Message boards :
Number crunching :
BOINC v6.6.31 available
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
![]() Send message Joined: 9 Apr 04 Posts: 8797 Credit: 2,930,782 RAC: 1 ![]() |
Sure, but what you get is 6.6.29. Tullio |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 3 Sep 04 Posts: 471 Credit: 230,506,401 RAC: 157 ![]() ![]() |
Agreed - but is it really 6.6.29 or 6.6.31 and they forgot to update the version number when they released the app so it says it is 6.6.29 - (I saw this happen with an earlier version - forget which one now)? The installer I used said it was 6.6.31. John. GPU Users Group ![]() ![]() |
![]() Send message Joined: 9 Apr 04 Posts: 8797 Credit: 2,930,782 RAC: 1 ![]() |
Agreed - but is it really 6.6.29 or 6.6.31 and they forgot to update the version number when they released the app so it says it is 6.6.29 - (I saw this happen with an earlier version - forget which one now)? The installer I used said it was 6.6.31. The package name contains 6.6.31 but it runs as 6.6.29. I would welcome an explanation by the developers. Richard Haselgrove has signaled them this inconsistency. Tullio |
MarkJ ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 17 Feb 08 Posts: 1139 Credit: 80,854,192 RAC: 5 ![]() |
Well its obsolete already guys. 6.6.33 is now out. I'd better go and start a new message thread :-) BOINC blog |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 3 Sep 04 Posts: 471 Credit: 230,506,401 RAC: 157 ![]() ![]() |
Well its obsolete already guys. 6.6.33 is now out. I'd better go and start a new message thread :-) I wonder what this version will call itself ............... GPU Users Group ![]() ![]() |
![]() Send message Joined: 9 Apr 04 Posts: 8797 Credit: 2,930,782 RAC: 1 ![]() |
I am not interested in development versions. I have already some Beta versions of CPDN and QMC/ORCA applications to care for. 5.10.45 was a stable version, like my SuSE Linux 10.3. I have already downloaded 11.0 and 11.1 but I am waiting for 11.2, due in November. When I worked in the printing trade they said that one had to wait for a book's third printing. The second had typos corrected and the third also the author's revision. For software it's the same thing. Tullio |
Fred W Send message Joined: 13 Jun 99 Posts: 2524 Credit: 11,954,210 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Is anyone running 6.6.31 on Vista 64? With the earlier 6.6.x versions this was a problem, so I have got into the habit of going to Advanced > Shut down connected client > OK > Cancel before closing Boinc Manager (this is on Vista 64). Not had a problem that way. F. ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 3 Sep 04 Posts: 471 Credit: 230,506,401 RAC: 157 ![]() ![]() |
Is anyone running 6.6.31 on Vista 64? Thanks Fred - that is a neat work around to the problem. I only have the one Vista machine which is probably why I hadn't previously noticed it. (XP32/XP64 seem completely OK) I did a few tests last night and found the behaviour has changed in 6.6.31 which is probably why it is more noticeable. I tried a few versions from 6.6.17 to 6.6.28 and they all close the apps OK every time until you do an exit once with the 'Stop running science apps ....' box unticked. After you have done that, when you restart BOINC manager and subsequently have the box ticked it leaves the apps and boinc.exe in memory. If you suspend the project and exit, all the tasks close but boinc.exe stays in memory and it seems to be stuck there. If in this state you then kill off boinc.exe, behaviour returns to normal until you do an exit with it unticked again. However, in 6.6.31, exiting BOINC manager with the box ticked always leaves everything in memory no matter what you do. Perhaps this behaviour will revert in .32/.33? John. GPU Users Group ![]() ![]() |
MarkJ ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 17 Feb 08 Posts: 1139 Credit: 80,854,192 RAC: 5 ![]() |
However, in 6.6.31, exiting BOINC manager with the box ticked always leaves everything in memory no matter what you do. Perhaps this behaviour will revert in .32/.33? Nope still does the same in 6.6.33. Seems to creep in regularly with development versions, they fix it and then it comes back again. BOINC blog |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 3 Sep 04 Posts: 471 Credit: 230,506,401 RAC: 157 ![]() ![]() |
