Posts by [B^S] sTrey

1) Message boards : Number crunching : Ralph server shared memory error (Message 4313) Posted 28 Oct 2008 by [B^S] sTrey Post: Cannot report or get work, get this error: 10/28/2008 00:44:48\|ralph@home\|Message from server: Project encountered internal error: shared memory
2) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Bug report for RALPH server (Message 4289) Posted 22 Oct 2008 by [B^S] sTrey Post: Please see this thread. Sorry to cross-post but it's not clear whether any thread besides this one is being read. Thanks
3) Message boards : Number crunching : platform x86_64-apple-darwin not found (Message 4202) Posted 14 Sep 2008 by [B^S] sTrey Post: I'm wondering why my MacBook Pro is now getting this message. It's always been classified as i686-apple-darwin when it returned work in the past; those executables are still in the project directory. That's the platform it is to the other projects it's currently running -- including the rosetta main project, from which it just downloaded some work. ???
4) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Rosetta min 1.03 (Message 3670) Posted 25 Jan 2008 by [B^S] sTrey Post: I just had one lock up my boinc and boincmgr, but thanks to DA's/project's explanation I was able to get around it by going into the slot directory and forcing the readonly attribute off, on the minirosetta_database directory and all its subirectories/files. This wu was a reissue after some no-reply's, so I'd say some of the old "bad" wus are still floating around out there even if the project has gotten rid of the subversion files from later wus. Edit: - the minirosetta_database directory was also not cleaned out of the slot dir after this wu had been reported; I had to remove it manually. [XP Pro/ client 5.10.30]
5) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Rosetta min 1.03 (Message 3614) Posted 15 Jan 2008 by [B^S] sTrey Post: Other experiences in another thread. This app did nasty things to 2/3 of my hosts, so Ralph is set to NNW. Please will the project people say when we allow work again without risk of running the toxic "mini" app? Thanks
6) Message boards : Current tests : Rosetta Mimi 1.03 locking up Boinc on windows (Message 3606) Posted 14 Jan 2008 by [B^S] sTrey Post: Finally cleaned up after this mess. Make sure nothing is left from the mini app in one of your slots dirs, or you will have a broken boinc (possibly much later) in your future. Please let us know when we can "go back in the water" without these wus showing up. Thanks
7) Message boards : Current tests : Rosetta Mimi 1.03 locking up Boinc on windows (Message 3604) Posted 13 Jan 2008 by [B^S] sTrey Post: On the first pc mentioned before, BOINC stopped responding sometime overnight and I had to kill it and the boincmgr. Now boinc won't come up. The process appears but the manager can't connect. Hope that doesn't happen to others. -- Edit: just happened to the 2nd pc also. Must leave the house for much of the day so I don't know what's going on, client_state.xml looks fine, tried rebooting and reinstalling on one of the pc's, this is not a happy crunching day.
8) Message boards : Current tests : Rosetta Mimi 1.03 locking up Boinc on windows (Message 3601) Posted 13 Jan 2008 by [B^S] sTrey Post: What's with the Rosetta Mini 1.03 app? Crashed once, made boinc and boincmgr nonresponsive. Boinc isn't a service on this box so I logged out/in to restart. It restarted this task with high priority, according to the client, but nothing was running and boinc was again stalled. I had to edit client_state.xml to force the project suspended to get the client running again. This happened on 2 different pc's before I caught it. The cash dialogue comes up about 19 seconds into the wu. Clients are 5.10.20
9) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : SQL problem and a question (Message 3340) Posted 5 Sep 2007 by [B^S] sTrey Post: Mostly I was just trying to report the problem and ended up demonstrating it instead. The Bug reports for 5.78 thread has the same problem even now... or at least I still can't view it without getting the same error message about a quote in line 1.
10) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Bug reports for 5.56-5.59 (Message 2956) Posted 30 Mar 2007 by [B^S] sTrey Post: Ditto, I have two 5.57wu's whose reported progress looks right, are half way through their 4 hour preferred time without aborting, altogether look much better than .56 and .55. Thanks!
11) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Bug reports for 5.49-5.51 (Message 2861) Posted 14 Mar 2007 by [B^S] sTrey Post: This result has been running for close to 6 hours, is still racking up cpu time and says it's at 1%. My preference settings are for 4 hours. I just suspended it and I have to reboot for a Windows Update. If it doesn't seem more sane after that I'll abort it, unless advised to let it run.
12) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Bug reports for 5.49-5.51 (Message 2849) Posted 9 Mar 2007 by [B^S] sTrey Post: My last two wu's, one last night one this morning, both errored out almost immediately with: - exit code -1073741819 (0xc0000005) ERROR:: Unable to determine sequence length from pdb file 454165 453634
13) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Bug reports for 5.49-5.51 (Message 2823) Posted 4 Mar 2007 by [B^S] sTrey Post: Another access violation result.
14) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Bug Report for Ralph 5.26 (Message 2282) Posted 26 Sep 2006 by [B^S] sTrey Post: 1st WU is done - no error message at the BOINC manager. Looking into my reports: DOCK_1AVW_unbound_perturb_benchmark_1315_13 show up a "validate error" Biba - Inais. Every DOCK wu I've looked up has had nothing but validate errors. Does anyone know of one that's completed & validated successfully?
15) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 1967) Posted 11 Aug 2006 by [B^S] sTrey Post: Not "objecting", but I'd be prepared for more uproar given what I've seen, especially since there's already been some heat on the boards there. If this credit-per-model scheme can't end up yielding some consistent amount of credit per cpu hour on a given machine, and preferably something close to that machine's results on other proejcts, there will be confusion at best and likely more conflict around credit, rough project parity etc. From my results so far it's nowhere near consistent, as mmciastro said they're all over the map. Though if you're rolling this out with the figure-out-the-right-credit-award-first mechanism already in place, that will be quite interesting to see. Best of luck with it (& I'm not going anywhere, regardless)
16) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Host venues corrupted? (Message 1958) Posted 11 Aug 2006 by [B^S] sTrey Post: Didn't see the message but my client_state.xml does now show a null team name in the RAlph project. My profile page does show the team, and my computers page shows the correct venue.
17) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 1943) Posted 9 Aug 2006 by [B^S] sTrey Post: If inter-project parity is one of the objectives, I'm not seeing it yet. Inter-project parity is not an objective on RALPH and thus it may never happen on RALPH. A credit of 2 per model is being given no matter how slow or fast the WU in order to test the awarding of credit. As far as I can tell, the test is working fine and credit is being awarded as intended. I'm not asking about RAlph, I'm asking about this scheme which is intended to be used, eventually, on Rosetta -- where Dekim's post earlier in this thread implies that parity remains an objective, at least "somewhat". I understand that the current per-model value is for test purposes only, and I see that credit is being awarded as described, just wondering about the path from here to project parity in production mode. If I understood his description, it sounds like a lot of work for the lab members to have to run each wu, and come up with and record a credit-awarding value into it before it can be released to production. The project team has a great track record so the above must not be a problem, but it will be interesting to see this work out over time.
18) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 1941) Posted 9 Aug 2006 by [B^S] sTrey Post: If inter-project parity is one of the objectives, I'm not seeing it yet. I started tracking credit when Seti devs asked for help with that, during the flame wars around their newest application. At that time I observed that my machine was generally collecting 9-10 credits per cpu hour on most projects. (Windows XP, standard BOINC client, no optimized apps except Einstein's "official" beta app). This # was not significantly affected by considering or ignoring the larger quotas on most projects I run. My time setting for Ralph is 2 hours, and I was getting 20 credits or so per wu. Based on only the 3 wus credited so far (sorry not more, I've been gone for 3 weeks & Ralph's workstream is fairly thin), 2 have wildly higher amounts (58 & 60 credits) and 1 much lower (6 credits). Actually I see the "claimed credit" is showing the older calculation so you can see the difference. Here's my results list. Edit: a 4th wu came in with credit (24) just a bit higher than previous-normal. I know you're just starting to experiment with this, but it seemed worth a comment. (Though I'm cynically guessing that "extra" credit wouldn't cause the uproar Seti's perceived "lesser" credit caused...)
19) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Bug reports for Ralph 5.24 (Message 1862) Posted 22 Jun 2006 by [B^S] sTrey Post: Errored out on t299__CASP7_ABRELAX_SAVE_ALL_OUT_TEST_ASSEMBLE_hom001__753_34_0 with -161 <file_xfer_error> <file_name>t299__CASP7_ABRELAX_SAVE_ALL_OUT_TEST_ASSEMBLE_hom001__753_34_0_0 </file_name> <error_code>-161</error_code>
20) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Bug reports for Ralph 5.23 (Message 1817) Posted 11 Jun 2006 by [B^S] sTrey Post: At least as long as this thread has been going, so at least 24 hours. Going to blow past workunit deadlines soon :(

Next 20