| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
| World Community Grid Forums
|
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 43
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
After reviewing this and other threads in this topic, it seems clear that Clean Energy Project was not ready for prime time.
A couple of days ago I did an Update on WCG and found that all 9 CEP results I had onboard, including two with a total of over 24 hours CPU time invested, had assumed status "Aborted By Project" and were therefor dead meat. When I did a filter search of WCG Results Status for ALL Clean Energy Project results, the aborted results simply were not there. From what I read in this topic I infer that the aborted results were recalled by the manufacturer, but I can't find an actual explanation. I notice that "Aborted By Project" is not one of the Result Status filter criteria, which may be why they are not listed. I'd be interested to find out the exact definition of "Aborted By Project" (I didn't find anything in BOINC WIKI either) and why such results aren't included in the Results Status database. B/W |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Just fetched 2 CEP jobs on my crawler with zero buffer setting. Both with 1:52 CPU hours done, one shows 28% progress and the other 2.8%, factor 10 less. Strange is that the one with the most progress switched to high priority though due on January 21.
----------------------------------------Someone posted about a tool called rosetta-view. It is now monitoring the tasks and checks every 30 minutes if progress is made. In the beginning it alerted by voice message as the slow job only reported progress after 45 minutes had passed. Now I don't need to check up if things keep running. The explanation for the aborts is here: http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/forums/wcg/viewthread?thread=24016 [Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Jan 9, 2009 8:03:14 PM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Thanks for the link; good explanation, with the added virtue of ringing true. I THOUGHT the WCG servers came back up a bit too soon during the transition, after their estimate of the downtime.
I recall that Seti@Home aborts (not-yet-started) results out in the field if a valid quorum have already been returned for that workunit. At the same time, results with ANY cpu time recorded are allowed to complete for credit, quorum or not. But in their case the aborted results are carried in the results database with an explanation, and not just "disappeared" as happened here. B/W |
||
|
|
rilian
Veteran Cruncher Ukraine - we rule! Joined: Jun 17, 2007 Post Count: 1460 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Extremely short WU, eh?
----------------------------------------E000095_ 280A_ 000h4100u_ 4-- Pending Validation 1/10/09 14:36:49 1/10/09 15:02:25 0.08 1.4 / 0.0 E000095_ 280A_ 000h4100u_ 5-- In Progress 1/10/09 14:26:05 1/13/09 07:06:29 0.00 0.0 / 0.0 E000095_ 280A_ 000h4100u_ 2-- Error 1/9/09 20:44:10 1/10/09 14:19:08 0.06 1.3 / 0.0 E000095_ 280A_ 000h4100u_ 3-- Error 1/9/09 20:37:12 1/10/09 04:30:58 0.08 1.3 / 0.0 E000095_ 280A_ 000h4100u_ 1-- Error 1/7/09 19:06:14 1/8/09 02:41:16 0.07 1.1 / 0.0 E000095_ 280A_ 000h4100u_ 0-- Error 1/7/09 19:05:54 1/9/09 20:28:31 0.07 1.4 / 0.0 and another one: E000115_ 556A_ 000j5j00k_ 1-- In Progress 1/10/09 12:08:05 1/22/09 12:08:05 0.00 0.0 / 0.0 E000115_ 556A_ 000j5j00k_ 0-- Pending Validation 1/10/09 11:58:25 1/10/09 12:23:28 0.38 6.2 / 0.0 |
||
|
|
GIBA
Ace Cruncher Joined: Apr 25, 2005 Post Count: 5374 Status: Offline |
Extremely short WU, eh? E000095_ 280A_ 000h4100u_ 4-- Pending Validation 1/10/09 14:36:49 1/10/09 15:02:25 0.08 1.4 / 0.0 E000095_ 280A_ 000h4100u_ 5-- In Progress 1/10/09 14:26:05 1/13/09 07:06:29 0.00 0.0 / 0.0 E000095_ 280A_ 000h4100u_ 2-- Error 1/9/09 20:44:10 1/10/09 14:19:08 0.06 1.3 / 0.0 E000095_ 280A_ 000h4100u_ 3-- Error 1/9/09 20:37:12 1/10/09 04:30:58 0.08 1.3 / 0.0 E000095_ 280A_ 000h4100u_ 1-- Error 1/7/09 19:06:14 1/8/09 02:41:16 0.07 1.1 / 0.0 E000095_ 280A_ 000h4100u_ 0-- Error 1/7/09 19:05:54 1/9/09 20:28:31 0.07 1.4 / 0.0 and another one: E000115_ 556A_ 000j5j00k_ 1-- In Progress 1/10/09 12:08:05 1/22/09 12:08:05 0.00 0.0 / 0.0 E000115_ 556A_ 000j5j00k_ 0-- Pending Validation 1/10/09 11:58:25 1/10/09 12:23:28 0.38 6.2 / 0.0 fastest I saw until now... I'm curious about the status evolution for this wu so please let us know what will happen, thanks in advance. ![]()
