Posts by Astro

81) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Message From Dr. Baker (Message 1014) Posted 29 Mar 2006 by Astro Post: I believe I asked for this 38 days ago in this thread when I said "If they set up a clock trigger with fine resolution, rather than updating % done with an event trigger, they might better locate the bug. I.E update a thousand times/wu and if you start seeing 4,5,and 6% bugs you'd know where (approximately) the lockup was occurring." hope they find it now. tony
82) Message boards : Feedback : Difference F@H and R@H??? (Message 690) Posted 27 Feb 2006 by Astro Post: FAH-Boinc has been under development for almost a year and still not ready. They won't say anything other than "you'll know when it's ready". It's not a subject their moderators will even entertain.
83) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Report - Previously Unclassified Work Unit Errors (Message 627) Posted 25 Feb 2006 by Astro Post: I went to my results and see several that "comp errored" out. Hmmm, Must have happened while I slept (strange, I don't remember sleeping that much, short nap here, short nap there, that's about it for me). LOL
84) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Report - Previously Unclassified Work Unit Errors (Message 624) Posted 25 Feb 2006 by Astro 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. I just looked and it says "February 24, 2006 Correction Please abort work units on Windows machines that are currently running versions earlier than 4.87. "
85) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : 4.87 - result exceeds size limit (Message 622) Posted 25 Feb 2006 by Astro Post: Oops, I had one of these too, should have posted it here, but I posted it in the "unclassified" bug thread.
86) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Report - Previously Unclassified Work Unit Errors (Message 621) Posted 25 Feb 2006 by Astro Post: I too have experienced an error with 4.87 on the upload. Note: this was on my host 103, Celeron 500, 256 Mram, Win98se, Boinc CC V5.3.22 2/25/06 8:45:00 AM\|\|Rescheduling CPU: application exited 2/25/06 8:45:00 AM\|ralph@home\|Computation for task BARCODE_30_1ctf__219_2_0 finished 2/25/06 8:45:00 AM\|ralph@home\|Output file BARCODE_30_1ctf__219_2_0_0 for task BARCODE_30_1ctf__219_2_0 exceeds size limit. 2/25/06 8:45:00 AM\|ralph@home\|File size: 26504055.000000 bytes. Limit: 25000000.000000 bytes 2/25/06 8:45:03 AM\|ralph@home\|Starting task BARCODE_30_1iibA_219_2_0 using rosetta_beta version 487 2/25/06 8:45:03 AM\|ralph@home\|Unrecoverable error for result BARCODE_30_1ctf__219_2_0 (<file_xfer_error> <file_name>BARCODE_30_1ctf__219_2_0_0</file_name> <error_code>-131</error_code> <error_message></error_message></file_xfer_error>) 2/25/06 8:45:03 AM\|ralph@home\|Deferring scheduler requests for 1 minutes and 0 seconds 2/25/06 8:45:05 AM\|ralph@home\|Started upload of file BARCODE_30_1ctf__219_2_0_1 2/25/06 8:45:11 AM\|ralph@home\|Finished upload of file BARCODE_30_1ctf__219_2_0_1 2/25/06 8:45:11 AM\|ralph@home\|Throughput 20455 bytes/sec
87) Message boards : Cafe RALPH : (DO NOT POST HERE) This is the Moderators Archive thread (Message 608) Posted 25 Feb 2006 by Astro Post: Try yellow In case you can't read this it says "try yellow" lol
88) Message boards : Feedback : Creating work for Ralph (Message 527) Posted 23 Feb 2006 by Astro Post: Looks like they've implemented the idea River put forward. I see all my puters now have a max quota of 12 wus/day. Hmmm, (applying math functions) 1 hour cpu pref = 1/2 day full time running 2 hour =full day run 4 hour + = more than a days worth.