Ah well one day ......... Reading this I thought I'd have a look at BOINC trac and oddly enough one of the first things I came across was a report by you about this 5 months ago! It never really came up in the past because shutting down BOINC manager wasn't a regular occurence - it is only since I have been doing CUDA tasks and started rebranding VLAR tasks to CPU. I read with interest your blog also. It seems we all have pretty much the same sets of problems - overheating (even worse in your location!), PSU inadequacies and how to see all your screens. I recently inherited an 8 way Belkin switcher and thought my problems were over. Only trouble is I've got some Asus motherboards which don't have PS/2 mouse connections (why did they do that - must have saved them virtually no production costs) and the PS/2_USB converters I have randomly lock up/go crazy with the switch box. I've now reverted to a good 4 way switcher and use Remote Desktop into the machines which won't fit. I lost a newish 750W PSU recently which I was testing in one machine and forgot to connect up the Graphics PCIe power and I think this overloaded the other circuits - fortunately still under warranty. Just arrived in the post today - a whole bunch of new high air flow case fans and CPU blowers to try to sort out some of the problems. That should be keep me busy over the weekend. Congratulations on your 8 million credits! John. GPU Users Group ![]() ![]() |
Sirius B ![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 26 Dec 00 Posts: 24922 Credit: 3,081,182 RAC: 7 ![]() |
Just finished upgrading all my cuda rigs to 6.6.31 & find that cuda has stopped running. When one upgrades to a newer version, does the opp app's need re-installing (I'm using Lunatics Unified Installer)? |
EPG Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 110 Credit: 10,416,543 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Just finished upgrading all my cuda rigs to 6.6.31 & find that cuda has stopped running. Normally, no, the upgrade should left that things untouched. |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 4 Apr 04 Posts: 178 Credit: 9,205,632 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Wow, two crashed and trashed computers for me this morning. Unfortunately, that's my whole SETI Farm! (Currently at 75,000 RAC.) Recently switched to BOINC 6.6.31. This morning my QX9770 has 36 CUDA tasks designated "Waiting to run", since they have been preempted by tasks with later deadlines. Huh? What about my new dual XEON W5580 box? This is the second time this week the hard drive has been wiped out since the BOINC upgrades. This problem also appears to be related to the task pre-empting situation. I can't give any helpful post mortem info. Sigh. Both systems have: Win XP64 BOINC 6.6.31 V11 noperflog Do NOT keep suspended tasks in memory Both systems were running AP on the CPU and MB on CUDA. Bob |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 3 Sep 04 Posts: 471 Credit: 230,506,401 RAC: 157 ![]() ![]() |
Wow, two crashed and trashed computers for me this morning. Unfortunately, that's my whole SETI Farm! (Currently at 75,000 RAC.) You also seem to have been unlucky and have snagged a whole bunch of VLARs which have been killed off :- <core_client_version>6.6.31</core_client_version> <![CDATA[ <message> - exit code -6 (0xfffffffa) </message> <stderr_txt> VLAR WU (AR: 0.012800 )detected... autokill initialised SETI@home error -6 Bad workunit header File: ..\worker.cpp Line: 144 </stderr_txt> ]]> I see one -5 task which looks like the output from the pre-empt problem from this morning at 5:35 which I assume was after you've upgraded to 6.6.31? However other -5's say they are VLAR kills as well core_client_version>6.6.31</core_client_version> <![CDATA[ <message> - exit code -5 (0xfffffffb) </message> <stderr_txt> SETI@home error -5 Can't open file (work_unit.sah) in read_wu_state() errno=2 File: ..\worker.cpp Line: 123 </stderr_txt> ]]> Other errors include :- Cuda error 'cudaMemcpy(dev_cx_DataArray, cx_DataArray, NumDataPoints * sizeof(*cx_DataArray), cudaMemcpyHostToDevice which seems to point at a memory problem with CUDA - are your machines ever rebooted. The extra waiting tasks may still be in CUDA memory and it just ran out - famous last words - perhaps a reboot will clear the problem. I have started to get a whole bunch of waiting to runs - I think this is because the preempting is no longer erroring them when the tasks switch - before they just errored and disappeared. I really abused 6.6.31 when I upgraded it and coouldn't make it -5 once - all with WindowsXPSP3 John. GPU Users Group ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 4 Apr 04 Posts: 178 Credit: 9,205,632 RAC: 0 ![]() |
The VLARs don't seem to be a problem. The autokill has been working OK, I think. ... Yes, that was after the upgrade. Still, it does not make sense that tasks with later deadlines are doing the preempting, and the QX9770 system was only running a cache of 1.6 days. I have not kept up on the pre-empt situation as discussed in the forums here. It has been surprising how much it happens on my systems since upgrades above BOINC 6.6.21. It finally got bad enough that both systems are now detached and turned off... out of necessity - they just don't work anymore with today's configurations of software and WUs. </stderr_txt> Last night I reset the system before going to bed. Unfortunately, the big system (6xGTX295) got so many preempts during my 6 hours of sleep, well, it died.
