Posts by STE\/E

1) Message boards : Number crunching : unable to upload (Message 2168)
Posted 18 Aug 2006 by STE\/E
Post:
I Uploaded all the ones I had just a few Minutes ago & they Reported too ...
2) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 2104)
Posted 16 Aug 2006 by STE\/E
Post:
I\'m extracting the archived data and will see what I can do. What do other users think about trying to backdate the credits using the new work based system?
----

It is my misunderstanding then if dekim\'s post was meant to be for the Rosetta Project, he wasn\'t specific about which Project he was referring to & I just took it as the Ralph Project ... As I haven\'t processed that much over @ the Rosetta Project for awhile I can\'t wait for the Fire Storm to hit the Project when & if it\'s done, I don\'t think the Dev\'s know what their letting themselves get into if thats implemented ... ;)
3) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 2100)
Posted 16 Aug 2006 by STE\/E
Post:
I have no Ralph credits but we\'re discussing Rosetta.
-----

From what I have gathered at the Rosetta Project there will be no Back Dating of the Credits & all the testing that is being done here with the WU\'s & Credit Revision is to be eventually for the Rosetta Project, so if theres going to be no Credit Back Dating there where the most blatant Cheating was going on then why should it be done here ...
4) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 2096)
Posted 16 Aug 2006 by STE\/E
Post:
Mine are all over the place to Tony, I get 2 Credits for 1 WU & 10 for another ... I also know dcdc has Computers attached to the Rosetta Project ...
5) Message boards : Current tests : New crediting system (Message 2093)
Posted 16 Aug 2006 by STE\/E
Post:
We have the opportunity to back date this to make the credit system consistent and fair throughout. If you\'ve crunched more than me, you\'ll have more credit than me.

dcdc
New member
Joined: Aug 15, 2006
Posts: 3
ID: 1699
Credit: 0
RAC: 0
---

I can see why it wouldn\'t matter if the Credits are Back Dated to somebody that has 0 Credit 0 RAC & at the moment doesn\'t even have a Computer attached to the Project ... 0_o

It doesn\'t matter to me one way or the other if the Credits are Reset because it\'s what I\'ve come to expect from the BOINC Projects, thanks for the help now here\'s your slap in the face.

With data base loses, bad application releases, WU\'s Erring out for no apparent reason not just at this Project but across all the Projects I\'ve lost an enormous amount of Credits already so whats another 50,000 to 100,000 or more lost Credits.

I\'ll be the first to admit to using optimized clients that inflate the credits, but the Project said nor did nothing to curtail that practice. Now like a few people have said already the rules are going to be changed & lets back date it.

Who stands to gain the most from this Back Dating, the people with 0 Credit & 0 RAC I would suspect ... As a side NOTE when the Ralph Project started it was made clear the Credits were not important, In fact the Mods even made that clear a few times, now all of a sudden apparently the Credits are important ... Go Figure

6) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Bug reports for Ralph 5.25 (Message 2012)
Posted 12 Aug 2006 by STE\/E
Post:
I\'ve Uploaded @ Reported 10 WU\'s Just this morning ... are you sure it\'s on Ralph\'s end & not yours ... ????
7) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Bug reports for Ralph 5.25 (Message 1892)
Posted 14 Jul 2006 by STE\/E
Post:
The App seems to be okay now, out of 154 WU\'s run the last 2 days only 2 have Erred out, and both of them were at the beginning of the 154 WU\'s ...
8) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Bug reports for Ralph 5.25 (Message 1891)
Posted 13 Jul 2006 by STE\/E
Post:
WARNING! attempt to gzip file .\\xxt319.out failed: file does not exist.

Same thing here, I\'ve had 11 of them reporting the same message the last few days after they seemingly have run their full course of about 1 hour ... O_o
9) Message boards : Number crunching : Nothing happening (Message 841)
Posted 10 Mar 2006 by STE\/E
Post:
And what I got with the first Wis was \"Client error Computing after 12,087.8 sec or about 4 hours in totally wasted crunching time with no CS.

And it\'s not my fault, I get completed Wis for all other projects.

I\'m detaching and I\'m out of here


This is a ALPHA Project & errors are to be expected. In fact thats what we are running the Wu\'s for, to check for errors. If all your worried about is your CS then you would most definitely be better off at another Project ...

10) Message boards : Number crunching : Nothing happening (Message 836)
Posted 8 Mar 2006 by STE\/E
Post:
Typical, just after I posted the post I noticed I had gotten 4 Wus to crunch.


I\'ve only gotten 1 WU the last 5 days, but then this morning I got 12 of them ... :)
11) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Report \"stuck at 1%\" bugs here (Message 778)
Posted 1 Mar 2006 by STE\/E
Post:
As far as I can determine the WU that was over 11 hours is still running according to the Process Manager. It show 50% usage of the CPU for that WU, it\'s still running & at 13:30 hours now. I\'ll let it continue to run & see what happens to it & will report back on it one way or the other ...


