| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Completed Research
Forum: FightAIDS@Home
Thread: "result {blah} is no longer usable" |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 20
|
|
| Author |
|
|
Sgt.Joe
Ace Cruncher USA Joined: Jul 4, 2006 Post Count: 7683 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
that is if your host is powerful enough to complete a FAAH task in under 24 hours. I have a slightly less powerful AMD system (now dead - awaiting repair) and his should have no trouble finishing a FAAH unit in a 24 hour period, my guess is he should be able to finish 2.5 to 3 per 24 hour period. Cheers
Sgt. Joe
*Minnesota Crunchers* |
||
|
|
dguntner
Cruncher Joined: Jan 17, 2013 Post Count: 8 Status: Offline |
Ok, this is odd - I replied to SekeRob, but the posting doesn't show up. I have no idea why.... I'll try again here; hopefully I'll have better results this time.....
First, thanks for the reply. If you know where to set it from 60 to 120 minutes you know where to set it to e.g 1440 minutes [freakish long]. In the client the option is on the Processor tab of local preferences and is called "Switch between applications every..." (which is the field the trick alert was about). Ok, so "[trick alert]" referred to the "switch applications every x minutes" setting. Gotcha. :-) Can't really understand why 50:50 is not running 50:50. Search the stdoutdae.txt log if you have messages such as "wont send work... on 99% and of that 100% computing". A very high cache setting would tell the client and the WCG server "look, if I give you work, but you wont send it back in time, I will only give you 1 task, long as you keep reporting tasks too late". Think you hand forcing FAAH on and setting an exorbitant switch time will get things moving towards more time for WCG [or temp suspend S@H], then backfilling of the buffer has to come from WCG... or lower the cache to something less than 10 days... try 8 days. No matter what, in FIFO order of processing that task will/should be finished before the 8th day is over. I grepped the log; didn't find any messages along the lines of what you mention above. In fact, when it started up the currently-being-worked-on task (when I suspended the S@h task briefly), it actually went so far as to request and download a second task, currently sitting in a "Ready to start" status. P.S. The CPU priority of -1252.17 is the reason... WCG used up it's 60 minutes and handed over back to the alien search team. Can't remember ATM if that value is seconds or minutes. If minutes, see you tomorrow before the FAAH tasks gets another hour. So my guess that it indicated the problem was right. Do you happen to know how/where that value gets set? Is there a way to manually/directly change that value? Since the time that I tried to originally post this reply and now when I'm reposting it, BOINC saw fit to switch away from the current S@h task to spend some more time processing the FAAH task (showing 51% completion and waiting to run since it switched back to S@h). So I guess the number has something to do with seconds and not minutes. :-) Oh, errata: If you have a WCG task and it wont move... alternate trick: Temporarily reduce the resource share / project weight value to something extremely low and update client. If WCG only gets for instance 1%, all it's work will be processed by priority because the client will think it's only going to schedule 14.4 minutes per day. Because it knows that in 10 days it normally only schedules 144 minutes, which wont be enough, it will rush the FAAH job. My money is though on setting the switch app time to 1440 minutes... if FAAH starts [automatic or manual], it will run to the end, that is if your host is powerful enough to complete a FAAH task in under 24 hours. Ok, I want to be sure that I understand what you're suggesting on the weights, since I don't want to get it backwards. :-) Currently, the project weights are set at S@h/FAAH 100/100. Are you suggesting that I set the weights to 200/100, or to 100/200, respectively? Thanks again for all the help! --Dave |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
....the latter, Seti 100 WCG 200
|
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
dguntner,
From reading your reply, the FAAH job is now auto-moving and you got even a second one to kick off. Still, set that "switch between applications every..." to 1440 minutes [temporary] and be witness of a "run in one go". Don't know what type of device you have... duo, quad.., assuming a duo, you'd see always two jobs running [if BOINC is set to 100% of processors]. When you have a 50:50 share that often means you'd see an FAAH and S@H run side by side, but could also show 2 FAAH for a while and then 2 S@H for the next time segment... the scheduling of that is rather coincidental with client v6. Manipulating the control priority values is devious as the sum of all the projects "rights/debt" values has to net to zero. Projects with + get computing time, projects with minus have to wait till their competitors have used up their rights. Also, you'd have to stop the client which translates to lost computing time, in short, not recommended to edit the client state files. On shares, Actually the WCG project weight set to 1% (simply 1), as per what I wrote, will cause a temporary client panic to speed the FAAH task along, but we've already moved on in evolution of what BOINC has learned in last 24 hours. A project weight for WCG of 200-500 is good [:big grin, it's what I have it at... 500], since WCG is really a hosting service of 10 sciences and all needing help, but if you only run FAAH then 1:1 ratio of resource shares is fair too. Whatever your contribution view priorities are, they're not up for anyone to debate. |