89) Message boards : Feedback : Credit scores (Message 504) Posted 22 Feb 2006 by Astro Post: IMO Credit has NOTHING to do with Ralph unless the Project wants it that way. It appears they do not, so it does not. However, the open honest discussion of the matter shouldn't be "forbiddened" or sensored. There are many users who don't have a full grip of the situation. The previous poster "ingleside" IS a volunteer coder for Boinc and has a full grasp of this subject. In his post he presented the Projects options fully. Which they chose is up to them, but you can rest assured that the facts as he presented them are accurate and quotable. Users can use the information to come to a fuller understanding and to make his or her decisions more reliably. The projects (all boinc projects) are NOT a democracy, but neither should they be a repressive monarchy. tony NOTE: also you might see posts from John Mcleod VII, he wrote the scheduler used in Boinc. Information presented by him is also trustworthy.
90) Message boards : Feedback : Credit scores (Message 437) Posted 21 Feb 2006 by Astro Post: All versions 5.2.6 and above are capable of the new counting system.
91) Message boards : Feedback : Creating work for Ralph (Message 416) Posted 21 Feb 2006 by Astro Post: I think Gravywavy (oops, sorry, River) has it right, setting the resource share to higher means it'll keep a debt that needs filling. Also, Reducing the quota per day will mean you can only get say 10/day. So, the minute work is available, the host will get ONLY 10 WUs for that day. Setting the deadline short will ensure that those 10 get crunched first. Then days will pass when other projects will run because Ralph has no work, but when work is available, it's downloaded with priority, and crunched with priority. As to the pounding of the server, a low resource share and no work available will result in almost the same pounding. The built in expotential communication back offs will help lessen the load. The bandwidth for an RPC call is much smaller than that of an actual exchange of data (read work) tony
92) Message boards : Feedback : Credit scores (Message 413) Posted 21 Feb 2006 by Astro Post: Actually the Boinc credit system itself isn't bad. It's all the people attached to seti and rosetta or just rosetta that are using third party optimized core clients that's bad. The OP CC artificially inflates the benchmark to adjust for the increased speed of the (third party) optimized seti application. The problem comes in when the user attachs to a project and doesn't have an optimized app for that project. he claims several times more than he should <read cheating>. In other projects the damage is lessened by the validation process used in projects with redundancy, but Rosetta has no redundancy so users get what they claim. (fertile ground for cheating). Note: some don't even know they're cheating. They hear "optimized client" and jump to the third party website to download it. The host of the third party website doesn't even post any warning about it. I find the whole situation distubing.
93) Message boards : Number crunching : No work from project. (Message 389) Posted 20 Feb 2006 by Astro Post: Thanks in advance. Jim, I don't know how long your machine takes to do 41 rosetta wus, but I'd say it's likely the scheduler is already satisfied with the quantity of work on hand (from any project) and has entered a "no work fetch" mode. You might see that in the message log somewhere. It might be far back. At some point you should see a message "resuming work fetch" and then a request to what ever project is next up. tony
94) Message boards : Number crunching : Are un supported operating systems welcome here ? (Message 388) Posted 20 Feb 2006 by Astro Post: I didn't know it was an issue, sorry, I've been successfully using my win98se machine here.
95) Message boards : Cafe RALPH : Hi all... (Message 379) Posted 20 Feb 2006 by Astro Post: What do we do if we arrived before the thread???......Oh, hi anyway try posting a question in green ink, maybe? ;) Hey River, I was just picking a color I thought complimented that of the moderators. LOL I just keep thinking of christmas though....LOL
96) Message boards : Current tests : CPU Run Time preference (Message 369) Posted 20 Feb 2006 by Astro Post: Continued note: It would be nice to see a message in the Messages tab telling users that the updated prefs were recognized. I still can't tell if it took and the only way to tell is after it runs a wu. I have only recieved the following from my post to the mail list: David Sutton to me, boinc_dev More options Feb 19 (1 day ago) From the looks of it BOINC only displays messages about preferences when you change the default, home, school, works tabs. The setting to change CPU for RALPH isn't contained within those settings probally because it would try to effect all other BOINC projects running.
