| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Support
Forum: BOINC Agent Support
Thread: Error - Maximum CPU time exceeded. |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 9
|
|
| Author |
|
|
richw12
Cruncher Joined: Feb 24, 2007 Post Count: 4 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
I have a machine on which every job aborts after about two hours (sometimes much less) with the following error:
<core_client_version>5.10.30</core_client_version> <![CDATA[ <message> Maximum CPU time exceeded </message> ]]> I have updated BOINC to V6.4.5 without success. I have no idea where to look to fix this - any ideas would be appreciated. Thanks, Richard. |
||
|
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
Hi,
----------------------------------------Which project is this with? HPF2 or CEP would be my guess. Please post your BOINC message log too so we can see what it says. And no, it's not likely related BOINC client itself, though we recommend 6.2.28. The 6.4.x release chain was quickly abandoned and only serves the few that actually do GPU/CUDA project volunteering. ttyl
WCG
Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! |
||
|
|
richw12
Cruncher Joined: Feb 24, 2007 Post Count: 4 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Thanks for the quick reply, here is my message log -
31/01/2009 10:40:26||Starting BOINC client version 6.4.5 for windows_intelx86 31/01/2009 10:40:26||log flags: task, file_xfer, sched_ops 31/01/2009 10:40:26||Libraries: libcurl/7.19.0 OpenSSL/0.9.8i zlib/1.2.3 31/01/2009 10:40:26||Data directory: C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\BOINC 31/01/2009 10:40:26||Running under account Richard 31/01/2009 10:40:28||Processor: 2 AuthenticAMD AMD Processor model unknown [x86 Family 15 Model 67 Stepping 3] 31/01/2009 10:40:28||Processor features: fpu tsc pae nx sse sse2 3dnow mmx 31/01/2009 10:40:28||OS: Microsoft Windows XP: Professional x86 Editon, Service Pack 3, (05.01.2600.00) 31/01/2009 10:40:28||Memory: 3.25 GB physical, 5.09 GB virtual 31/01/2009 10:40:28||Disk: 465.75 GB total, 301.34 GB free 31/01/2009 10:40:28||Local time is UTC +0 hours 31/01/2009 10:40:28||Not using a proxy 31/01/2009 10:40:28||No CUDA devices found 31/01/2009 10:40:28||No coprocessors 31/01/2009 10:40:30||Version change (5.10.30 -> 6.4.5) 31/01/2009 10:40:30|World Community Grid|URL: http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/; Computer ID: 486611; location: home; project prefs: home 31/01/2009 10:40:31||General prefs: from World Community Grid (last modified 17-Jun-2008 16:45:36) 31/01/2009 10:40:31||Computer location: home 31/01/2009 10:40:31||General prefs: using separate prefs for home 31/01/2009 10:40:31||Reading preferences override file 31/01/2009 10:40:31||Preferences limit memory usage when active to 2494.81MB 31/01/2009 10:40:31||Preferences limit memory usage when idle to 2993.78MB 31/01/2009 10:40:51||Preferences limit disk usage to 20.00GB 31/01/2009 10:40:52||Running CPU benchmarks 31/01/2009 10:40:52||Suspending computation - running CPU benchmarks 31/01/2009 10:40:52|World Community Grid|Fetching scheduler list 31/01/2009 10:40:58|World Community Grid|Master file download succeeded 31/01/2009 10:41:24||Benchmark results: 31/01/2009 10:41:24|| Number of CPUs: 2 31/01/2009 10:41:24|| 3106 floating point MIPS (Whetstone) per CPU 31/01/2009 10:41:24|| 5390 integer MIPS (Dhrystone) per CPU 31/01/2009 10:41:34|World Community Grid|Restarting task faah5082_003116_MC_xMut_md16080_01_0 using faah version 606 31/01/2009 10:41:36|World Community Grid|Restarting task X0000097300334200803141538_1 using hcc1 version 606 31/01/2009 10:59:17|World Community Grid|Aborting task faah5082_003116_MC_xMut_md16080_01_0: exceeded CPU time limit 7796.146137 31/01/2009 10:59:40|World Community Grid|Computation for task faah5082_003116_MC_xMut_md16080_01_0 finished 31/01/2009 10:59:40|World Community Grid|Starting faah5083_004049_MC_xMut_md16150_00_0 31/01/2009 10:59:40|World Community Grid|Starting task faah5083_004049_MC_xMut_md16150_00_0 using faah version 606 31/01/2009 