Sekerob, although I don't have any evidence now to back up what I'm about to say, at one point, I had 2 projects which I wanted to 'round off' - HPF2 & FA@H. Thus, whilst I was getting close to rounding off the former, I slowly began adding some FA@H into the mix (my machine has only 2 cores - thus, one of each). During this time, I still didn't get any errors at all with HPF2.

Thus, this also may be something to test - a comparison as to the mix of WU's and cores...

Was there ever a resolution to this this wicked little problem?

I've seen a whole heard of these errors

Result Log

Result Name: nf999_ 00017_ 6--
<core_client_version>6.2.28</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<message>
Incorrect function. (0x1) - exit code 1 (0x1)
</message>
<stderr_txt>
ERROR:: Exit at: .\dock_structure.cc line:401

</stderr_txt>
]]>

I'm on Win 7 64 Ultimate.

Sekerob / Uplinger:

Is there some kind of information about our systems the development teams would like to know to determine if there is some kind of physical characteristic that is causing these errors to occur?

I would also suggest placing these HPF-II WU's into a only dispatch one at a time and must reply within 24 hrs until getting this sorted out.

My machine has been back online for the past 24 hrs since Nov 2009 (new build for many reasons) and in this time I've received the following:

mp247_ 00067_ 4-- DT Error 3/25/10 09:16:07 3/25/10 09:18:23 0.02 0.3 / 0.0
mp236_ 00093_ 0-- DT Error 3/25/10 05:34:17 3/25/10 06:05:00 0.02 0.4 / 0.0
mp232_ 00010_ 18-- DT Error 3/25/10 03:57:00 3/25/10 05:16:55 1.09 22.5 / 0.0
mp223_ 00053_ 14-- DT Error 3/25/10 00:51:00 3/25/10 01:06:33 0.02 0.4 / 0.0
nf999_ 00017_ 6-- DT Error 3/24/10 14:36:53 3/24/10 20:30:41 0.02 0.5 / 0.5

All of these errors ended with the same response:



Result Log

Result Name: mp247_ 00067_ 4--
<core_client_version>6.2.28</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<message>
Incorrect function. (0x1) - exit code 1 (0x1)
</message>
<stderr_txt>
ERROR:: Exit at: .\dock_structure.cc line:401

</stderr_txt>
]]>

I sure hope they have a code fix for this AutoDock issue someday.. sad I am only limited to 2 cores for this project.. could do more but I get the same errors being reported by others. old trusty XP Pro on a dual core is working this project.

Ok, so as long as my better system crunches one and not the other is should be running pretty smoothly...

So I've seen:

===================================

Result Name: ng399_ 00059_
<core_client_version>6.2.28</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<message>
Incorrect function. (0x1) - exit code 1 (0x1)
</message>
<stderr_txt>
ERROR:: Exit at: .\dock_structure.cc line:401

</stderr_txt>
]]>


================================

Result Name: ng276_ 00036_
<core_client_version>6.2.28</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<message>
Incorrect function. (0x1) - exit code 1 (0x1)
</message>
<stderr_txt>
No heartbeat from core client for 30 sec - exiting
No heartbeat from core client for 30 sec - exiting
No heartbeat from core client for 30 sec - exiting
No heartbeat from core client for 30 sec - exiting
No heartbeat from core client for 30 sec - exiting
ERROR:: Exit at: .\dock_structure.cc line:401

</stderr_txt>
]]>


================================

Result Name: ng276_ 00031_
<core_client_version>6.2.28</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<message>
Incorrect function. (0x1) - exit code 1 (0x1)
</message>
<stderr_txt>
ERROR:: Exit at: .\dock_structure.cc line:401

</stderr_txt>
]]>



================================

Result Name: ng262_ 00064_
<core_client_version>6.2.28</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<message>
Incorrect function. (0x1) - exit code 1 (0x1)
</message>
<stderr_txt>
ERROR:: Exit at: .\refold.cc line:342

</stderr_txt>
]]>



================================

I'm beginning to wonder if this isn't related to some kind of internal timing logic bug in the code.

System Specs:

i7 920 D0
12 Gb DDR3 1600
1 Gb ATI 5870
HDD's - who cares?
Optical readers / writers - Who cars
850W PSU
CPU Temps on all 4 cores with only bionic running - 54 - 55

OS - Win 7 64
ATI Catilist 10.3

Considering the WU's are presenting differing results on multiple HW / SW platforms I'd guess something in timing where the code determines it's done enough work in that particular evaluation iteration and decides to go onto another iteration... and gets lost in it's knickers.