97) Message boards : Current tests : CPU Run Time preference (Message 368) Posted 20 Feb 2006 by Astro Post: I feel I've run my hosts long enough on the 2 hour cpu time pref. Other than the problems listed about host 103, I've seen no issues with the 2 hour pref. Here's the WUS done during that period: Host 103 5136 4853 18 Feb 2006 13:42:21 UTC 19 Feb 2006 4:46:02 UTC Over Success Done 5,856.00 3.91 3.91 5135 4852 18 Feb 2006 13:42:21 UTC 19 Feb 2006 3:12:34 UTC Over Success Done 3,541.00 2.37 2.37 5134 4851 18 Feb 2006 13:42:21 UTC 19 Feb 2006 2:09:08 UTC Over Success Done 5,639.00 3.77 3.77 5133 4850 18 Feb 2006 13:42:21 UTC 19 Feb 2006 0:02:27 UTC Over Client error Computing 7,260.00 4.85 --- 5132 4849 18 Feb 2006 13:42:21 UTC 18 Feb 2006 23:11:22 UTC Over Success Done 4,855.00 3.24 3.24 5131 4848 18 Feb 2006 13:42:21 UTC 18 Feb 2006 23:11:22 UTC Over Success Done 8,773.00 5.86 5.86 Host 64 None done Host 66 1527 1492 16 Feb 2006 0:37:25 UTC 19 Feb 2006 3:23:50 UTC Over Success Done 7,126.27 26.65 26.65 1526 1491 16 Feb 2006 0:37:25 UTC 19 Feb 2006 3:23:50 UTC Over Success Done 7,050.73 26.37 26.37 1525 1490 16 Feb 2006 0:37:25 UTC 18 Feb 2006 21:16:26 UTC Over Success Done 7,241.86 27.08 27.08 1524 1489 16 Feb 2006 0:37:25 UTC 18 Feb 2006 21:16:26 UTC Over Success Done 7,100.19 26.55 26.55 1523 1488 16 Feb 2006 0:37:25 UTC 18 Feb 2006 17:58:41 UTC Over Success Done 7,188.95 26.89 26.89 1463 1428 16 Feb 2006 0:37:25 UTC 20 Feb 2006 12:54:44 UTC Over Success Done 7,219.59 27.00 27.00 1462 1427 16 Feb 2006 0:37:25 UTC 20 Feb 2006 3:16:28 UTC Over Success Done 7,168.48 26.81 26.81 1461 1426 16 Feb 2006 0:37:25 UTC 20 Feb 2006 3:16:28 UTC Over Success Done 7,161.34 26.78 26.78 1458 1423 16 Feb 2006 0:37:25 UTC 20 Feb 2006 3:16:28 UTC Over Success Done 7,184.36 26.87 26.87 1457 1422 16 Feb 2006 0:37:25 UTC 20 Feb 2006 3:16:28 UTC Over Success Done 7,132.44 26.67 26.67 1456 1421 16 Feb 2006 0:37:25 UTC 20 Feb 2006 3:16:28 UTC Over Success Done 7,148.88 26.74 26.74 1455 1420 16 Feb 2006 0:37:25 UTC 19 Feb 2006 11:29:52 UTC Over Success Done 7,266.20 27.17 27.17 1454 1419 16 Feb 2006 0:37:25 UTC 19 Feb 2006 6:07:44 UTC Over Success Done 6,014.48 22.49 22.49 1453 1418 16 Feb 2006 0:37:25 UTC 19 Feb 2006 3:23:50 UTC Over Success Done 7,129.23 26.66 26.66 1407 1372 16 Feb 2006 0:37:25 UTC 18 Feb 2006 17:58:41 UTC Over Success Done 7,080.91 26.48 26.48 Host 67 5339 3275 18 Feb 2006 20:57:47 UTC 20 Feb 2006 12:11:03 UTC Over Success Done 6,447.91 9.35 9.35 5338 3270 18 Feb 2006 20:57:47 UTC 20 Feb 2006 12:11:03 UTC Over Success Done 6,799.58 9.86 9.86 5337 3269 18 Feb 2006 20:57:47 UTC 20 Feb 2006 12:11:03 UTC Over Success Done 6,240.47 9.05 9.05 5336 3268 18 Feb 