Message boards :
Number crunching :
bad argument #0 to 'calculateEps2' (Expected 3 or 6 arguments)
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
Send message Joined: 2 Oct 16 Posts: 167 Credit: 1,007,521,316 RAC: 34,013 |
All tasks started having this error. https://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/result.php?resultid=942925980 |
Send message Joined: 24 Jan 11 Posts: 712 Credit: 553,859,763 RAC: 60,055 |
Yep, badly formatted tasks. All mine are erroring out too. |
Send message Joined: 12 Jul 08 Posts: 3 Credit: 227,544 RAC: 1,857 |
same here <core_client_version>7.24.1</core_client_version> <![CDATA[ <message> The data is invalid. (0xd) - exit code 13 (0xd)</message> <stderr_txt> <search_application> milkyway_nbody 1.86 Windows x86_64 double OpenMP, Crlibm </search_application> Using OpenMP 8 max threads on a system with 8 processors Running MilkyWay@home Nbody v1.76 Error evaluating NBodyCtx: [string "-- /* Copyright (c) 2016 - 2018 Siddhartha ..."]:117: bad argument #0 to 'calculateEps2' (Expected 3 or 6 arguments) Failed to read input parameters file strftime() failed called boinc_finish(13) </stderr_txt> ]]> |
Send message Joined: 16 Mar 10 Posts: 211 Credit: 108,197,786 RAC: 5,032 |
It looks as if orbit-fitting tasks in the new data feed (04_03_2024 in the task name) also have the problem that the previous feed (03_29_2024) had. (And like the previous data-set, the task names don't have "orbit_fitting" in them this time, which might hint at what the previous problem was!) I still have some retries for earlier dates and those are viable. Cheers - Al. |
Send message Joined: 14 Feb 10 Posts: 14 Credit: 110,233,511 RAC: 0 |
How can I prevent getting the bad WUs ? Something I can add in the app_config? |
Send message Joined: 24 Jan 11 Posts: 712 Credit: 553,859,763 RAC: 60,055 |
Just disable the Orbit-fitting app in your Project preferences here on the website. Just do the regular N-body app. https://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/prefs.php?subset=project |
Send message Joined: 14 Feb 10 Posts: 14 Credit: 110,233,511 RAC: 0 |
Thanks! |
Send message Joined: 12 Dec 15 Posts: 53 Credit: 133,288,534 RAC: 0 |
It looks as if orbit-fitting tasks in the new data feed (04_03_2024 in the task name) also have the problem that the previous feed (03_29_2024) had. (And like the previous data-set, the task names don't have "orbit_fitting" in them this time, which might hint at what the previous problem was!) Since you looked over the data set naming did you notice the data sets have a 4 day cycle (excluding weekends)? Einstein longs are about 3 days. Switched to them and will check back Wednesday. Off topic, is my Marmot avatar showing? |
Send message Joined: 2 Jan 08 Posts: 123 Credit: 69,761,337 RAC: 1,597 |
It looks as if orbit-fitting tasks in the new data feed (04_03_2024 in the task name) also have the problem that the previous feed (03_29_2024) had. (And like the previous data-set, the task names don't have "orbit_fitting" in them this time, which might hint at what the previous problem was!) No it isn't Conan |
Send message Joined: 12 Jul 08 Posts: 3 Credit: 227,544 RAC: 1,857 |
same here it's interesting one of my tasks from this project was validated successfully https://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/result.php?resultid=943313023 |
Send message Joined: 1 Jan 17 Posts: 37 Credit: 110,069,590 RAC: 3,891 |
rilian wrote: it's interesting one of my tasks from this project was validated successfully https://milkyway.cs.rpi.edu/milkyway/result.php?resultid=943313023This task is from a previous batch of workunits (de_nbody_orbit_fitting_03_21_2024_v186_*) from before the introduction of this bug. |
Send message Joined: 24 Jan 11 Posts: 712 Credit: 553,859,763 RAC: 60,055 |
By the date in the task name, that one was from an earlier run with good formatting. There are a few straggler resends from earlier that still process fine with the Orbit Fitting app. But 90% of the Orbit Fitting tasks from the past two days are bad. If you choose to still run them, then your production is likely to take the same 90% hit from all the bad tasks relative to the few good tasks. The _04_03_2024 named series are the bad ones. Eventually the _04_03_2024 series will error process out after four failure counts. [Edit 1] I'm re-enabling them now to see if the bad ones are still coming through or see if the they have error counted out [Edit 2] Evidently still coming through so toggling them off again. |
Send message Joined: 1 Jan 17 Posts: 37 Credit: 110,069,590 RAC: 3,891 |
alanb wrote: It looks as if orbit-fitting tasks in the new data feed (04_03_2024 in the task name) also have the problem that the previous feed (03_29_2024) had. (And like the previous data-set, the task names don't have "orbit_fitting" in them this time, which might hint at what the previous problem was!)Yes, Orbit Fitting batches from before the problematic ones are not yet completed. My own results list contains ~2,000 results from good Orbit Fitting batches, from tasks which I received during the past 5 days including today. (That's alongside ~10,000 error results from tasks from the bad Orbit Fitting batch(es).) Keith Myers wrote: But 90% of the Orbit Fitting tasks from the past two days are bad. If you choose to still run them, then your production is likely to take the same 90% hit from all the bad tasks relative to the few good tasks.I for one keep running them, and take measures to avoid a hit to my production. :-) Would of course be better if administration would retract the bad batch(es), carefully. |
Send message Joined: 24 Jan 11 Posts: 712 Credit: 553,859,763 RAC: 60,055 |
Well you are doing your part in retiring the "bad" tasks as fast as possible then. Thanks. |
Send message Joined: 9 Aug 22 Posts: 80 Credit: 2,576,474 RAC: 7,431 |
Sorry for the bad tasks. I have notified the person in charge of these tasks and they should fix this issue soon. |
Send message Joined: 2 Oct 16 Posts: 167 Credit: 1,007,521,316 RAC: 34,013 |
Well you are doing your part in retiring the "bad" tasks as fast as possible then. Thanks. I added MW to a spare client. Just to get them get them an abort. Some do appear OK still. |
Send message Joined: 22 May 11 Posts: 71 Credit: 5,685,114 RAC: 3 |
I think someone accidentally sent normal batch to orbit-fitting queue |
Send message Joined: 2 Oct 16 Posts: 167 Credit: 1,007,521,316 RAC: 34,013 |
Still getting plenty of the bad tasks from 04_03. The only ones that run have orbit_fitting in the name Good: de_nbody_orbit_fitting_03_21_2024_v186_OCS__data__6_1709197135_1941068_1 Bad: de_nbody_04_03_2024_v186_OCS__data__5_1709197135_2333913_3 |
Send message Joined: 24 Jan 11 Posts: 712 Credit: 553,859,763 RAC: 60,055 |
I think someone accidentally sent normal batch to orbit-fitting queue +1 |
Send message Joined: 12 Dec 15 Posts: 53 Credit: 133,288,534 RAC: 0 |
Well you are doing your part in retiring the "bad" tasks as fast as possible then. Thanks. I realized that pushing thru till they get 4 errors, then retired, was probably best and kept running. The nasty thing about this is the BOINC client stalls after so many bad WU's, I need to do a manual update to Milkyway@home then BOINC client wants to d/l the master file table before reporting the finished WU's and getting a new batch. |
©2024 Astroinformatics Group