Message boards :
Number crunching :
post milkyway_windows_x86_64 problems here
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
![]() Send message Joined: 30 Aug 07 Posts: 2046 Credit: 26,480 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
Post any problems with the 64 bit windows app here. (Details about your OS and particular architecture would be nice too). ![]() |
![]() Send message Joined: 11 Mar 08 Posts: 28 Credit: 818,194 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
My first test work unit 53631584 failed with a Compute Error:
Computer is 8787: AMD Athlon 3400 dual core CPU clocked to 2.75 GHz, 8 GB RAM 2 x 500 GB SATA 300 hard disks 1 GB NVidia GForce 85000 video card BOINC has its own 10GB partition, and I'm running MW and Einstein on this box. O/S: Windows XP Pro 64-bit, SP3 |
![]() Send message Joined: 30 Aug 07 Posts: 2046 Credit: 26,480 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
Thats really strange, because the code doesn't print that out anywhere... Maybe Dave didn't update all the code when he was compiling the 64 bit windows app. ![]() |
![]() Send message Joined: 11 Mar 08 Posts: 28 Credit: 818,194 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
I just had a second test work unit, which completed in 10min 30sec. The older app was taking about 5hr 15min per work unit on average. I'm impressed. One small problem - the progress bar in BOINC manager went back to zero when the work unit was half completed and then stepped all the way across to 100%. I know that's purely cosmetic, but just to let you know. :-) Rob. |
![]() Send message Joined: 30 Aug 07 Posts: 2046 Credit: 26,480 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
I just had a second test work unit, which completed in 10min 30sec. The older app was taking about 5hr 15min per work unit on average. I'm impressed. the new WUs are also doing more work than the older WUs :P glad to hear it's running much faster. app v0.2 should fix the bug with the progress bar. ![]() |
![]() Send message Joined: 25 Nov 07 Posts: 25 Credit: 54,443,893 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
Running 0.02 on xp64, Q9450, 4gb RAM. Running about 7 minutes, Milksop's version was running just over 4, so pretty close here. |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 12 Nov 07 Posts: 2425 Credit: 524,164 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
For me the test 8 is ~1400 secs, milksop's ~550-600 secs. Are these doing the same amount of work as the old wu's? Should I run the rest of the wu's since I keep getting the same error? Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected? If it makes sense, DON'T do it. |
Send message Joined: 28 Aug 07 Posts: 2 Credit: 16,265,075 RAC: 13 ![]() ![]() |
Seems to be running fine here, about 2.5 times longer than Milksop's app. |
![]() Send message Joined: 30 Aug 07 Posts: 2046 Credit: 26,480 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
For me the test 8 is ~1400 secs, milksop's ~550-600 secs. Are these doing the same amount of work as the old wu's? They are doing a bit more work, not 2.5x though, so it looks like we still have a bit more optimization to do :) ![]() |
Send message Joined: 13 Nov 08 Posts: 13 Credit: 13,533,846 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
I've got several platforms not getting any work units when requesting from server... I've waited it out a few hours, but here's the message that I'm getting on 3 different OS's (Vista64, Server 2003, and XP) 11/24/2008 3:26:43 PM|Milkyway@home|Sending scheduler request: Requested by user. Requesting 0 seconds of work, reporting 0 completed tasks 11/24/2008 3:26:48 PM|Milkyway@home|Scheduler request succeeded: got 0 new tasks 11/24/2008 3:26:48 PM|Milkyway@home|Message from server: Server error: can't attach shared memory "Cant attach shared memory" - What does that mean? |
Send message Joined: 13 Nov 08 Posts: 13 Credit: 13,533,846 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
^Nevermind that.. I see the huge thread started because of this. |
Send message Joined: 30 Oct 08 Posts: 32 Credit: 60,528 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
My "test" WUs crash with exit code 22, does anyone know what that means? |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 27 Aug 07 Posts: 647 Credit: 27,592,547 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
My "test" WUs crash with exit code 22, does anyone know what that means? Someone else had this error today and I found an answer to that here. HTH ;-) Lovely greetings, Cori ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 22 Mar 08 Posts: 90 Credit: 501,728 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
|
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 12 Nov 07 Posts: 2425 Credit: 524,164 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
See 'testing assimilator' thread http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/forum_thread.php?id=491 Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected? If it makes sense, DON'T do it. |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 22 Mar 08 Posts: 90 Credit: 501,728 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
OK, thanks. Now if I can just get rid of all these 21's! Edit: Now it says I've reached my daily quota of 232wus, even though they were all failed downloads!! A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory ![]() |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 27 Aug 07 Posts: 647 Credit: 27,592,547 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
Had my first version 0.3-WU on my lappy. It ran successfully but the stderr out says: stderr out Another one: http://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/result.php?resultid=55082131 Lovely greetings, Cori ![]() ![]() |
Send message Joined: 28 Aug 07 Posts: 2 Credit: 16,265,075 RAC: 13 ![]() ![]() |
Running initial 3s here. Initially looks like it is functioning, appears to be a speed improvement over version 2 of between 10 and 15% depending on computer |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 10 Nov 07 Posts: 28 Credit: 2,549,231 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
My two Q9300 boxes are both erroring immediately on test24 tasks. stderr out shows <core_client_version>5.10.45</core_client_version> <![CDATA[ <message> - exit code -1073741819 (0xc0000005) </message> <stderr_txt> Unhandled Exception Detected... - Unhandled Exception Record - Reason: Access Violation (0xc0000005) at address 0x00000001400121D3 read attempt to address 0xFFFFFFFF the interesting part at least to me is both are the exact same address on all these tasks. rebooting has no effect to correct the problem. all memory tests are good, and all my other projects are running normally. [edit] set both boxes to NNT until I have some time to play with it more.[/edit] |
![]() Send message Joined: 30 Aug 07 Posts: 2046 Credit: 26,480 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
My two Q9300 boxes are both erroring immediately on test24 tasks. I think there's some problem with reading/writing the checkpoint file, which is causing some os/architectures to crash. I'm looking into it. ![]() |
©2024 Astroinformatics Group