6 Jul 2023, 18:23:39 UTC 17 Jul 2023, 2:29:28 UTC Completed, validation inconclusive 3,609.82 34,184.77 pending Milkyway@home N-Body Simulation v1.82 (mt)
windows_x86_64
924233079 848905 17 Jul 2023, 2:31:37 UTC 18 Jul 2023, 1:58:36 UTC Completed, validation inconclusive 8,708.07 57,765.94 pending

First one is the second guy to get the task, I am the second.
It is on to a third.

I have 64/100 tied up this way.

• Initial wingman aborted it about 90 minutes after receiving it;
  
• your task (922770178) returned and waited (reporting either Validation Inconclusive or, perhaps¹, Pending Validation until the _2 task returned);
  
• the _2 task returned and didn't match well with yours when validated (definitely Inconclusive now!);
  
• a _3 task was sent out and returned - it was a good enough match to _2 that _2 and _3 were declared valid and yours was rejected.
  

I note that it has marked your task as Validate error; many projects use that tag for tasks whose results the validator can't understand well enough to attempt validation at all², marking basic failures to match as Invalid. There didn't seem to be anything blatantly wrong with what your task returned (though it was a long way off the results for the two that validated), so I guess MW uses that label for all types of validation failure...

I note also that you have a small number of other N-body tasks that got Validate errors (with the same sort of mismatch of results...) I wonder if that has something to do with your allowing 15 CPU threads and the system sometimes losing [partial] track of what it's doing (for instance, a missed thread synchronization might do that...) It's unlikely to be a hardware issue -- I run a similar system (but under Linux) and it has never had an N-body task that failed to validate (at 3 threads per task and only 11 or 12 threads allowed to BOINC in total...)

I've also read your messages about N-body in other threads, and note the advice shared there -- hope you can get it sorted out properly soon!

Cheers - Al.

¹ If it decides your task is a candidate for validation without a matching wingman but the validator decides to disagree it should be tagged Inconclusive at once, whereas if it has already decided you need a wingman before the validator gets a look in it should be tagged Pending. MW has a strange validator, so it may not always do what might be expected :-)

² For example, WCG tags mismatched validations as "Invalid" and results the validator can't understand as "Error" (making them indistinguishable from any other sort of error) whilst Einstein tags mismatched validations as "Completed, marked as invalid" and results the validator can't understand as "Validation Error" -- there is enough information passed between the validator and the database to tell the two cases apart but the web interface has to bother to pay attention...

6 Jul 2023, 18:23:39 UTC 17 Jul 2023, 2:29:28 UTC Completed, validation inconclusive 3,609.82 34,184.77 pending Milkyway@home N-Body Simulation v1.82 (mt)
windows_x86_64
924233079 848905 17 Jul 2023, 2:31:37 UTC 18 Jul 2023, 1:58:36 UTC Completed, validation inconclusive 8,708.07 57,765.94 pending

First one is the second guy to get the task, I am the second.
It is on to a third.

I have 64/100 tied up this way.

Inconclusive is MilkyWay's way of saying 'waiting on a wingman' most will validate in time, one your host returns 10 tasks in a row that are valid you won't need a wingman again except for periodic checks of your pc OR until you return an invalid task at which point the 10 in a row starts over again. MilkyWay does not send out the wingman task until after you have returned your task, it's kinda strange but I guess they are hoping 90% of wingman tasks wouldn't be needed anyway.

Interesting reading material.
I'll have to go back over it again this weekend.
After putting in and taking out the app_cofig, all tasks held at 5 cores.
This weekend I will put back the app_config, but set it up with just 2 x 5.
3 X 5 seemed to throw things off, which could account for the errors.

Interesting reading material.
I'll have to go back over it again this weekend.
After putting in and taking out the app_cofig, all tasks held at 5 cores.
This weekend I will put back the app_config, but set it up with just 2 x 5.
3 X 5 seemed to throw things off, which could account for the errors.

It will hold at 5 cores per task until you get new post app_config file tasks and then it will resume back to the upto a max of 16 cores per task.

Interesting reading material.
I'll have to go back over it again this weekend.
After putting in and taking out the app_cofig, all tasks held at 5 cores.
This weekend I will put back the app_config, but set it up with just 2 x 5.
3 X 5 seemed to throw things off, which could account for the errors.