Posts by John Black

1) Message boards : Number crunching : vlars taking ages to run (Message 1749654)
Posted 16 Dec 2015 by Profile John Black
Post:
It must have been an odd WU as the rest of the vlars seem to be calculating at a reasonable time c6 hours. Either that or something went wrong with my wee pc. Either way I will keep a look out and report back here if it happens again.

Thanks
John
2) Message boards : Number crunching : vlars taking ages to run (Message 1748954)
Posted 13 Dec 2015 by Profile John Black
Post:
08ja11af.25606.9883.3.12.54.vlar_0 has completed and validated. 52,287 secs runtime and 21,318 cpu time.
I am at a loss to know why this disparity as I am not watching movies or playing games on the pc. I have looked at the Task manager and there isn't anything obvious running and I run Malwarebytes Threat scan and MS Security Essentials once a day.

I have rebooted to see if that makes a difference.

All suggestions appreciated.

Thanks
John
3) Message boards : Number crunching : vlars taking ages to run (Message 1748932)
Posted 13 Dec 2015 by Profile John Black
Post:
Hi,
I had a vlar 08ja11af.25606.9883.3.12.69.vlar that was about 50% completed after 15 hours and aborted it as abnormal. I am doing my runs, CPU only, on a dual core Intel E4700 processor and the vlars normally take around 6 hours (the estimate at the start was 5h 55m). I would have put it down to experience (or lack of it) but the next wu 08ja11af.25606.9883.3.12.54.vlar_0 is still running after 13h 25min showing 2 hours still to go.
My question is, is this normal for this series of vlars or is it a bad run or do I have something wrong with my wee processor.
I will not abort this run but let it go to completion and see what the result is.

I would appreciate any comments on how others are getting on with this vlar series or any similar experiences in the past.

Thanks
John
4) Message boards : Number crunching : Panic Mode On (101) Server Problems? (Message 1743384)
Posted 19 Nov 2015 by Profile John Black
Post:
Thanks Jimbocous,

I only have an Intel E4700 double core CPU to work with so I notice these problems. I am happy to accept your advice that this is normal behaviour.

Thank you again for the advice.

Regards
John
5) Message boards : Number crunching : Panic Mode On (101) Server Problems? (Message 1743175)
Posted 18 Nov 2015 by Profile John Black
Post:
I have two invalid and three validation inconclusive as follows

Invalid: 21no11aa.14796.24718.4.12.138.vlar and 21no11aa.994.39313.5.12.75.vlar

Inconclusive: ap_23no11ai_B2_P1_00180_20151112_26295.wu_1
ap_23no11ai_B1_P0_00218_20151112_20780.wu and 08no11aa.5894.10701.438086664199.12.135

Is anything going wrong or is my wee pc failing?

John
6) Message boards : Number crunching : Not requesting tasks:Dont need (CPU: not highest priority...) (Message 1686616)
Posted 1 Jun 2015 by Profile John Black
Post:
Thanks Glen,

that seems to have worked out ok. I must have lost the settings when I updated the BOINC version.

John
7) Message boards : Number crunching : Not requesting tasks:Dont need (CPU: not highest priority...) (Message 1686598)
Posted 1 Jun 2015 by Profile John Black
Post:
Hi,

occasionally, especially on a Monday prior to a Tuesday shut-down, I get the above message on the BOINCmgr event log. I am down to about 5 tasks to calculate which may or may not last me until after the the shut-down. Is there any way that I can get BOINC to send me more CPU tasks?

Thanks to all who read this and especially to those who offer comments.

John
8) Message boards : Number crunching : Number Crunching-We are Back! (Message 1624558)
Posted 6 Jan 2015 by Profile John Black
Post:
Roundabouts and Swings:

As a result of the recent SETI outages I experienced a 73% increase in RAC. I run a wee dual core CPU only system 50/50 S@H and MW@H and as a result of the outage I was running solely MW@H. This caused my RAC to rise as MW@H seems to award more credit than S@H.

Now that SETI seems to be working again I have experienced a consequent 73% decrease in RAC. So its not quite Roundabouts and Swings as the credit awarded by both my chosen projects are definitely not equal.

Having said all that it is good to be back working normally again.

John
9) Message boards : Number crunching : Observation of CreditNew Impact (3) (Message 1415957)
Posted 15 Sep 2013 by Profile John Black
Post:
Hi,
I run a dual core E4700 with one doing SETI and one doing MW@H. I have a problem in that my system seems to favour MW@H work over SETI. When left unattended recently it ran more MW@H work than SETI and I had a daily total c 1600 cobblestones. Now that I am trying, by suspending MW@H, to even the work out more, my daily total is c 1200.
I know that this thread is about a change in the credit system for SETI with the introduction of v7 but surely BOINC should award roughly equal credit for all its projects and all their versions.
If I were merely concerned about cobblestones then I would migrate both cores to MW@H but I am interested in both and not in the least competitive.

BOINC should make an effort to even out the credit across all its projects and then we would not have this problem when migrating from one version to another within SETI.

John
10) Message boards : Number crunching : CPU Tasks running slower than predicted (Message 1363251)
Posted 1 May 2013 by Profile John Black
Post:
Hi Keith,

thanks for the guidelines I will give it a go.

Regards
John
11) Message boards : Number crunching : CPU Tasks running slower than predicted (Message 1362521)
Posted 29 Apr 2013 by Profile John Black
Post:
Hi Floyd and Keith,

I have been running, as adjusted, for about 20 hours and things have settled down.
All my tasks are running at a better ratio for expired time v cpu time. Whatever caused the problem with the reduced ratio seems to have disappeared.