Cheers ! GIB@
![]() Join BRASIL - BRAZIL@GRID team and be very happy ! http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/team/viewTeamInfo.do?teamId=DF99KT5DN1 |
||
|
|
p3nguin53
Advanced Cruncher USA Joined: Dec 8, 2008 Post Count: 95 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
I recall that Seti@Home aborts (not-yet-started) results out in the field if a valid quorum have already been returned for that workunit. At the same time, results with ANY cpu time recorded are allowed to complete for credit, quorum or not. But in their case the aborted results are carried in the results database with an explanation, and not just "disappeared" as happened here. Hi jjwhalen. I also had an 'Aborted by Project' WU for a WU that I had already successfully completed and uploaded. It was either in Pending Validation or Valid status before the Server move, not sure which one. After I Updated, the aborted WU cleared off my client but the original good status still showed in my Results page. Maybe the same thing happened with your aborted WU's. |
||
|
|
rilian
Veteran Cruncher Ukraine - we rule! Joined: Jun 17, 2007 Post Count: 1460 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Extremely short WU, eh? E000095_ 280A_ 000h4100u_ 4-- Pending Validation 1/10/09 14:36:49 1/10/09 15:02:25 0.08 1.4 / 0.0 E000095_ 280A_ 000h4100u_ 5-- In Progress 1/10/09 14:26:05 1/13/09 07:06:29 0.00 0.0 / 0.0 E000095_ 280A_ 000h4100u_ 2-- Error 1/9/09 20:44:10 1/10/09 14:19:08 0.06 1.3 / 0.0 E000095_ 280A_ 000h4100u_ 3-- Error 1/9/09 20:37:12 1/10/09 04:30:58 0.08 1.3 / 0.0 E000095_ 280A_ 000h4100u_ 1-- Error 1/7/09 19:06:14 1/8/09 02:41:16 0.07 1.1 / 0.0 E000095_ 280A_ 000h4100u_ 0-- Error 1/7/09 19:05:54 1/9/09 20:28:31 0.07 1.4 / 0.0 and another one: E000115_ 556A_ 000j5j00k_ 1-- In Progress 1/10/09 12:08:05 1/22/09 12:08:05 0.00 0.0 / 0.0 E000115_ 556A_ 000j5j00k_ 0-- Pending Validation 1/10/09 11:58:25 1/10/09 12:23:28 0.38 6.2 / 0.0 fastest I saw until now... I'm curious about the status evolution for this wu so please let us know what will happen, thanks in advance. ![]() Now it says WU is "Error" :) And WU that completed in 0.38 hours is in "pending Validation" with a deadline on 1/22/09 |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Hi rilian,
One of the known CEP problems is an early exit with a non-error result code. These need 2 good results to change them from 'Pending Validation' to 'Inconclusive' and then to 'Invalid'. It sounds as though you have just run into this problem. Lawrence |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Not sure if this is related or not...
Mine is the one indicating an error. Project Name: The Clean Energy Project Created: 1/3/09 Name: E000105_220A_000i4j00g Minimum Quorum: 2 Initial Replication: 2 Result Name Status Sent Time Time Due / Return Time CPU Time (hours) Claimed/ Granted BOINC Credit E000105_ 220A_ 000i4j00g_ 1-- Error 1/9/09 09:04:21 1/14/09 03:20:38 34.68 276.7 / 0.0 E000105_ 220A_ 000i4j00g_ 0-- Pending Validation 1/9/09 09:03:15 1/10/09 19:29:38 0.96 16.0 / 0.0 E000105_ 220A_ 000i4j00g_ 2-- Waiting to be sent — — 0.00 0.0 / 0.0 Result Log <core_client_version>6.2.19</core_client_version> <![CDATA[ <message> too many exit(0)s </message> <stderr_txt> Calling initGraphics() INFO: No state to restore. Start from the beginning. Calling initGraphics() Calling initGraphics() No heartbeat from core client for 30 sec - exiting *x101* </stderr_txt> ]]> This is odd. Which "core" is it referring to, the CEP core or the BOINC core? If the latter, then... ![]() Thanks |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Hi RicketyCat,
The core-client just means BOINC version 6.2.19. 'No heartbeat from core client for 30 sec - exiting *x101*' is the problem. BOINC could not communicate (using RPC calls) for 30 seconds. It sounds as though a security program is not allowing inter-process communications. Describe your OS and security programs. Lawrence |
||
|
|
|