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: 51
|
![]() |
Author |
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
I agree with RT. I am mostly a set and forget on these projects. I hardly check this form. I would like to have my quad do all projects, can't cause they don't care about quads on this projects.When I got the quad a 2 months ago. It got a lot of errors on this project. cause my default all project on my dual core. So that was the first time I look on the forum.I only got a the silver badge cause of my dual core. I onlystarted doing DC computing this year. Not going to report error. Don't want to babysit Boinc. Just want to set in and forget it.
|
||
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
The UD fiasco was not a screensaver issue but rather one of them continuing to send out hundreds of already solved WUs hundreds of times because they had no new work. It went on for months, and volunteers kept asking why. Grid.org (UD) gave no answers...like this project "Trust Me; we have it under control" -- which always makes me suspicious. Of course eventually all the volunteers, even the blindly loyal to Grid.org who consistently deluded themselves and ignored the facts, had to move on to another outfit or just quit the Distributed Computing world. (Which some did being soured on the whole process by the deception). In the meantime, the CAs (I forget what they were called over there) and other reps, kept telling everyone that everything is OK..right up to the point they folded up their tent and steeled off in the night. I really, really hope this is not the case with this project. It seems aparent at this point that contiuation of this discussion will not contribute in any way to the resolution of the problems and we can only wait and hope that the biological result is good despite the computer science being flawed. By the way esoteric17, I love your sig line.. "...we borrow it from our children". How very true, we are not owners rather temporary caretakers. Everyone have a great day. ![]() Hi RT, I am quite familiar with the UD fiasco(s). My quote about the screensaver was from Robby Brewer, the UD employee who loaded the WUs. After several threads about "what are we crunching?" he (stupidly) said that the HPF1 WUs had been recycled for some time because "some like the screensaver." This caused a huge uproar, and the "what are we crunching" threads along with Robby Brewer's reply, were deleted by the mods with no trace of what happened. Grid.org shut down not too long after that, destroying all evidence in the forum of any recycled WUs. Thanks - I came across it the other day and really liked it. ![]() [Edit 1 times, last edit by Former Member at Oct 19, 2009 11:04:51 PM] |
||
|
Somervillejudson@netscape.net
Veteran Cruncher USA Joined: May 16, 2008 Post Count: 1065 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
No problem.
|
||
|
themoonscrescent
Veteran Cruncher UK Joined: Jul 1, 2006 Post Count: 1320 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I pulled out from Grid.org when they finally revealed that the Cancer research everyone was crunching was recycled.
----------------------------------------Think it was only a month or 2 later that they shut down altogether. ![]() ![]() |
||
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
hmmm "... despite the computer science being flawed."
----------------------------------------Lets emphasize unless there's proof to the contrary: Because some HPF2 work units fail to run successfully on a limited number of set ups for unknown reason the science is NOT flawed. The executable has an oversensitivity to an unknown configuration [my bet is in the permissions area] Meantime, I think to have stumbled on a configuration that makes RICE run successfully now on my duo XP with 6.2.28 (which runs HPF2 at 100%). Finally had a trial job go past the first checkpoint and finish in the standard 7 hours and now sitting with 8 others of the quorum in PV. Will try more later, in combo with HPf2 after a boot to see if it was a fluke or has turned stable. Let us hope that soon the filter is put in place so devices do not get these jobs where they always or frequently fail on [playing the scratched lacquered record]. edit: So far so good, boot and RICE / HPF2 running concurrently, first checkpoint logged with a Write to Disk setting of 300 seconds i.e. the science must have run at least 5 minutes before the first checkpoint writes are allowed, then spaced by at least 5 minutes afterwards, if there is one to write: 20/10/2009 10:07:18 World Community Grid Starting R00370_6c1ff4388fe4e0c317f67000d4418cdb_00_000_15 20/10/2009 10:07:18 World Community Grid Starting task R00370_6c1ff4388fe4e0c317f67000d4418cdb_00_000_15 using rice version 617 20/10/2009 10:07:21 World Community Grid Starting mv712_00003_8 20/10/2009 10:07:24 World Community Grid Starting task mv712_00003_8 using hpf2 version 603 20/10/2009 10:11:12 Suspending network activity - time of day 20/10/2009 10:13:25 World Community Grid [checkpoint_debug] result R00370_6c1ff4388fe4e0c317f67000d4418cdb_00_000_15 checkpointed 20/10/2009 10:15:22 World Community Grid [checkpoint_debug] result mv712_00003_8 checkpointed
WCG
----------------------------------------Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! [Edit 1 times, last edit by Sekerob at Oct 20, 2009 8:21:06 AM] |
||
|
Sekerob
Ace Cruncher Joined: Jul 24, 2005 Post Count: 20043 Status: Offline |
Yi Ha, the concurrent HPF2 and RICE, the 2 that
----------------------------------------mv712_ 00003_ 8-- 95711 Pending Validation 20-10-09 08:06:27 20-10-09 17:25:52 7.87 76.5 / 0.0 R00370_ 6c1ff4388fe4e0c317f67000d4418cdb_ 00_ 000_ 15-- 95711 Pending Validation 20-10-09 08:06:07 20-10-09 16:47:50 7.02 68.2 / 0.0
WCG
Please help to make the Forums an enjoyable experience for All! |
||
|
RT
Master Cruncher USA - Texas - DFW Joined: Dec 22, 2004 Post Count: 2636 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
It seems that knreed is now going to be working on solving the problem (from a post in another thread -btw knreed let me know if you want me to test something).
