Index  | Recent Threads  | Unanswered Threads  | Who's Active  | Guidelines  | Search
 
World Community Grid Forums
  Category: Completed Research
  Forum: The Clean Energy Project - Phase 2 Forum
  Thread: Wingmen error with RC = 0x100, mine errors with normally-valid RC = 0x1

Quick Go »
No member browsing this thread
Thread Status: Active
Total posts in this thread: 28
Posts: 28   Pages: 3   [ 1 2 3 | Next Page ]
[ Jump to Last Post ]
Post new Thread
Author
Previous Thread This topic has been viewed 6326 times and has 27 replies Next Thread
Former Member
Cruncher
Joined: May 22, 2018
Post Count: 0
Status: Offline
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Wingmen error with RC = 0x100, mine errors with normally-valid RC = 0x1
E214651_ 769_ C.36.C30H14N2OS2Se.01018386.2.set1d06_ 3-- - In Progress 25/08/13 20:21:37 28/08/13 20:21:37 0.00 0.0 / 0.0
E214651_ 769_ C.36.C30H14N2OS2Se.01018386.2.set1d06_ 2-- 640 Error 25/08/13 10:35:49 25/08/13 20:15:25 9.40 263.9 / 0.0
E214651_ 769_ C.36.C30H14N2OS2Se.01018386.2.set1d06_ 1-- 640 Error 24/08/13 14:24:26 25/08/13 10:14:20 7.26 267.4 / 0.0
E214651_ 769_ C.36.C30H14N2OS2Se.01018386.2.set1d06_ 0-- 640 Error 24/08/13 05:10:55 24/08/13 13:40:21 8.12 236.2 / 0.0

Wingmen _0 and _1 both errored with RC = 0x100, my _2 errored with RC = 0x1 - all in job 12 (out of 0 to 15). However, in most other WUs, an exit in job 12 with RC = 0x1 results in a Valid. Another mystery, I guess. If this WU goes to _8, it could take a while to finish sad.
[Aug 26, 2013 9:40:21 AM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
Former Member
Cruncher
Joined: May 22, 2018
Post Count: 0
Status: Offline
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: Wingmen error with RC = 0x100, mine errors with normally-valid RC = 0x1
My WU is the PV one, I got RC = 0xc0000005, first two got the RC same as mine, third and fourth got Qink name = fldman...(lots of quinks)

E214310_ 732_ C.35.C29H14N2S3Se.01336483.3.set1d06_ 6-- - In Progress 26.8.2013 07:45:54 29.8.2013 07:45:54 0.00 0.0 / 0.0
E214310_ 732_ C.35.C29H14N2S3Se.01336483.3.set1d06_ 5-- - Detached 25.8.2013 08:10:50 26.8.2013 07:42:22 0.00 0.0 / 0.0
E214310_ 732_ C.35.C29H14N2S3Se.01336483.3.set1d06_ 4-- 640 Pending Validation 25.8.2013 08:08:13 25.8.2013 11:46:24 3.28 182.8 / 0.0
E214310_ 732_ C.35.C29H14N2S3Se.01336483.3.set1d06_ 3-- 640 Error 24.8.2013 18:23:31 25.8.2013 07:52:07 6.32 193.7 / 0.0
E214310_ 732_ C.35.C29H14N2S3Se.01336483.3.set1d06_ 2-- 640 Error 24.8.2013 18:23:24 25.8.2013 07:29:01 5.43 188.4 / 0.0
E214310_ 732_ C.35.C29H14N2S3Se.01336483.3.set1d06_ 1-- 640 Error 24.8.2013 05:28:09 24.8.2013 18:05:58 6.35 182.2 / 0.0
E214310_ 732_ C.35.C29H14N2S3Se.01336483.3.set1d06_ 0-- 640 Error 24.8.2013 05:10:29 24.8.2013 17:13:20 10.71 216.9 / 0.0
[Aug 26, 2013 11:50:31 AM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
Former Member
Cruncher
Joined: May 22, 2018
Post Count: 0
Status: Offline
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: Wingmen error with RC = 0x100, mine errors with normally-valid RC = 0x1
My WU is the PV one, I got RC = 0xc0000005, first two got the RC same as mine, third and fourth got Qink name = fldman...(lots of quinks)
That RC (Result Code?) is what I had trouble with a couple of weeks ago, as reported in the thread WU in trouble - RC = 0xc0000005. At least everyone eventually received points for it, but it's not clear what the research value is. You might find that the third and fourth had a Result Code in job #12 as well, but the Qink entries haven't been explained AFAIK.

