3 Credit: 4,770,453 RAC: 2
|
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 · |
arkayn  Send message Joined: 14 May 99 Posts: 4438 Credit: 55,006,323 RAC: 0
|
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 · |
zoom3+1=4  Send message Joined: 30 Nov 03 Posts: 66202 Credit: 55,293,173 RAC: 49
 |
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 Savoir-Faire is everywhere! The T1 Trust, T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, America's First HST 
ID: 794494 · |
|
Richard Haselgrove Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 14673 Credit: 200,643,578 RAC: 874
|
Why do I get the following error on all astropulse files? 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 · |
|
Ingleside Send message Joined: 4 Feb 03 Posts: 1546 Credit: 15,832,022 RAC: 13 
|
Finished an Astropulse crunch. 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 · |
Mumps [MM]  Send message Joined: 11 Feb 08 Posts: 4454 Credit: 100,893,853 RAC: 30
|
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 · |
|
JDWhale Send message Joined: 6 Apr 99 Posts: 921 Credit: 21,935,817 RAC: 3
|
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 · |
magpie2005  Send message Joined: 2 Dec 05 Posts: 9 Credit: 464,062 RAC: 0
|
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 · |
|
Richard Haselgrove Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 14673 Credit: 200,643,578 RAC: 874
|
wuid=310493783 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 · |
|
Claggy Send message Joined: 5 Jul 99 Posts: 4654 Credit: 47,537,079 RAC: 4
|
wuid=310493783 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 · |
[KWSN]John Galt 007  Send message Joined: 9 Nov 99 Posts: 2444 Credit: 25,086,197 RAC: 0
|
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. 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 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 · |
MarkJ     Send message Joined: 17 Feb 08 Posts: 1139 Credit: 80,854,192 RAC: 5 
|
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 · |
|
Wandering Willie Send message Joined: 19 Aug 99 Posts: 136 Credit: 2,127,073 RAC: 0
|
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... 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 · |
©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.