Welcome to MilkyWay@home

v0.17 for windows


Advanced search

Message boards : Number crunching : v0.17 for windows
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2

AuthorMessage
Beau

Send message
Joined: 3 Jan 09
Posts: 270
Credit: 124,346
RAC: 0
100 thousand credit badge10 year member badge
Message 9277 - Posted: 27 Jan 2009, 21:52:44 UTC - in response to Message 9274.  
Last modified: 27 Jan 2009, 21:57:22 UTC

I just had 16 0.17 WU's with failed downloads.

<edit>
Here is the error from the log:

1/27/2009 3:15:40 PM|Milkyway@home|Sending scheduler request: To fetch work. Requesting 230401 seconds of work, reporting 0 completed tasks
1/27/2009 3:15:46 PM|Milkyway@home|Scheduler request completed: got 16 new tasks
1/27/2009 3:15:48 PM|Milkyway@home|Started download of milkyway_0.17_windows_intelx86.exe
1/27/2009 3:15:48 PM|Milkyway@home|Started download of parameters-86-modified.txt
1/27/2009 3:15:49 PM|Milkyway@home|Finished download of parameters-86-modified.txt
1/27/2009 3:15:49 PM|Milkyway@home|Started download of nm_s86_l31_search_parameters_25954_1233087111
1/27/2009 3:15:49 PM|Milkyway@home|[error] MD5 check failed for parameters-86-modified.txt
1/27/2009 3:15:49 PM|Milkyway@home|[error] expected 8bfb4c1453a343a77951b3c40990667c, got 491e0836fdebfa7775324a312565eece
1/27/2009 3:15:49 PM|Milkyway@home|[error] Checksum or signature error for parameters-86-modified.txt
ID: 9277 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ProfileTravis
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist

Send message
Joined: 30 Aug 07
Posts: 2046
Credit: 26,480
RAC: 0
10 thousand credit badge10 year member badge
Message 9278 - Posted: 27 Jan 2009, 22:12:38 UTC - in response to Message 9277.  

I just had 16 0.17 WU's with failed downloads.


Here is the error from the log:

1/27/2009 3:15:40 PM|Milkyway@home|Sending scheduler request: To fetch work. Requesting 230401 seconds of work, reporting 0 completed tasks
1/27/2009 3:15:46 PM|Milkyway@home|Scheduler request completed: got 16 new tasks
1/27/2009 3:15:48 PM|Milkyway@home|Started download of milkyway_0.17_windows_intelx86.exe
1/27/2009 3:15:48 PM|Milkyway@home|Started download of parameters-86-modified.txt
1/27/2009 3:15:49 PM|Milkyway@home|Finished download of parameters-86-modified.txt
1/27/2009 3:15:49 PM|Milkyway@home|Started download of nm_s86_l31_search_parameters_25954_1233087111
1/27/2009 3:15:49 PM|Milkyway@home|[error] MD5 check failed for parameters-86-modified.txt
1/27/2009 3:15:49 PM|Milkyway@home|[error] expected 8bfb4c1453a343a77951b3c40990667c, got 491e0836fdebfa7775324a312565eece
1/27/2009 3:15:49 PM|Milkyway@home|[error] Checksum or signature error for parameters-86-modified.txt


I think that file got changed with the newer searches... that might have caused the problem. Is it still happening?
ID: 9278 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Beau

Send message
Joined: 3 Jan 09
Posts: 270
Credit: 124,346
RAC: 0
100 thousand credit badge10 year member badge
Message 9280 - Posted: 27 Jan 2009, 22:14:57 UTC - in response to Message 9278.  

I just had 16 0.17 WU's with failed downloads.

<edit>
Here is the error from the log:

1/27/2009 3:15:40 PM|Milkyway@home|Sending scheduler request: To fetch work. Requesting 230401 seconds of work, reporting 0 completed tasks
1/27/2009 3:15:46 PM|Milkyway@home|Scheduler request completed: got 16 new tasks
1/27/2009 3:15:48 PM|Milkyway@home|Started download of milkyway_0.17_windows_intelx86.exe
1/27/2009 3:15:48 PM|Milkyway@home|Started download of parameters-86-modified.txt
1/27/2009 3:15:49 PM|Milkyway@home|Finished download of parameters-86-modified.txt
1/27/2009 3:15:49 PM|Milkyway@home|Started download of nm_s86_l31_search_parameters_25954_1233087111
1/27/2009 3:15:49 PM|Milkyway@home|[error] MD5 check failed for parameters-86-modified.txt
1/27/2009 3:15:49 PM|Milkyway@home|[error] expected 8bfb4c1453a343a77951b3c40990667c, got 491e0836fdebfa7775324a312565eece
1/27/2009 3:15:49 PM|Milkyway@home|[error] Checksum or signature error for parameters-86-modified.txt


I think that file got changed with the newer searches... that might have caused the problem. Is it still happening?



I reset the project and it just downloaded some fresh WU's that seem to be crunching along, although 9+ hour completion time a piece puzzles me, but I will let them run. I'll post again if something else happens.

Thanks

ID: 9280 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ProfileLabbie
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Aug 07
Posts: 327
Credit: 116,463,193
RAC: 0
100 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 9283 - Posted: 27 Jan 2009, 22:45:41 UTC

@Beau,

One of my machines always resets to a 9 hour completion estimate when I do a reset. It will come down as you do some WUs.


Calm Chaos Forum...Join Calm Chaos Now
ID: 9283 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Beau

Send message
Joined: 3 Jan 09
Posts: 270
Credit: 124,346
RAC: 0
100 thousand credit badge10 year member badge
Message 9284 - Posted: 27 Jan 2009, 23:26:01 UTC - in response to Message 9283.  

@Beau,

One of my machines always resets to a 9 hour completion estimate when I do a reset. It will come down as you do some WUs.



Yes, you are absolutely correct and the time is comming down to a typical level. It just sort of startled me a bit to suddenly see 9 hours!

Thanks for your reply!

Beau
ID: 9284 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profilebanditwolf
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Nov 07
Posts: 2425
Credit: 524,164
RAC: 0
500 thousand credit badge10 year member badge
Message 9285 - Posted: 27 Jan 2009, 23:37:11 UTC

Shouldn't we be up to v.20 or so now? I mean it's been a day and no updates. Someone must be ill. :P
Doesn't expecting the unexpected make the unexpected the expected?
If it makes sense, DON'T do it.
ID: 9285 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ProfileDan T. Morris
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Mar 08
Posts: 165
Credit: 410,228,216
RAC: 0
300 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 9287 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009, 1:08:02 UTC - in response to Message 9285.  

I am waiting for .21 you know the black jack game. Then I will recompile...

DD,
ID: 9287 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ProfileGalaxyIce
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 6 Apr 08
Posts: 2018
Credit: 100,142,856
RAC: 0
100 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 9288 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009, 1:14:57 UTC - in response to Message 9287.  

I am waiting for .21 you know the black jack game. Then I will recompile...

DD,

Please don't :/ The last time I went to Vegas I was beating the credit card machine for not giving me cash over my credit limit. That card scraping is addictive! :P




ID: 9288 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Jim Wilkins

Send message
Joined: 1 Jan 08
Posts: 40
Credit: 1,676,165
RAC: 0
1 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 9312 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009, 21:25:05 UTC

FWIW, I am seeing this result on .17 WUs:

<core_client_version>6.4.5</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<stderr_txt>
Unrecognized XML in parse_init_data_file: computation_deadline
Skipping: 1233321225.136000
Skipping: /computation_deadline
Unrecognized XML in GLOBAL_PREFS::parse_override: mod_time
Skipping: /mod_time
Unrecognized XML in GLOBAL_PREFS::parse_override: max_ncpus_pct
Skipping: 100.000000
Skipping: /max_ncpus_pct
Unrecognized XML in parse_init_data_file: computation_deadline
Skipping: 1233321225.136000
Skipping: /computation_deadline
Unrecognized XML in GLOBAL_PREFS::parse_override: mod_time
Skipping: /mod_time
Unrecognized XML in GLOBAL_PREFS::parse_override: max_ncpus_pct
Skipping: 100.000000
Skipping: /max_ncpus_pct

</stderr_txt>
]]

Jim
ID: 9312 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ProfileTravis
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist

Send message
Joined: 30 Aug 07
Posts: 2046
Credit: 26,480
RAC: 0
10 thousand credit badge10 year member badge
Message 9313 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009, 21:31:20 UTC - in response to Message 9312.  

FWIW, I am seeing this result on .17 WUs:

6.4.5

Unrecognized XML in parse_init_data_file: computation_deadline
Skipping: 1233321225.136000
Skipping: /computation_deadline
Unrecognized XML in GLOBAL_PREFS::parse_override: mod_time
Skipping: /mod_time
Unrecognized XML in GLOBAL_PREFS::parse_override: max_ncpus_pct
Skipping: 100.000000
Skipping: /max_ncpus_pct
Unrecognized XML in parse_init_data_file: computation_deadline
Skipping: 1233321225.136000
Skipping: /computation_deadline
Unrecognized XML in GLOBAL_PREFS::parse_override: mod_time
Skipping: /mod_time
Unrecognized XML in GLOBAL_PREFS::parse_override: max_ncpus_pct
Skipping: 100.000000
Skipping: /max_ncpus_pct


]]

Jim



All of them, or is this a recent problem?
ID: 9313 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Jim Wilkins

Send message
Joined: 1 Jan 08
Posts: 40
Credit: 1,676,165
RAC: 0
1 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 9314 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009, 21:40:13 UTC - in response to Message 9313.  

I have many .16 WUs for my Intel Mac and I don't see this in them. I have just 2 results for my XP machine and I see this in both of them.

Jim
ID: 9314 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profilethe silver surfer
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 27 Nov 07
Posts: 39
Credit: 1,207,109
RAC: 25
1 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 9315 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009, 21:51:32 UTC - in response to Message 9314.  
Last modified: 28 Jan 2009, 21:54:43 UTC

I had at least 30 of them yesterday on Vista 32bit, with state: valid.

But as of today they seem to be OK :

<core_client_version>6.1.0</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<stderr_txt>

</stderr_txt>
]]>


Kurt

edit: 0.17 !

ID: 9315 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Jim Wilkins

Send message
Joined: 1 Jan 08
Posts: 40
Credit: 1,676,165
RAC: 0
1 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 9316 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009, 22:06:15 UTC - in response to Message 9314.  

The state was valid on both of the .17 WUs, so I guess they generated data.
ID: 9316 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Jim Wilkins

Send message
Joined: 1 Jan 08
Posts: 40
Credit: 1,676,165
RAC: 0
1 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 9317 - Posted: 28 Jan 2009, 22:11:30 UTC - in response to Message 9316.  

My third XP result has the same result.

Jim
ID: 9317 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Snagletooth

Send message
Joined: 18 Feb 08
Posts: 4
Credit: 110,489
RAC: 0
100 thousand credit badge10 year member badge
Message 9325 - Posted: 29 Jan 2009, 0:08:15 UTC - in response to Message 9313.  

FWIW, I am seeing this result on .17 WUs:

<core_client_version>6.4.5</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<stderr_txt>
Unrecognized XML in parse_init_data_file: computation_deadline
Skipping: 1233321225.136000
Skipping: /computation_deadline
Unrecognized XML in GLOBAL_PREFS::parse_override: mod_time
Skipping: /mod_time
Unrecognized XML in GLOBAL_PREFS::parse_override: max_ncpus_pct
Skipping: 100.000000
Skipping: /max_ncpus_pct
Unrecognized XML in parse_init_data_file: computation_deadline
Skipping: 1233321225.136000
Skipping: /computation_deadline
Unrecognized XML in GLOBAL_PREFS::parse_override: mod_time
Skipping: /mod_time
Unrecognized XML in GLOBAL_PREFS::parse_override: max_ncpus_pct
Skipping: 100.000000
Skipping: /max_ncpus_pct

</stderr_txt>
]]

Jim



All of them, or is this a recent problem?


