Message boards :
Number crunching :
Panic Mode On (58) Server problems?
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 . . . 11 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
Richard Haselgrove Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 14679 Credit: 200,643,578 RAC: 874 |
I cannot remember the last time the daily cricket graph looked the way it does at present - a perfect, solid mass of green. Long may it continue. Uploads are working fine here, and for the majority of users - otherwise we couldn't be seeing "Results received in last hour 48,463" on the server status page. You may have been caught by the HE router fault - you could try the proxy solutions suggested in the two sticky 'HE connection problems' threads at the top of this board. |
KWSN Ekky Ekky Ekky Send message Joined: 25 May 99 Posts: 944 Credit: 52,956,491 RAC: 67 |
You may have been caught by the HE router fault - you could try the proxy solutions suggested in the two sticky 'HE connection problems' threads at the top of this board. Never any problems before. Downloads have been fine. The upload problem only started a couple of hours ago. |
KWSN Ekky Ekky Ekky Send message Joined: 25 May 99 Posts: 944 Credit: 52,956,491 RAC: 67 |
Uploads are working fine here, and for the majority of users - otherwise we couldn't be seeing "Results received in last hour 48,463" on the server status page. It may be totally irrelevant but I see that results received is down to 45,088 so perhaps I am not the only one with sudden upload problems? [Edit] Now I see that Bruno is actually in disabled state, so no wonder uploads are not going through! |
Richard Haselgrove Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 14679 Credit: 200,643,578 RAC: 874 |
Uploads are working fine here, and for the majority of users - otherwise we couldn't be seeing "Results received in last hour 48,463" on the server status page. Honestly, uploads are going through normally here - I have none waiting (across five busy machines), and three have gone through since I started typing this reply. There are regular 'false negatives' on the server status page. My rule of thumb is not to believe it unless the same server shows as disabled on two consecutive updates (i.e. updates with different timestamps - Bruno is running on the 14:40 UTC copy of the page). |
Lint trap Send message Joined: 30 May 03 Posts: 871 Credit: 28,092,319 RAC: 0 |
Uploads are working fine here, and for the majority of users - otherwise we couldn't be seeing "Results received in last hour 48,463" on the server status page. Bruno looks fine on the latest script run (Update)... Downloads have slowed to Molasses speed for me and the numbers are starting to pile up. Uploading and reporting has not been a problem at all for a couple days. Lt I see Richard beat me to it...re Bruno. He must be faster at two finger typing than I am...:) |
Sunny129 Send message Joined: 7 Nov 00 Posts: 190 Credit: 3,163,755 RAC: 0 |
i just want to say that i'm getting AP GPU tasks for the first time in ~2 weeks now. they've been flowing for the past ~36 hours or so, albeit sparsely - my AP queue has yet to climb above ~10 tasks. i should also note that this isn't enough to keep my GPU crunching constantly, but i understand we're still debugging some problems. the last time i posted about the server problems was in the "Panic Mode On (55) Server problems" thread over 2 weeks ago. |
Fred J. Verster Send message Joined: 21 Apr 04 Posts: 3252 Credit: 31,903,643 RAC: 0 |
|
Lint trap Send message Joined: 30 May 03 Posts: 871 Credit: 28,092,319 RAC: 0 |
See Soft^Spirit's new "Highlight: Update from Jeff 10/8/11" thread. After the PAIX router's memory is increased many of these quirky, intermittent connection issues might disappear. (We can all hope!) Lt |
Kevin Olley Send message Joined: 3 Aug 99 Posts: 906 Credit: 261,085,289 RAC: 572 |
Uploads and reporting running fine here. Downloads very slow. Kevin |
Starman Send message Joined: 15 May 99 Posts: 204 Credit: 81,351,915 RAC: 25 |
Downloads are slow, but I'm getting lots of work now including a good handfull of AP's. In fact my 1 rig is becoming a bit of a piggy wiggy with them, seems to be getting the lions share in numbers and as a % of total work. Brett |
MikeN Send message Joined: 24 Jan 11 Posts: 319 Credit: 64,719,409 RAC: 85 |
Uploads, downloads and reporting all working really well here. Hope thats not tempting fate. |
MikeN Send message Joined: 24 Jan 11 Posts: 319 Credit: 64,719,409 RAC: 85 |
Ok, whoever it is that have "the yellow one" in custody, prepare to bring it out in about 30 minutes. Its now four and a half hours since the 30 minute duck warning and no sign of him. I wonder if the fact that I have just roasted his legs and they are now in my belly along with half a bottle of chianti could have anything to do with it. |