2006 20:57:47 UTC 20 Feb 2006 2:42:30 UTC Over Success Done 6,952.34 10.09 10.09 5335 3267 18 Feb 2006 20:57:47 UTC 20 Feb 2006 2:42:30 UTC Over Success Done 5,681.56 8.24 8.24 5334 3266 18 Feb 2006 20:57:47 UTC 20 Feb 2006 2:42:30 UTC Over Success Done 6,554.06 9.51 9.51 5333 3265 18 Feb 2006 20:57:47 UTC 19 Feb 2006 21:48:40 UTC Over Success Done 5,127.38 7.44 7.44 5332 3263 18 Feb 2006 20:57:47 UTC 19 Feb 2006 21:48:40 UTC Over Success Done 6,820.70 9.90 9.90 5331 3262 18 Feb 2006 20:57:47 UTC 19 Feb 2006 21:48:40 UTC Over Success Done 6,499.95 9.43 9.43 5330 3214 18 Feb 2006 20:57:47 UTC 19 Feb 2006 15:53:36 UTC Over Success Done 6,497.31 9.43 9.43 5329 3200 18 Feb 2006 20:57:47 UTC 19 Feb 2006 15:53:36 UTC Over Success Done 5,810.47 8.43 8.43 5328 3199 18 Feb 2006 20:57:47 UTC 19 Feb 2006 15:53:36 UTC Over Success Done 6,148.36 8.92 8.92 5327 3198 18 Feb 2006 20:57:47 UTC 19 Feb 2006 11:28:17 UTC Over Success Done 5,207.73 7.56 7.56 5326 3197 18 Feb 2006 20:57:47 UTC 19 Feb 2006 11:28:17 UTC Over Success Done 3,641.36 5.28 5.28 5325 3196 18 Feb 2006 20:57:47 UTC 19 Feb 2006 11:28:17 UTC Over Success Done 6,249.14 9.07 9.07 5320 3159 18 Feb 2006 20:57:47 UTC 20 Feb 2006 12:11:03 UTC Over Success Done 6,757.64 9.80 9.80 5319 3158 18 Feb 2006 20:57:47 UTC 20 Feb 2006 12:11:03 UTC Over Success Done 6,546.25 9.50 9.50 Note: all seems well with the 2 hour pref. I'm now switching to the 4 hour pref.
98) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Same team on 20th and 21th rank in teams list (Message 365) Posted 20 Feb 2006 by Astro Post: This is a boinc server package issue. I've seen it on many projects.
99) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Discussion of the \"1% Hang\" issue (Message 348) Posted 20 Feb 2006 by Astro Post: I have one that is stuck WU, Computer. It has been going for 2 days, 20 hours, 58 minutes and 4 seconds of CPU time. This machine is currently estimating 8 hours for completion of other results. Awaiting further instructions. jm7 Hi John, two other had this issue, Mod9 sent for help. David Kim responded with this He hasn't advised further. You could read the whole thread and get a better feel for his intentions. tony [Edit] Mod9 wants to keep this thread just about reporting bugs. He started this thread for discussions about this bug. I have much material there.
100) Message boards : RALPH@home bug list : Discussion of the \"1% Hang\" issue (Message 345) Posted 20 Feb 2006 by Astro Post: Carlos, go to the "Work tab", highlight the stuck wu, then select "suspend". It should stop it, but keep it in memory until they get a chance to respond, and you can continue crunching other work. tony

Previous 20 · Next 20