The WU that caused me to start this new thread has got as far as _3 finishing with Application exited with RC = 0x1 and resulting like mine in Error, despite again this being a normally Valid exit code in other WUs. Any comment from techs or researchers to explain this anomaly?
[Aug 26, 2013 3:16:34 PM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
Former Member
Cruncher
Joined: May 22, 2018
Post Count: 0
Status: Offline
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: Wingmen error with RC = 0x100, mine errors with normally-valid RC = 0x1
so today it finished :)
E214310_ 732_ C.35.C29H14N2S3Se.01336483.3.set1d06_ 10-- 640 Error 29.8.2013 04:42:03 29.8.2013 11:09:53 4.96 165.6 / 165.6
E214310_ 732_ C.35.C29H14N2S3Se.01336483.3.set1d06_ 9-- 640 Error 29.8.2013 04:41:39 29.8.2013 08:27:22 3.40 181.4 / 181.4
E214310_ 732_ C.35.C29H14N2S3Se.01336483.3.set1d06_ 8-- 640 Error 27.8.2013 05:11:47 29.8.2013 02:25:47 12.00 179.6 / 179.6
E214310_ 732_ C.35.C29H14N2S3Se.01336483.3.set1d06_ 7-- 640 Error 27.8.2013 05:11:36 27.8.2013 15:56:03 9.97 217.9 / 217.9
E214310_ 732_ C.35.C29H14N2S3Se.01336483.3.set1d06_ 6-- 640 Error 26.8.2013 07:45:54 27.8.2013 03:43:02 9.65 204.1 / 204.1
E214310_ 732_ C.35.C29H14N2S3Se.01336483.3.set1d06_ 5-- - Detached 25.8.2013 08:10:50 26.8.2013 07:42:22 0.00 0.0 / 0.0
E214310_ 732_ C.35.C29H14N2S3Se.01336483.3.set1d06_ 4-- 640 Error 25.8.2013 08:08:13 25.8.2013 11:46:24 3.28 182.8 / 182.8
E214310_ 732_ C.35.C29H14N2S3Se.01336483.3.set1d06_ 3-- 640 Error 24.8.2013 18:23:31 25.8.2013 07:52:07 6.32 193.7 / 193.7
E214310_ 732_ C.35.C29H14N2S3Se.01336483.3.set1d06_ 2-- 640 Error 24.8.2013 18:23:24 25.8.2013 07:29:01 5.43 188.4 / 188.4
E214310_ 732_ C.35.C29H14N2S3Se.01336483.3.set1d06_ 1-- 640 Error 24.8.2013 05:28:09 24.8.2013 18:05:58 6.35 182.2 / 182.2
E214310_ 732_ C.35.C29H14N2S3Se.01336483.3.set1d06_ 0-- 640 Error 24.8.2013 05:10:29 24.8.2013 17:13:20 10.71 216.9 / 216.9
[Aug 29, 2013 11:30:08 PM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
littlepeaks
Veteran Cruncher
USA
Joined: Apr 28, 2007
Post Count: 748
Status: Offline
Project Badges:
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: Wingmen error with RC = 0x100, mine errors with normally-valid RC = 0x1
OK -- this is strange to me:

E215049_ 285_ C.36.C30H17N3SSeSi.00823006.1.set1d06_ 2-- 640 Valid 8/29/13 08:44:43 8/29/13 23:34:19 12.00 273.9 / 236.4
E215049_ 285_ C.36.C30H17N3SSeSi.00823006.1.set1d06_ 1-- - No Reply 8/19/13 08:26:50 8/29/13 08:26:50 0.00 0.0 / 0.0
E215049_ 285_ C.36.C30H17N3SSeSi.00823006.1.set1d06_ 0-- 640 Valid 8/18/13 10:00:09 8/19/13 08:16:11 10.80 369.4 / 439.0

I was the _0 one and exited during job 12: Application exited with RC = 0xc0000005

Mine went to PV, and WCG immediately sent out another copy (which wasn't returned).

WCG sent out a third copy, which exited during job 6: Killing job because cpu time has been exceeded.