perryjay Send message Joined: 20 Aug 02 Posts: 3377 Credit: 20,676,751 RAC: 0 |
My kitties said to tell you he was delicious! :-) PROUD MEMBER OF Team Starfire World BOINC |
Cosmic_Ocean Send message Joined: 23 Dec 00 Posts: 3027 Credit: 13,516,867 RAC: 13 |
All seems well (aside from the much nicer limits for you power crunchers). The avian friend is happy, and my cache is full..with the correct ETAs I might add. Linux laptop: record uptime: 1511d 20h 19m (ended due to the power brick giving-up) |
Josef W. Segur Send message Joined: 30 Oct 99 Posts: 4504 Credit: 1,414,761 RAC: 0 |
For any host with more than 20 validations for an app_version, it's nearly inconceivable that APR/estimates anomalies will make much difference. For non-anonymous hosts the APR is sent to the host as the <flops> for that app version, so the ratio limit of 10 would have to be exceeded between two requests to the Scheduler for any capping to take place. 1.01^231 = 9.96 so even 231 near zero validated runtimes wouldn't get into the capping. OTOH assuming the APR was about right before that, that shift of ~10 would put the host on the border of the range where -177 elapsed time exceeded errors could happen. For anonymous hosts where the users are allowing totally inadequate <flops> based on the Whetstone benchmark to be sent by the core client, it is effectively guaranteed that estimates for most GPU processing will be a mess. Those who are getting by because DCF down near 0.02 is enough to compensate for the bad <flops> are merely in danger of DCF going even lower and restricting work fetch, whatever happens to APR matters not since the user has chosen to operate in the zone where the server estimate is always capped. For all host app versions, the first 10 validations are critical. If the APR isn't somewhat reasonable at that point it will take a lot of good runtimes to shift it to a better approximation. That's where the runtime_outlier logic will be helpful, and I too hope the Astropulse validator code will be updated soon. The project gets about 600 new hosts a day (either really new or new hostID), it's not nice to leave them exposed to a known weakness in the system. Joe |
Richard Haselgrove Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 14679 Credit: 200,643,578 RAC: 874 |
For all host app versions, the first 10 validations are critical. If the APR isn't somewhat reasonable at that point it will take a lot of good runtimes to shift it to a better approximation. That's where the runtime_outlier logic will be helpful, and I too hope the Astropulse validator code will be updated soon. The project gets about 600 new hosts a day (either really new or new hostID), it's not nice to leave them exposed to a known weakness in the system.Joe And when v7 goes live on SETI, the project will get about a quarter of a million new hosts in the first month - at least, as far as the application_details are concerned. We really ought to prevail on David to consider that number before the event..... Anonymous_platform hosts return their GPU hardware characteristics in sched_request. I really don't see why that can't be used to seed APR with a first approximation, instead of using a totally irrelevant CPU metric. |
soft^spirit Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 6497 Credit: 34,134,168 RAC: 0 |
Are there any plans of making version 6.12 usable by high end hosts before trying to roll to V7? Janice |
Richard Haselgrove Send message Joined: 4 Jul 99 Posts: 14679 Credit: 200,643,578 RAC: 874 |
Are there any plans of making version 6.12 usable by high end hosts before trying to roll to V7? Versions of what? The discussion with Joe was about the SETI science application - currently at v6.03 for CPUs, v6.08/09/10 for CUDA GPUs. Version 6.12 sounds like a BOINC version number - I'm not having any problems with BOINC v6.12.34, though I don't run what you would call a 'high end host'. What issues make it unusable? I haven't seen any reported on the boinc_alpha mailing list: that would be a better venue for discussing boinc issues than here, though I can pass on messages if needed. |
KWSN Ekky Ekky Ekky Send message Joined: 25 May 99 Posts: 944 Credit: 52,956,491 RAC: 67 |
Still nothing uploading from here. I do not believe Bruno is allowing them. I see his vote monitor function is disabled. |
KWSN Ekky Ekky Ekky Send message Joined: 25 May 99 Posts: 944 Credit: 52,956,491 RAC: 67 |
Why would it start now? Never happened before. |
©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.