----------------------------------------I cannot believe the waste: an incredible amount of time, thousands of hours of computer time, BOINC downloads and reinstalls (forward then backward) OS reinstalls, directory changes, thousands of downloads and uploads of errors, many "hop on your right foot while holding your left hand behind your back with your right eye closed... and see if that will fix it." posts on the forums. It would have saved all these people an incredible amount (plus got a lot more done for WCG projects) if you just buckled down and fixed it when it first started happening over a year ago rather than waste all this time, effort and resources and only then actually try to fix it? The scientist comment was a bit like the comment by D Eisenhower just before D-Day that some percentage of casualities was expected and acceptable. (Common position taken in wars by all sides). That all makes sense from the perspective of the scientist or the General. But, not if you are one of the casualties. In case of war, you do not have a choice but here you do . The mission of WCG is "... to create the world's largest public computing grid to tackle projects that benefit humanity." How many people has this caviler attitude driven away from HPF2 and more importantly, how many from WCG? Is it one.., ten.., a thousand..., more? How do you know? How much advertising, and recruiting effort has this offset since volunteers are hard to get and easy to lose? I suggest that it will take less than 1% of the time and effort to fix it than has been expended making excuses, denying its importance and trying to sweep it under the carpet. And that is Sad, Not Funny. |
||
|
RaymondFO
Veteran Cruncher USA Joined: Nov 30, 2004 Post Count: 561 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I have yet to receive an "0x1" error message running Windows 7 (64 bit) beta and now the official release providing the HPF2 WU's are not in "hyper thread mode". What I specifically mean is my core i7 computer does see 8 cores, but I only run HPF2 project with 4 cores. Under Device Manager<[Device Profile Name] under the area stating "On multiprocessors, at most use: x processors", x is the number of native cores on the computer, which is four. When x is changed to some number higher than the native cores on the processor, then I receive the "0x1" error message. I have found this to be true with a Windows 7 clean install (64 bit), Intel Core i7 2.66GHz.
Another computer (Q9400) was upgraded from Vista and prior to the Windows 7 upgrade (64 bit) the computer always got the "0x1" error message. Since the upgrade the computer and has so far successfully processed to date all 20 assigned HPF2 WU's (currently either PV or Valid results). Has anyone tried this or had similar experiences, or am I just lucky? |
||
|
RT
Master Cruncher USA - Texas - DFW Joined: Dec 22, 2004 Post Count: 2636 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I have yet to receive an "0x1" error message running Windows 7 (64 bit) beta and now the official release providing the HPF2 WU's are not in "hyper thread mode". What I specifically mean is my core i7 computer does see 8 cores, but I only run HPF2 project with 4 cores. Under Device Manager<[Device Profile Name] under the area stating "On multiprocessors, at most use: x processors", x is the number of native cores on the computer, which is four. When x is changed to some number higher than the native cores on the processor, then I receive the "0x1" error message. I have found this to be true with a Windows 7 clean install (64 bit), Intel Core i7 2.66GHz. Another computer (Q9400) was upgraded from Vista and prior to the Windows 7 upgrade (64 bit) the computer always got the "0x1" error message. Since the upgrade the computer and has so far successfully processed to date all 20 assigned HPF2 WU's (currently either PV or Valid results). Has anyone tried this or had similar experiences, or am I just lucky? RaymondFO: That is very interesting. Let me get this straight: If you run a max of 4 simultaneous HPF2 WUs on this I7 with W7, all is well, but if you run more, failures occur? I have an I7 920 that I run 8 WUs on all the time. I did this with a version (I forget which) of Vista and am now doing it with the Windows 7 Release Candidate (64bit). I am using BOINC 6.6.38 and am exclusively running the two cancer projects at the moment. Now, it has been a while but I was getting these errors on all four of my quads. Only one was an I7 which has hyper-threading but they were all Vista 64bit...till I changed the I7 to W7 and all were getting a fairly high error rate. So.. either something has changed or you are indeed lucky. ![]() Regards |
||
|
RaymondFO
Veteran Cruncher USA Joined: Nov 30, 2004 Post Count: 561 Status: Offline Project Badges: ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
RaymondFO: That is very interesting. Let me get this straight: If you run a max of 4 simultaneous HPF2 WUs on this I7 with W7, all is well, but if you run more, failures occur? Yes, that is correct from my experience with this project. But the key is none of the HPF2 WU's can ever run with more than 4 active working WUs. I have run HPF2 with HFCC and NRW together with no problem, so long as no more than 4 WU's are actively being crunched. Anything greater than 4 active WU's will result in an "0x1" error. I am using BOINC 6.2.28 not 6.6.36 and do not know if this makes any difference. I would never run HPF2 on any Vista machine (32 or 64 bit) as I had numerous WUs with the "0x1" error messages. [Edit 1 times, last edit by RaymondFO at Nov 15, 2009 1:34:48 AM] |
||
|
|
![]() |