Feeder & validator need kicking

Author	Message
John Clark Send message Joined: 4 Oct 08 Posts: 1734 Credit: 64,228,409 RAC: 0	Message 38396 - Posted: 8 Apr 2010, 16:24:14 UTC Looks like there is no work waiting to be distributed and a build up on the results waiting validation. Seems that these 2 need kicking to let crunchers continue. Go away, I was asleep ID: 38396 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Travis Volunteer moderator Project administrator Project developer Project tester Project scientist Send message Joined: 30 Aug 07 Posts: 2046 Credit: 26,480 RAC: 0	Message 38403 - Posted: 8 Apr 2010, 18:24:23 UTC - in response to Message 38396. Kicked :P ID: 38403 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

BarryAZ Send message Joined: 1 Sep 08 Posts: 520 Credit: 302,524,931 RAC: 2	Message 38404 - Posted: 8 Apr 2010, 18:24:26 UTC - in response to Message 38396. It could be that the efforts being applied to the new application are diverting resources for now. Travis indicated we'd likely have two 'phases' of 'work in progress' over the next few weeks. The first would be the new application, the second would be the shift over to some newere hardware. So I expect we will see a certain amount of tumult between now and the end of the month. ID: 38404 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

BarryAZ Send message Joined: 1 Sep 08 Posts: 520 Credit: 302,524,931 RAC: 2	Message 38413 - Posted: 8 Apr 2010, 19:15:46 UTC - in response to Message 38404. Looks like things are back running again. Travis simply has to realize that sleep, meetings and work are going to have to be put on hold for a while <smile> ID: 38413 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

PeterRehm Send message Joined: 22 Oct 09 Posts: 2 Credit: 11,274,619 RAC: 0	Message 38420 - Posted: 8 Apr 2010, 20:34:23 UTC I've got an Intel i7 based machine that has been getting only 4 CPU work units to crunch at a time (doing it on the CPU only). My safety stock is empty. Obviously the machine would like 8 or more units. I was running 6.10.18 but upgraded today to 6.10.43 as it is now the recommended version and I was hoping that it would solve the problem. Nope! I also detached/ reattached but that also didn't help. Yesterday I reset my preferences to 5 days of cache and updated the preferences. No help there either. My lap top has since received a nice cache but my main cruncher is at a loss for enough work. Any ideas? ID: 38420 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Werkstatt Send message Joined: 19 Feb 08 Posts: 350 Credit: 141,284,369 RAC: 0	Message 38425 - Posted: 8 Apr 2010, 21:26:16 UTC - in response to Message 38420. Hi, updating of the boinc client needs sometimes a readjustment of the settings. Check the setting of maximum cpu usage and things like that. Should be located in the extras tab. I have a i7 based system and all 8 cores are busy. Alexander ID: 38425 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Brian Silvers Send message Joined: 21 Aug 08 Posts: 625 Credit: 558,425 RAC: 0	Message 38429 - Posted: 8 Apr 2010, 22:42:38 UTC - in response to Message 38420. I've got an Intel i7 based machine that has been getting only 4 CPU work units to crunch at a time (doing it on the CPU only). My safety stock is empty. Obviously the machine would like 8 or more units. I was running 6.10.18 but upgraded today to 6.10.43 as it is now the recommended version and I was hoping that it would solve the problem. Nope! I also detached/ reattached but that also didn't help. Yesterday I reset my preferences to 5 days of cache and updated the preferences. No help there either. My lap top has since received a nice cache but my main cruncher is at a loss for enough work. Any ideas? Check these two settings under computing preferences: On multiprocessors, use at most n processors On multiprocessors, use at most Enforced by version 6.1+ xxx % of the processors ID: 38429 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Senilix Send message Joined: 8 Aug 08 Posts: 30 Credit: 74,566,409 RAC: 0	Message 38536 - Posted: 10 Apr 2010, 17:47:13 UTC Validator needs kicking again .... ID: 38536 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

CTAPbIi Send message Joined: 4 Jan 10 Posts: 86 Credit: 51,753,924 RAC: 0	Message 38537 - Posted: 10 Apr 2010, 18:06:57 UTC - in response to Message 38536. Last modified: 10 Apr 2010, 18:07:08 UTC Validator needs kicking again .... +1 ID: 38537 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Travis Volunteer moderator Project administrator Project developer Project tester Project scientist Send message Joined: 30 Aug 07 Posts: 2046 Credit: 26,480 RAC: 0	Message 38543 - Posted: 10 Apr 2010, 19:40:12 UTC - in response to Message 38537. Issues isn't the validator. The transitioner is locking up on me. Trying to figure out why. ID: 38543 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Travis Volunteer moderator Project administrator Project developer Project tester Project scientist Send message Joined: 30 Aug 07 Posts: 2046 Credit: 26,480 RAC: 0	Message 38547 - Posted: 10 Apr 2010, 21:57:38 UTC - in response to Message 38543. Looks like it's a problem with the database :( Probably going to need to wait for labstaff to respond to fix this one. ID: 38547 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

banditwolf Send message Joined: 12 Nov 07 Posts: 2425 Credit: 524,164 RAC: 0	Message 38552 - Posted: 10 Apr 2010, 23:35:18 UTC - in response to Message 38547. Looks like it's a problem with the database :( Probably going to need to wait for labstaff to respond to fix this one. Give it a kick anyways! :p Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected? If it makes sense, DON'T do it. ID: 38552 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Travis Volunteer moderator Project administrator Project developer Project tester Project scientist Send message Joined: 30 Aug 07 Posts: 2046 Credit: 26,480 RAC: 0	Message 38558 - Posted: 11 Apr 2010, 1:08:04 UTC - in response to Message 38552. Looks like it's a problem with the database :( Probably going to need to wait for labstaff to respond to fix this one. Give it a kick anyways! :p Oh I've been kicking things. ID: 38558 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

CTAPbIi Send message Joined: 4 Jan 10 Posts: 86 Credit: 51,753,924 RAC: 0	Message 38563 - Posted: 11 Apr 2010, 2:05:53 UTC - in response to Message 38558. Oh I've been kicking things. I'm still can not get smth... ID: 38563 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

CTAPbIi Send message Joined: 4 Jan 10 Posts: 86 Credit: 51,753,924 RAC: 0	Message 38922 - Posted: 20 Apr 2010, 19:02:17 UTC server needs nick kick :-) ID: 38922 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Paul D. Buck Send message Joined: 12 Apr 08 Posts: 621 Credit: 161,934,067 RAC: 0	Message 38928 - Posted: 20 Apr 2010, 21:36:55 UTC - in response to Message 38420. Last modified: 20 Apr 2010, 21:39:15 UTC I've got an Intel i7 based machine that has been getting only 4 CPU work units to crunch at a time (doing it on the CPU only). My safety stock is empty. Obviously the machine would like 8 or more units. I was running 6.10.18 but upgraded today to 6.10.43 as it is now the recommended version and I was hoping that it would solve the problem. Nope! I also detached/ reattached but that also didn't help. Yesterday I reset my preferences to 5 days of cache and updated the preferences. No help there either. My lap top has since received a nice cache but my main cruncher is at a loss for enough work. Any ideas? Also look to the error rates on tasks returned... {Edit} I looked at one in your list and it looks like it was done with v0.21 ... I THINK that has been replaced by later versions ... you may also want to check that as well ... in fact I am not even sure why you are running anon platform ... ID: 38928 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote