This one reported as an error even though it ran to completion and uploaded 10MB of output. The computer was never restarted and boinc client ran the whole time stopping to run benchmarks once.

Edit: Now the status has changed to Inconclusive, so maybe the validator was having a senior moment when the task first reported.


BETA_ E000370_ 337A_ 001e94179_ 4-- Error 12/5/08 10:16:09 12/5/08 22:57:50 12.23 315.0 / 0.0


Result Log

<core_client_version>6.2.19</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<stderr_txt>
Calling initGraphics()
INFO: No state to restore. Start from the beginning.
####Message = NORMAL STOP
called boinc_finish

</stderr_txt>
]]>


12-5-2008 5:18:41 AM|World Community Grid|Starting BETA_E000370_337A_001e94179_4
12-5-2008 5:18:41 AM|World Community Grid|Starting task BETA_E000370_337A_001e94179_4 using beta6 version 619
12-5-2008 5:31:05 AM|World Community Grid|[checkpoint_debug] result BETA_E000370_337A_001e94179_4 checkpointed
.
.
12-5-2008 4:00:31 PM||Suspending computation - running CPU benchmarks
12-5-2008 4:00:31 PM|World Community Grid|[cpu_sched] Preempting BETA_E000370_337A_001e94179_4 (left in memory)
12-5-2008 4:01:03 PM||Benchmark results:
12-5-2008 4:01:03 PM|| Number of CPUs: 4
12-5-2008 4:01:03 PM|| 3161 floating point MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU
12-5-2008 4:01:03 PM|| 9795 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU
12-5-2008 4:01:04 PM||Resuming computation
12-5-2008 4:01:04 PM|World Community Grid|[cpu_sched] Resuming BETA_E000370_337A_001e94179_4
.
.
12-5-2008 5:25:43 PM|World Community Grid|[checkpoint_debug] result BETA_E000370_337A_001e94179_4 checkpointed
12-5-2008 5:35:43 PM|World Community Grid|[checkpoint_debug] result BETA_E000370_337A_001e94179_4 checkpointed
12-5-2008 5:35:44 PM|World Community Grid|Computation for task BETA_E000370_337A_001e94179_4 finished

Hi, all of my Betas have aborted or are to late, I have left them alone and two are still running, why is this, let me know what more information you need to help me out with my enquiery.

Many thanks
Bionicle

Have you noticed the number 666 in the work unit name?

You can see at the Result Status page "error" link what may has gone wrong. That's that the coffins get too, plus the actual result for analysis.

Also on the Result Status page selecting BETA_E000001_666A_00001300s allows to see other results in the quorum.

Apologies for an error WU - I think it was my fault:
BETA_ E000001_ 104A_ 00000q00c_ 3 | RJB-Q9650A | Error | 6/12/08 15:58:54 | 6/12/08 18:39:26 | 2.38 | 58.1 / 0.0
- Unhandled Exception Record -
Reason: Access Violation (0xc0000005) at address 0x006C5D44 write attempt to address 0x00000005

This was running on the "monster" that I pictured on Page 2 of this thread (no sequence numbers on posts with this great forum software). The motherboard is a cheap µATX jobbie that is meant to run a nice little Celeron CPU for your gran to check her emails, not an overclocked quad crunching 4x100%. The intended board for this CPU is back with the distributor being checked out. The CPU power supply is quite inadequate, hence the cooling baffles in the photo. With BIOS Vcore setting 1.35, it happily runs 4xfaah jobs at 1.27; with 4xPrime 95 Vcore instantly drops below stability. I've noticed that with CHARMM and HCC, Intel Core 2 CPUs run hotter than with Autodock, so the extra load of 3xCHARMM + 1xHCC probably dragged the Vcore down and caused the error

I've noticed quite a few other crunchers reporting errors with these beta WUs, and wonder whether the extra system load of CHARMM is pushing their hardware over the edge too. If you are getting errors, I suggest you check your CPU temperatures using either the diagnostic software that came with your motherboard or one of several programs available for free on the Net.
Apart from system design weaknesses, excess temperatures can be caused by blocked air intake screens or buildup of fluff and dust on fans and CPU heatsink fins.
If the temperatures are OK running WCG projects, you might also perform some CPU stress-testing, using programs such as Prime95, Super_pi, OCCT or Linpack. Warning: This could damage your CPU, but if you are not overclocking it and the temperatures are OK, such testing would be within the conditions of your warranty and damage would be unlikely.

[Edit]: One of 2 WUs crunched on my Athlon64 has been declared Invalid:
BETA_ E000001_ 343A_ 00000v015_ 1-- | rjb-a64x2 | Invalid | 4/12/08 07:40:34 | 5/12/08 10:13:02 | 16.94 | 247.7 / 247.7
This machine is overclocked by a grand 12% and has run other WCG projects for months without blinking. It passed the stress-tests that I just ran on it. CPU voltage drop should not be the problem with this machine. CHARMM may be more demanding of CPU integrity than other WCG projects, as well as needing more power and running hotter.
Or, looking at other posts here (GIB@ - next, steveleg ), something unexplained is happening.

Is CHARMM (aka CEP / DDDT Phase x) the new definitive CPU stress-test?
[Edit again]: Sekerob has provided a possible explanation for some of the Invalid results, in steveleg's thread:

This result no longers shows on my "My Results" tab at all. :/ So I apparently get no credit for this one. :(