||
|
|
dguntner
Cruncher Joined: Jan 17, 2013 Post Count: 8 Status: Offline |
Thanks much, SakeRob (and Scribe). Yes, things to seem to be moving now, even though I'm not sure why or what was causing the initial problem(s). Last night before I hit the sack, the BOINC manager reported that that first FAAH task was ready to report and it was again chewing on the S@h task. This morning as I check, it shows that first S@h unit is ready to report and it's currently working on a second S@h task. The first FAAH is still showing ready to report and the second one has been getting time. And a third FAAH task has been downloaded as well, ready to start! Checking the log, I see where it's switching between S@h and WCG about every two hours as it should under my current settings. Yay! So even though I don't know what caused the original problem or why it's working now, I'm just happy that it's working now. :-)
----------------------------------------I know I can click on the Update button to get it to do its update and then finally see if WCG is going to accept it, or if I'm going to get the dreaded "is no longer usable" message (which would definitely indicate some kind of problem, since the task isn't due until 1/27), but I read a BOINC FAQ here that explains how the automatic reporting is supposed to work. So I'm going to be patient a bit longer and see if it behaves as described. My Linux home server box is an older machine; only has a single-core AMD CPU in it. If I ever manage to get work again (been unemployed for a while), I plan to upgrade it with new motherboard, more memory, multicore CPU, etc. Interesting to hear that BOINC actually understands multicore CPUs and I could end up seeing it processing more than one task at a time. Once this thing finally reports, I'll post an additional message here about it, consisting of either "still got a problem 'cause it thinks my result is no longer usable," or "Yay, problem solved!" Obviously, the latter is the one I'm hoping to post.  --Dave [Edit 1 times, last edit by dguntner at Jan 19, 2013 3:01:48 PM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
"Ready to Report" with a due date of the 27th is good. As you read in the BFS list of conditions, no later than in 24 hours you'll know, sooner if there's for instance another WCG work fetch. First stage on the Result Status page could of course be "Pending Validation", but long as it's not "Too Late" or "Invalid" or "Error" or "Server Aborted", your host is fine... maybe it was just a temp acid reflux after the machine was maybe off for longer [BOINC is artificially alive ;>]... it's in the past now.
|
||
|
|
dguntner
Cruncher Joined: Jan 17, 2013 Post Count: 8 Status: Offline |
I am pleased to report: "Yay, problem solved!" :-)
Just checked the log to find: 19-Jan-2013 16:06:08 [World Community Grid] Reporting 2 completed tasks, requesting new tasks And sure enough, My Grid shows the two tasks in as "Valid." So, good stuff. I guess you were right; it just had a bad case of gas after not having been in use for so long. :-) (The last time I had used it, though, it was actually on a completely different Linux distribution a few years ago, so this was really the *first* time BOINC was being used since I had migrated to Debian.) One last question, though. Looking at the results page, I see Claimed/Granted BOINC Credit. It then showed a value of "139.4 / 125.9." So, why is my client asking for x amount of credit and the project is granting y amount? Any ideas on that? --Dave |
||
|
|
noderaser
Senior Cruncher United States Joined: Jun 6, 2006 Post Count: 297 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Interesting to hear that BOINC actually understands multicore CPUs and I could end up seeing it processing more than one task at a time. Most projects will assign one task per CPU core, but there are some that are experimenting with multicore applications, so you'll again have only one task running at a time. One last question, though. Looking at the results page, I see Claimed/Granted BOINC Credit. It then showed a value of "139.4 / 125.9." So, why is my client asking for x amount of credit and the project is granting y amount? Any ideas on that? Your client will ask for a certain amount of credit based on how long it took to complete the task (and rules set by the project) while the granted credit is an average of all hosts who completed the same task. |
||
|
|
Sgt.Joe
Ace Cruncher USA Joined: Jul 4, 2006 Post Count: 7683 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
One last question, though. Looking at the results page, I see Claimed/Granted BOINC Credit. It then showed a value of "139.4 / 125.9." So, why is my client asking for x amount of credit and the project is granting y amount? Any ideas on that? The claimed and granted scores for you are pretty close. However, sometimes they may vary widely for, IMHO, no apparent reason. That being said, the important part is the WU's were valid. Glad to see you got it working. Cheers
Sgt. Joe
*Minnesota Crunchers* |
||
|
|
dguntner
Cruncher Joined: Jan 17, 2013 Post Count: 8 Status: Offline |
As am I (glad to have it finally working as expected). Wasn't that worried about the credit; was just curious as to the numbers. No biggie. :-)
Thanks to all who helped me get a grip on this thing! --Dave |
||
|
|
|