10:59:42|World Community Grid|Started upload of faah5082_003116_MC_xMut_md16080_01_0_0 31/01/2009 10:59:42|World Community Grid|Started upload of faah5082_003116_MC_xMut_md16080_01_0_1 31/01/2009 10:59:44|World Community Grid|Finished upload of faah5082_003116_MC_xMut_md16080_01_0_0 31/01/2009 10:59:44|World Community Grid|Started upload of faah5082_003116_MC_xMut_md16080_01_0_2 31/01/2009 10:59:45|World Community Grid|Finished upload of faah5082_003116_MC_xMut_md16080_01_0_1 31/01/2009 10:59:46|World Community Grid|Finished upload of faah5082_003116_MC_xMut_md16080_01_0_2 31/01/2009 11:08:36|World Community Grid|Aborting task X0000097300334200803141538_1: exceeded CPU time limit 7036.509667 31/01/2009 11:09:37|World Community Grid|Computation for task X0000097300334200803141538_1 finished 31/01/2009 11:09:37|World Community Grid|Output file X0000097300334200803141538_1_0 for task X0000097300334200803141538_1 absent 31/01/2009 11:09:37|World Community Grid|Starting faah5083_002991_MC_xMut_md16150_01_0 31/01/2009 11:09:37|World Community Grid|Starting task faah5083_002991_MC_xMut_md16150_01_0 using faah version 606 From looking through my results status it seems that failed jobs include HPF2, FAAH, Rice, CEP and HCC. I will install BOINC 6.2.28 as per your suggestion. Richard. |
||
|
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
hmmm, is this system overclocked ?
----------------------------------------
WCG
Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! |
||
|
|
Nick-MMX
Advanced Cruncher Joined: Dec 24, 2006 Post Count: 108 Status: Offline |
Your CPU shows up as unknown, I tried overclocking one of my machines and it had ALL of your problems. Maybe you should try underclocking it?
|
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Hi richw12.
There is only one plausible explanation for this. Since nobody else is reporting tasks failing in this way, your stored benchmark must be wrong. You can confirm this by opening client_state.xml in a text editor (this file is located in your BOINC data directory). Look in <host_info> for <p_fpops>. Copy the value for me to check. The most drastic solution is to stop BOINC, delete client_state.xml and client_state_prev.xml, then restart BOINC. However, it may be enough simply to rerun the benchmark a few times. |
||
|
|
richw12
Cruncher Joined: Feb 24, 2007 Post Count: 4 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Hi Didactylos
The system is overclocked (5 percent for the last 2 years) but I keep an eye on the CPU core temp. I will try running the BOINC CPU benchmark to see if that fixes the problem (or if p_fpops changes). The value of p_fpops is - <p_fpops>3106212527.108049</p_fpops> many thanks, Richard. |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
That actually looks correct.
----------------------------------------I'm not interested in your overclocking - that will produce different errors (if you overclock too aggressively). The most optimistic interpretation is that your benchmark has now corrected (all your upgrading and downgrading will have forced extra benchmarks). I forget how the averaging works. Please keep an eye on the next task, and let me know how it progresses. edit: I looked up the averaging, and was surprised to find that the benchmark is used without keeping any historical data. A single benchmark run should be enough to fix the corrupt data (as it has). The CPU time limit is calculated when the task is initialised (i.e. before the benchmark ran as a result of upgrading) but this value is not stored, so simply restarting BOINC with the correct benchmark in place (as you have already, I expect) should be enough to fix everything. [Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Jan 31, 2009 5:16:18 PM] |
||
|
|
richw12
Cruncher Joined: Feb 24, 2007 Post Count: 4 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
Hi Didactylos
It looks like I'm back on track - just completed two FAAH jobs without error, so running the benchmark test to reset the numbers did the trick. Your help is much appreciated, many thanks, Richard. |
||
|
|
|