Thanks for the input, John. I'm guessing the nature of the 6xGTX295 exaggerates such problems, and the end result (failure) arrives sooner. That's why I tried building the system for SETI with only two GPU. The problems are more subtle, yet it was also creating 3 or 4 "waiting to run"'s per day for the past couple days. Question: What is the decision process that makes BOINC preempt in this situation? Is this a bug, or is there some logic to it? Bob |
Richard Haselgrove ![]() Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 14687 Credit: 200,643,578 RAC: 874 ![]() ![]() |
Fred W posted about some -5 errors around the same time as I started bellyaching about the errors which led to the v6.6.31 fix. At the time, I suppose we all assumed that the errors all came from the same cause, but evidently not. Fred's report, Screen dumps are http://img124.imageshack.us/img124/4800/logpic3.jpg and http://img124.imageshack.us/img124/1856/logpic4.jpg Unfortunately, all my CUDA cards are single-core, so I can't follow this one up with personal observations. But it sure sounds as if there's another bug still waiting to be tracked down. |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 104 Credit: 4,382,041 RAC: 2 ![]() |
Is anyone running 6.6.31 on Vista 64? I'm having that same problem with BOINC v6.6.31 on WinXPSP3: Exiting Boinc Mgr does NOT kill the running (otimized SaH) apps with BM Advanced> Options> Enable Manager Exit Dialog (Checked)> OK, then BM File> Exit> (Exit Confirmation dialog appears)> Stop running science applications when exiting the Manager (Checked). "Remember this decision and do not show this dialog again (Checked)" does remember to not show it again but likewise does NOT cause science apps to stop when exiting Boinc Manager. And the science apps auto-restart immediately after I manually kill them in Task Manager> Processes dialogue. I used Msconfig to NOT launch BMgr & BTray when Windows starts up. So now with v6.6.31 I have to choose BM Advanced> Shutdown connected client> OK then click Cancel when prompted to enter a different host, then BM File> Exit > click OK on the Exit Confirmation dialog. This is a pain ........... ;<(( I don't recall if Boinc v6.6.28 had these same options/suboptions, but in v6.6.28 once the options were set to shutdown science apps on BM exit, it would ALWAYS do so. I did install v6.6.31 over v6.6.28 and OK'd it's installation defaults (admittedly I didn't look at what they were after seeing v6.6.31 installer properly saw my (default) installation directories ... so maybe if apps run as service, that would be my fault). Please advise if my complaint about v6.6.31 should be posted on the BOINC site and/or some BM bug tracker?? Sabertooth Z77, i7-3770K@4.2GHz, GTX680, W8.1Pro x64 P5N32-E SLI, C2D E8400@3Ghz, GTX580, Win7SP1Pro x64 & PCLinuxOS2015 x64 ![]() ![]() |
Richard Haselgrove ![]() Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 14687 Credit: 200,643,578 RAC: 874 ![]() ![]() |
Please advise if my complaint about v6.6.31 should be posted on the BOINC site and/or some BM bug tracker?? I've already cross-referenced this thread on the boinc_alpha mailing list, and quoted Questor's message 903515, but further (specific, detailled, analytic, diagnostic) input is always helpful - either on the mailing list or via trac. |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 3 Sep 04 Posts: 471 Credit: 230,506,401 RAC: 157 ![]() ![]() |
Please advise if my complaint about v6.6.31 should be posted on the BOINC site and/or some BM bug tracker?? Thanks for reporting Richard. GPU Users Group ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 4 Apr 04 Posts: 178 Credit: 9,205,632 RAC: 0 ![]() |
From Fred W: My system with two single-core CUDA cards (two GTX285) was creating "wait to run" tasks at a rate comparable, card per card, with my 6xGTX295 system. Fred's observation is alarming. Since the preempting is also happening on my single-core GPU system, it goes back to my question: Why is the preempting happening in the first place? In other words, with a short cache (1.6 days), and plenty of time for all tasks to complete before deadline, why does a WU go EDF in the first place? Is the WU born and flagged that way before I get it? I thought EDF was a calculated state based on the immediate context within the local host? Bob |
©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.