PS: This WU just finally did finish successfully @ the 20:41 Hour Mark, it never did show more than 1% finished the whole time it ran ... :)
12) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Report \"stuck at 1%\" bugs here (Message 768)
Posted 1 Mar 2006 by STE\/E
Post:
As far as I can determine the WU that was over 11 hours is still running according to the Process Manager. It show 50% usage of the CPU for that WU, it\'s still running & at 13:30 hours now. I\'ll let it continue to run & see what happens to it & will report back on it one way or the other ...
13) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Report \"stuck at 1%\" bugs here (Message 765)
Posted 1 Mar 2006 by STE\/E
Post:
How long should we let these WU\'s run ... ???

I have one now at over 11 hours & 1 at over 9 hours, both are still at 1% and the Computers are 3.4 Ghz. They should have been done by now I would think ... ???

PS: The one WU that was @ over 9 hours finally finished @ 9:47 Hr\'s .. The one @ over 11 hr\'s is still running, now up close to 12 hours ... :0
14) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Report \"stuck at 1%\" bugs here (Message 736)
Posted 28 Feb 2006 by STE\/E
Post:
Question: Should we set our run-time preference higher for these 4.90 WU\'s? Since they seem to be running slowly (due to debugging code maybe?) they aren\'t going to get much done in the recommended 2 hours. I have mine set at 4 hours for my P3 machines and even they aren\'t getting much done.



I don\'t think it\'s that it\'s not getting much done, it\'s that it only runs one trajectory, or model, and from what I\'ve seen, the percentage updates primarily after a trajectory has finished. This would explain why it\'s on 1% until it\'s done.


How you doing IceQueen41, it\'s hard to tell what these v4.90 Wu\'s are doing, I have 1 Computer that has 1 Wu @ 5 hr\'s still showing 1% -- 1 Wu @ 2 hr\'s showing 47.95% & 1 Wu that finished @ 1 hr 11 min\'s never showing more than 1% ... Hard to figure them out when they run like that ... I have my Preferences set to run 2 hr\'s but these v4.90\'s don\'t seem to want to adhere to that Preference ... ???

PS: As I posted the above the WU that was @ 5 hr\'s finished @ 100% & Uploaded. Guess we just have to let them run their course & see what happens to them.

15) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Report \"stuck at 1%\" bugs here (Message 732)
Posted 28 Feb 2006 by STE\/E
Post:
Question: Should we set our run-time preference higher for these 4.90 WU\'s? Since they seem to be running slowly (due to debugging code maybe?) they aren\'t going to get much done in the recommended 2 hours. I have mine set at 4 hours for my P3 machines and even they aren\'t getting much done.


Yes, I would like some clarification on these v4.90\'s myself. Like genes asked, would setting the run time higher help getting these WU\'s past the 1% mark or let them finish.

So far I\'ve only had 1 v4.90 WU finish & that one only ran for 1:10:30 then just abruptly finished and Uploaded. It ran the whole time at 1% then just jumped to 100% ...
16) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Report \"stuck at 1%\" bugs here (Message 715)
Posted 28 Feb 2006 by STE\/E
Post:
Right now I have 12 of them stuck @ 1% ... Some of them for as long as 3 hours, none of them are making it past the 1% mark so far. I have my preferences set to 2 hours run time so something is not right if their still @ 1% for 3 hours, at least I would think so anyway.

17) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Crashed WU\'s (Message 640)
Posted 25 Feb 2006 by STE\/E
Post:
All 5 of the WU\'s on that host are the v4.87 & show that they have been Canceled already. That is the reason they crash after they complete. Those WU\'s were supposed to be Aborted per the Developers instructions if they already showed that they were canceled.

If you run the other 3 WU\'s on that Host the same thing will happen, so the best thing to do is to Manually abort them and Update the Project ...
18) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Report - Previously Unclassified Work Unit Errors (Message 625)
Posted 25 Feb 2006 by STE\/E
Post:
Those WU\'s should have been aborted Tony, I see you still have 1 WU on host 103 that will error out too (BARCODE_30_1iibA_219_2) if you run it. It already says Canceled in the WU ID Page ...

I thought it was abort earlier than 4.87 not earlier than or equal to? OK off I go to abort them.

Thanks Poorboy with many machines.


No, the ones they wanted aborted were the v4.87 that showed they were Canceled already in the WU ID & any v4.86 or earlier that you still had ... :)
19) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Report - Previously Unclassified Work Unit Errors (Message 623)
Posted 25 Feb 2006 by STE\/E
Post:
Those WU\'s should have been aborted Tony, I see you still have 1 WU on host 103 that will error out too (BARCODE_30_1iibA_219_2) if you run it. It already says Canceled in the WU ID Page ...
20) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Report \"failure when switching projects without keeping applications in memory\" bugs here (Message 574)
Posted 24 Feb 2006 by STE\/E
Post:
Abort the WU\'s you have left Pieface, I checked your computer & the WU\'s you have left already show cancelled in your Account & they will do nothing but error out too ... See the (4.87 - result exceeds size limit) Thread ...


Next 20



©2019 University of Washington
http://www.bakerlab.org