It appears all my Linux is throwing error 255(0xFF)

---

Several to report with the same bug ERROR:: Exit from: .fragments.cc line: 465
All have naming starting with: 1vie__BOINC_ABINITIO_BEST25_VF_SCORE3-16

tasks:
https://ralph.bakerlab.org/result.php?resultid=692016
https://ralph.bakerlab.org/result.php?resultid=689875
https://ralph.bakerlab.org/result.php?resultid=689257
https://ralph.bakerlab.org/result.php?resultid=689190
https://ralph.bakerlab.org/result.php?resultid=687198
https://ralph.bakerlab.org/result.php?resultid=686916
https://ralph.bakerlab.org/result.php?resultid=686809
https://ralph.bakerlab.org/result.php?resultid=686327

All with same exit sequence/location:
Exit status 1 (0x1)
stderr out

<core_client_version>5.10.28</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<message>
Incorrect function. (0x1) - exit code 1 (0x1)
</message>
<stderr_txt>
# cpu_run_time_pref: 7200
ERROR:: Exit from: .fragments.cc line: 465

</stderr_txt>
]]>

---

Several to report with the same bug ERROR:: Exit from: .fragments.cc line: 465
All have naming starting with: 1vie__BOINC_ABINITIO_BEST25_VF_SCORE3-16

Here is the description.

Peter

All recent WU's are being granted exactly what they claim. Fixed credits not working.

Examples 695338
695400
695401
695408
696125

---

All recent WU's are being granted exactly what they claim. Fixed credits not working.

Examples 695338
695400
695401
695408
696125

When did fixed credits begin?

I don't find a single WU for my systems (back to August) with fixed credits.

---

All recent WU's are being granted exactly what they claim. Fixed credits not working.

When did fixed credits begin?

I don't find a single WU for my systems (back to August) with fixed credits.

I tend to believe. I've also (currently at least) one BOINC_ABINITIO_VF_IGNORE_THE_REST task 696464 (8. dec) and one BOINC_ABINITIO_VFSCORE3 task 684913 (4. dec), which received exactly the claimed credit.

All tasks Conan mentioned are also named BOINC_ABINITIO_VF_IGNORE_THE_REST. Possibly there are not enough results of such type being crunched yet? IIRC the credit is granted according to some average of different claimed credits from similar tasks...

Peter

Got the same crash as Dr. Who Fan and Pepo.

==Mike

---

Don't believe everything you think.

As I noted few weeks ago in the bug report for version 5.81 thread:

Message 3443 - Posted 4 Nov 2007 17:12:00 UTC
------------------------
This is neither a bug report at all, nor a complaint, only an observation. I've just noticed, that as the Rosetta Beta 5.80 task (..._TREEJUMP_ABRELAX_TOR_...) was requiring up to 20 MB virtual memory and was capable of using 170 MB RAM, my current Rosetta Beta 5.81 task (..._BOINC_SYMM_FOLD_AND_DOCK_RELAX_...) currently needs 500 MB memory and can use up to 350 MB RAM. Nice big numbers...

Now I'm running rosetta@home's Rosetta 5.85 task 126118387 (..._BOINC_SYMM_FOLD_AND_DOCK_RELAX-...._-crystal_foldanddock_...), which continuously needs no less than 927 MB and peaked at 937.5 MB.

It's paired now with ralph@home's Rosetta 5.87 task 702882 (..._BOINC_POSE_ABRELAX-...), consuming 561 MB - it means that these memory requirements are becomming very common, as do multi-CPU machines.

As the memory requirements start to substantially differ from the Rosetta's Recommended System Requirements (especially the mimimum required 200 MB and recommended "Leave applications in memory while preempted"), I'd heartily suggest revisioning the page.

Ralph's Recommended System Requirements are more up-to-date (or do they really talk about RAM only??), but still, suddenly requiring nearly two gigs of swap for Rosetta in addition to a running 2 CPU system is not something, that would be expected by many not-a-geek Rosetta-only participants. Add few other preempted tasks for multi-project crunchers...

Peter

I've recently had a few where granted was exactly same as claim. On the first one, I presumed with the small number of people on Ralph, and small number of WUs sent out, that I must have just been the lucky first person to report... But now I see I've got several, as do others... so seems something's up.

1acf__BOINC_ABINITIO_VF_IGNORE_THE_REST-S25-15-S3-6--1acf_-vf__2677_1_0
1ig5A_BOINC_ABINITIO_BEST25_VF_SCORE3-7--1ig5A-vf__2665_3_0
1hz6A_BOINC_ABINITIO_BEST25_VF_SCORE3-18--1hz6A-vf__2665_2_0
1enh__BOINC_ABINITIO_VFSCORE25-14-_SKIP3-1enh_-vf__2615_1_0

...and I just picked up one from vers 5.87
1elwAWHS_ETABLE_SVM_TESTS-1elwA-frags83__2714_10_0

---

One more 5.87 task granted exactly what it claimed: ..._BOINC_POSE_ABRELAX-1hz6A-_... task 702882.

Peter