Apparently these are harmless messages:from the boinc forums
ID: 9325 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
John Clark

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 08
Posts: 1734
Credit: 64,228,409
RAC: 0
50 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 9326 - Posted: 29 Jan 2009, 0:19:16 UTC
Last modified: 29 Jan 2009, 0:19:42 UTC

I see the time estimates for the 0.17 |36 WUs is high.

The normal |34 and |35 crunch in about 30 minutes, and the time to completion estimates reflect this. But the |36 WUs have estimates to completion on the same rig of 6 hours 50 seconds.

I assume the real crunching times will be much shorter than the estimates, and the credit awarded will reflect the increased crunch time (if it happens)?
ID: 9326 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ProfileLabbie
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Aug 07
Posts: 327
Credit: 116,463,193
RAC: 0
100 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 9329 - Posted: 29 Jan 2009, 1:14:33 UTC - in response to Message 9326.  

I see the time estimates for the 0.17 |36 WUs is high.

The normal |34 and |35 crunch in about 30 minutes, and the time to completion estimates reflect this. But the |36 WUs have estimates to completion on the same rig of 6 hours 50 seconds.

I assume the real crunching times will be much shorter than the estimates, and the credit awarded will reflect the increased crunch time (if it happens)?


I just noticed one of those on my P4M, went from just under two hour to estimating 25 hours.


Calm Chaos Forum...Join Calm Chaos Now
ID: 9329 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Kimegi Tepeex

Send message
Joined: 15 Nov 08
Posts: 5
Credit: 20,002,399
RAC: 0
20 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 9346 - Posted: 29 Jan 2009, 11:19:42 UTC - in response to Message 9274.  


I think Dave might have upgraded his windows box and missed something when he recompiled BOINC. I'll have to ask him about it.


Hmmm...

Yep, that's been a common theme lately! ;-)

If he compiled it with the latest version of Visual Studio, the you lose NT4 and 9x compatability. :-(

VS2005 is the last one to have it, IIRC.

So the next question is, is it kosher to set up an app_info to specify v0.14 (stock) to run for the current tasks?

Alinator


Any new for our venerable old crunchers ?
ID: 9346 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
John Clark

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 08
Posts: 1734
Credit: 64,228,409
RAC: 0
50 million credit badge10 year member badge
Message 9353 - Posted: 29 Jan 2009, 14:57:34 UTC
Last modified: 29 Jan 2009, 15:23:36 UTC

The new |36, |38 and |39 WUs are taking quite a lot more time to crunch (time per WU is 32% longer) but the additional credit awarded is 8.6% (based on the standard 27.93 CC award).
ID: 9353 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ProfileTravis
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist

Send message
Joined: 30 Aug 07
Posts: 2046
Credit: 26,480
RAC: 0
10 thousand credit badge10 year member badge
Message 9378 - Posted: 30 Jan 2009, 0:50:53 UTC - in response to Message 9353.  

The new |36, |38 and |39 WUs are taking quite a lot more time to crunch (time per WU is 32% longer) but the additional credit awarded is 8.6% (based on the standard 27.93 CC award).


Yeah I'm trying to figure out new credit function that takes into account multiple streams. Workunits named nm_s79_XXX , nm_s82_XXX, nm_s86_XXX should be running in the same amount of time as they were before, however the nm_s20_XXX and nm_s21_XXX should be a bit longer. I tweaked the credit for these a bit in the latest searches l40 and l41, so hopefully they should better reflect the increase in CPU time.
ID: 9378 · Rating: 0 · rate: Rate + / Rate - Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Previous · 1 · 2

Message boards : Number crunching : v0.17 for windows

©2020 Astroinformatics Group