Keith I have process Explorer and am learning to use it. I will use it to monitor things over the next few days.

Thanks guys for the advice it is much appreciated.

John
12) Message boards : Number crunching : CPU Tasks running slower than predicted (Message 1362316)
Posted 28 Apr 2013 by Profile John Black
Post:
Hi Floyd,

In prefs it showed 100% of cpu. In Tasks>Tools>computing prefs it was set to 90% s I changed it to 95% and that seems to have speeded things up (less saw teeth on SysMonII).

At the moment everything seems to have settled down so I will leave it until tomorrow to see if the run time gets nearer to the CPU time.

Thanks
John
13) Message boards : Number crunching : CPU Tasks running slower than predicted (Message 1362310)
Posted 28 Apr 2013 by Profile John Black
Post:
Hi Guys,

thanks for the suggestions.
Keith not a lot going on that I know. I run Malwarebytes and Msoft security but no games or excessive browsing. I looked at the Task Manager and at the moment S@H is showing one task at about 40 and one at about 35. Two or three other tasks are showing about 2 or 3 and the rest 0. I run system monitorII on my sidebar and it shows a regular cycling of both cores from 100% down to 25% every 30 secs to give a saw toothed trace.
Floyd as I said above there does not seem to be any other tasks taking up much CPU time.
I will let it run and see what happens.

John
14) Message boards : Number crunching : CPU Tasks running slower than predicted (Message 1362295)
Posted 28 Apr 2013 by Profile John Black
Post:
Hi again,

the disparity between the run time and the CPU time for these tasks is worrying.

2961269944 1228641134 5880149 27 Apr 2013, 21:55:42 UTC 28 Apr 2013, 17:15:09 UTC Completed, waiting for validation 16,520.99 6,648.33 pending SETI@home Enhanced v6.03

I wonder why this is happening? Any suggestion will be wellcome.

John
15) Message boards : Number crunching : CPU Tasks running slower than predicted (Message 1362237)
Posted 28 Apr 2013 by Profile John Black
Post:
Hi,
I am running BOINC 7.0.28 0n a CPU tasks only basis. I have an Aspire M1640 with an Intel E4700 cpu with adequate disc space and RAM.
I recently received a bunch of SETI tasks in the sequence 05fe13a...etc. with an estimated calculation length of 1:35:14. However they seem to be taking much longer than that to calculate.e.g.05fe13ag.20783.8042.9.10.90_1 has been running for 5:12:52 and is 75.37% completed with 1:40:42 still to run.

I am interested if anyone else has noticed this problem of tasks running much longer than expected. The one task in the sequence that I have managed to complete shows a CPU time much shorter than the calculation time.
Do I have a problem with hardware or software or is this just a glitch?
All contribution will be gratefully received.

John
16) Message boards : Number crunching : Wonky WUs/Wonky PC (Message 1230565)
Posted 11 May 2012 by Profile John Black
Post:
Hi Richard,

I had the same or a similar problem with this NVidia upd


nVidia - Display, Other hardware - NVIDIA GeForce 9300 GE

Installation date: ‎30/‎04/‎2012 16:22

Installation status: Failed

Error details: Code 800F001D

Update type: Optional

nVidia Display, Other hardware software update released in February, 2012

More information:
http://winqual.microsoft.com/support/?driverid=20469838

Help and Support:
http://support.microsoft.com/select/?target=hub


After this failure my screen resolution went to pot and I couldn't fix it so a system restore fixed it. You say that you shut down BOINC before you do the update what is the best way to do this? I have set BOINC to run always and I don't normally shut it down or restart it without a reboot and of course it will start again when I reboot after an update.

John
17) Message boards : Number crunching : Wonky WUs/Wonky PC (Message 1230257)
Posted 10 May 2012 by Profile John Black
Post:
Hi Jason,

I noticed that the Silverlight upd did take a long time. If it was tying up an i5 then you can imagine what it did to my wee core duo.

It looks like that was the problem that caused my mini cache of SETI wus to go into a cascade of errors.

UPDATES are DANGEROUS

Thanks

John

p.s. Still working normally
18) Message boards : Number crunching : Wonky WUs/Wonky PC (Message 1230234)
Posted 10 May 2012 by Profile John Black
Post:
Hi Jord and Jason,

ok so I followed the instructions and eventually did a reboot.

Then I resumed one task and it seemed to work with no error. I have enabled a few more so I will see what happens in the next few hours.

I set my Windows updates some time ago to be downloaded and run manually as when I had it set on automatic it did the reboot when I was not around and messed up my BOINC. I will just need to be extra careful in the future but I have had no errors in the past with this regime.

Thanks again guys for the advice.

John

p.s. Throughout this Milky Way was running happily ??
19) Message boards : Number crunching : Wonky WUs/Wonky PC (Message 1230209)
Posted 10 May 2012 by Profile John Black
Post:
Thanks Ageless I will follow your suggestions and see where that leads me.

In the meantime I have suspended all tasks as continuing in this way will just get me nowhere.

I will post here as I try the remedies.

John
20) Message boards : Number crunching : Wonky WUs/Wonky PC (Message 1230199)
Posted 10 May 2012 by Profile John Black
Post:
Hi SETI people,

I just had a series of wu's than errored out as follows

<core_client_version>7.0.27</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<message>
couldn't start Can't link app version file: -108
</message>


I am running Vista HP sp2 on an E4700 dual core Intel CPU.

The only thing that I have changed recently on my system was do do a series of Windows updates but I cannot figure out why that would be the cause.

I would be grateful for any suggestions as to why this would happen

John


Next 20


 
©2022 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.