Starting to run low here. Perhaps they should try turning it off and on again?

Called a "power reset" by computer nerds...

---

.

Hello, from Albany, CA!...

Starting to run low here. Perhaps they should try turning it off and on again?

Called a "power reset" by computer nerds...

Ya, things are still way wonky.
Have not heard back from anybody yet, but it's only a bit after 9AM in Berkeley on a Saturday.....

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

I think maybe somebody's coffee kicked in.
The kitties are starting to snag some freshly split WUs......
Hopefully it's not just a fluke.

Meowza!

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

Here they come. Sorry Einstein, not today.

---

The problem may be that all the working splitters were all working on one "tape" - maybe the staff should look into having each splitter work on a different tape...

---

.

Hello, from Albany, CA!...

The problem may be that all the working splitters were all working on one "tape" - maybe the staff should look into having each splitter work on a different tape...

Whatever the solution is, I wish the splitters would get back on track.
The kitties' caches are down about 1,000 from their usual quotas.

The kitties are still losing traction....and I wish all of that apparent AP splitting was producing some valid AP WUs.
Meowsigh.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

A university course 101.Panic.Mode.On.101.Server.Problems?

My dog has only 64 CPU tasks. None for GPU. That will hurt the RAC.

To get 200 000 from shorties it needs 200 000 / 43 = 4651 of them each day (193 per hour).

Grr.

---

To overcome Heisenbergs:
"You can't always get what you want / but if you try sometimes you just might find / you get what you need." -- Rolling Stones

Still a dismal Creation rate; Current result creation rate: MB 3.5619/sec, AP 0.0132/sec
One machine Out, another 2 will be Out in an hour or 2.
Too bad there aren't any GPU version 8 tasks at Beta, now would be a good time for them...

Still a dismal Creation rate; Current result creation rate: MB 3.5619/sec, AP 0.0132/sec
One machine Out, another 2 will be Out in an hour or 2.
Too bad there aren't any GPU version 8 tasks at Beta, now would be a good time for them...

+1

---

To overcome Heisenbergs:
"You can't always get what you want / but if you try sometimes you just might find / you get what you need." -- Rolling Stones

Did the AP splitters now take over the bug? They show as online, but at the same time as splitting at "0/sec".

---

Did the AP splitters now take over the bug? They show as online, but at the same time as splitting at "0/sec".

Maybe not. The channels are not showing errors.
Much of the 2011 AP work has already been split and done, so not all of those channels result in new work being generated.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

Nice. The 2 machines that were Out of work just received some MBs.
Back in business.
Looking better, Current result creation rate: MBs 34.9833/sec, APs 0.9498/sec

Last four files to be split, 30 channels left...

We need more tapes.

8 days between posts, something buggy must be incoming.

---

8 days between posts, something buggy must be incoming.

It's true. The "calm before the storm" is always an omen of things to come.

---

Linux laptop:
record uptime: 1511d 20h 19m (ended due to the power brick giving-up)

8 days between posts, something buggy must be incoming.

You mean people have been Christmas shopping for bugs?

---

A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. (Mark Twain)

ap_14oc11ab_B0_P1_00022_20151209_27515.wu
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=1995526780

3 same results, but 1 invalid, why?

---

ap_14oc11ab_B0_P1_00022_20151209_27515.wu
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=1995526780

3 same results, but 1 invalid, why?

Not sure if it matters, but the first result had no info about the pulses found, etc. Looked truncated? Or is that just difference in the code between Cuda and AMD implementations?

---

ap_14oc11ab_B0_P1_00022_20151209_27515.wu
http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/workunit.php?wuid=1995526780

3 same results, but 1 invalid, why?

Not sure if it matters, but the first result had no info about the pulses found, etc. Looked truncated? Or is that just difference in the code between Cuda and AMD implementations?

I think "the first result had no info about the pulses found" because:
Verbose level set to:0

I also don't think setting Verbose level to 0 have any noticeable effect on speed/Run-time

Those values are available (and they are the "same" (very small difference in peak_power=3792.419 vs 3792.42)) for the 2 other tasks:

Rep. pulse: num_std_devs=6.859 peak_power=3792.419 dm=2800 peak_bin=1104 scale=4 ffa_scale=0 period=308.0001
Single pulse: peak_power=130.109 dm=7290 fft_num=1196032 peak_bin=1200512 scale=6
Single pulse: peak_power=364.529 dm=9205 fft_num=28950528 peak_bin=28963840 scale=8
Single pulse: peak_power=61.9814 dm=9739 fft_num=1605632 peak_bin=1610560 scale=4
Single pulse: peak_power=364.027 dm=-13886 fft_num=21151744 peak_bin=21167104 scale=8

We (and Dirk) can't compare his result to the 2 others as he chose to use -v 0
 

---

 


- ALF - "Find out what you don't do well ..... then don't do it!" :)
 

So not so good to use '-v 0' in cmdline?
I thought this way the file for upload would be a thing smaller (less bandwidth usage @ SETI)... - no?

---