So what was this exercise supposed to prove, since my wingman never got to the point where I exited with my result code?
[Aug 30, 2013 4:48:14 AM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
Former Member
Cruncher
Joined: May 22, 2018
Post Count: 0
Status: Offline
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: Wingmen error with RC = 0x100, mine errors with normally-valid RC = 0x1
IIRC, validation can be carried out using the jobs that both crunchers completed, i.e. #0 to #5 for that task. If valid, the researchers can use the output from all completed jobs, #0 to #11 for that task.
[Aug 30, 2013 6:18:19 AM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
Former Member
Cruncher
Joined: May 22, 2018
Post Count: 0
Status: Offline
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: Wingmen error with RC = 0x100, mine errors with normally-valid RC = 0x1
He-ho, 8 days after my initial post, all wingmen have errored (plus one No Reply).

E214651_ 769_ C.36.C30H14N2OS2Se.01018386.2.set1d06_ 9-- 640 Error 03/09/13 15:17:23 03/09/13 21:37:09 5.59 264.5 / 0.0
E214651_ 769_ C.36.C30H14N2OS2Se.01018386.2.set1d06_ 8-- 640 Error 02/09/13 18:13:51 03/09/13 14:44:17 8.32 274.9 / 0.0
E214651_ 769_ C.36.C30H14N2OS2Se.01018386.2.set1d06_ 7-- - No Reply 30/08/13 18:07:20 02/09/13 18:07:20 0.00 0.0 / 0.0
E214651_ 769_ C.36.C30H14N2OS2Se.01018386.2.set1d06_ 6-- 640 Error 29/08/13 15:28:35 30/08/13 18:00:16 12.00 67.7 / 0.0
E214651_ 769_ C.36.C30H14N2OS2Se.01018386.2.set1d06_ 5-- 640 Error 28/08/13 00:35:41 29/08/13 14:11:52 10.27 275.3 / 0.0
E214651_ 769_ C.36.C30H14N2OS2Se.01018386.2.set1d06_ 4-- 640 Error 26/08/13 14:48:59 28/08/13 00:30:06 6.50 268.9 / 0.0
E214651_ 769_ C.36.C30H14N2OS2Se.01018386.2.set1d06_ 3-- 640 Error 25/08/13 20:21:37 26/08/13 14:46:19 9.63 277.6 / 0.0
E214651_ 769_ C.36.C30H14N2OS2Se.01018386.2.set1d06_ 2-- 640 Error 25/08/13 10:35:49 25/08/13 20:15:25 9.40 263.9 / 0.0
E214651_ 769_ C.36.C30H14N2OS2Se.01018386.2.set1d06_ 1-- 640 Error 24/08/13 14:24:26 25/08/13 10:14:20 7.26 267.4 / 0.0
E214651_ 769_ C.36.C30H14N2OS2Se.01018386.2.set1d06_ 0-- 640 Error 24/08/13 05:10:55 24/08/13 13:40:21 8.12 236.2 / 0.0

_2 and _3 errored with RC = 0x1, _6 was cut off during job #2, all the rest errored with RC = 0x100 (in job #12). It would be good to hear the techs' and researchers' response to these.
[Sep 3, 2013 10:59:42 PM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
seippel
Former World Community Grid Tech
Joined: Apr 16, 2009
Post Count: 392
Status: Offline
Project Badges:
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: Wingmen error with RC = 0x100, mine errors with normally-valid RC = 0x1
We recently identified an issue where some newer CEP2 workunits with large molecules and a high number of atoms could exceed one of the thresholds set in the validator (even though the result was actually valid). This was corrected earlier today and work units going forward should validate correctly. Unfortunately, older work units no longer have results in the database and can't be revalidated.

Seippel
[Sep 7, 2013 1:24:56 AM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
Former Member
Cruncher
Joined: May 22, 2018
Post Count: 0
Status: Offline
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: Wingmen error with RC = 0x100, mine errors with normally-valid RC = 0x1
That's good news, Seippel, and thanks for working on it and finding a solution. Will those older work units still provide usable results for the researchers even though they failed the validator step?
[Sep 7, 2013 6:21:56 AM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
seippel
Former World Community Grid Tech
Joined: Apr 16, 2009
Post Count: 392
Status: Offline
Project Badges:
Reply to this Post  Reply with Quote 
Re: Wingmen error with RC = 0x100, mine errors with normally-valid RC = 0x1
Unfortunately those results that failed validation have to be rerun. This process is already underway and work units that previously failed to validate are validating when they are rerun.

Seippel
[Sep 11, 2013 7:39:41 PM]   Link   Report threatening or abusive post: please login first  Go to top 
Posts: 28   Pages: 3   [ 1 2 3 | Next Page ]
[ Jump to Last Post ]
Post new Thread