| log in |
Message boards : News : started some new searches and updated the error limits
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
So while we're trying to figure out the problem with some of these workunits causing NAN/infinity fitnesses (and thus causing the boinc client to mark them as an error), I've started some new ones -- which should mean there are less errors floating around. | |
| ID: 56012 · Rating: 0 · rate:
| |
|
Thanks for the update, much appreciated. | |
| ID: 56013 · Rating: 0 · rate:
| |
|
Looking good, only one "error while computing" today, my RAC is already again over 20,000 :). I've also updated out workunit templates so that after 1 error it should just trash a workunit (I hope). This means the erroneous workunits won't keep getting sent out to users further complicating the problem. You might want to increase that to 2 (so actually 3): see this WU. I'm not sure how the whole thing is working, on this one new results (_3 & _4) were created after reaching the "too many errors" state, but I thought you might want to have a look at this one. My system: Win7 x64, ATI HD3850 (not OpenCL capable, Catalyst 11.9) using the 64-bit CAL app v0.82, running 2 WUs at once. ____________ . | |
| ID: 56021 · Rating: 0 · rate:
| |
Looking good, only one "error while computing" today, my RAC is already again over 20,000 :). I don't think that's too much of an issue so long as those wingman who completed it actually got credit... and it looks like they did as far as I can tell. ____________ | |
| ID: 56024 · Rating: 0 · rate:
| |
I don't think that's too much of an issue so long as those wingman who completed it actually got credit... and it looks like they did as far as I can tell. Yeah, that's probably because my result was marked as invalid after it was compared with the other three results. But see my post in Matthew's thread. ____________ . | |
| ID: 56030 · Rating: 0 · rate:
| |
Message boards :
News :
started some new searches and updated the error limits