| Index | Recent Threads | Unanswered Threads | Who's Active | Guidelines | Search |
 |
World Community Grid Forums
Category: Beta Testing
Forum: Beta Test Support Forum
Thread: New Beta Test – May 29, 2019 [Issues Thread] |
| No member browsing this thread |
|
Thread Status: Active Total posts in this thread: 315
|
|
| Author |
|
|
armstrdj
Former World Community Grid Tech Joined: Oct 21, 2004 Post Count: 695 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Our internal testing is running a little longer than expected but I would anticipate the new work to begin flowing tomorrow.
Thanks, armstrdj |
||
|
|
nanoprobe
Master Cruncher Classified Joined: Aug 29, 2008 Post Count: 2998 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
Have there been any reports about issues with running these tasks on Windows XP?. Seems like I did receive 2 on the 29th that were both marked invalid on a machine that is very reliable and has had no issue with betas in the past.
----------------------------------------
In 1969 I took an oath to defend and protect the U S Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and Domestic. There was no expiration date.
----------------------------------------  [Edit 1 times, last edit by nanoprobe at Jun 5, 2019 8:26:17 PM] |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
armstradj wrote they optimized the heck out of this application without loosing binary compatibility (or something like that). Count on ARP1 not being compatible.
|
||
|
|
PMH_UK
Veteran Cruncher UK Joined: Apr 26, 2007 Post Count: 786 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
I had 3 on XP 32 bit PCs that all got "exceeded elapsed time limit".
----------------------------------------Now got some re-runs on those. Paul.
Paul.
|
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
Not sure if this is expected (intentional test) or not, so reporting. I was farmed out a WU which was already validated by two others, I'm the third one cranking away on it now. It has "quorum 2" listed, however.
workunitId 1142307829 deviceId 5429224 screenshot: https://i.imgur.com/RT8T6ky.png (my device is the "In Progress" in the screenshot) In good news, the WU credit looks much better. :) The first beta WU (which is still trying to get validated, the other user timed out) has a credit of around 31, this new guy has a more proper looking 575 for the time it takes to run these suckers. |
||
|
|
nanoprobe
Master Cruncher Classified Joined: Aug 29, 2008 Post Count: 2998 Status: Offline Project Badges:
|
I had 3 on XP 32 bit PCs that all got "exceeded elapsed time limit". Now got some re-runs on those. Paul. The original 2 ran about 26 hours. Got 4 more resends on the same machine so we'll see.
In 1969 I took an oath to defend and protect the U S Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and Domestic. There was no expiration date.
|
||
|
|
hchc
Veteran Cruncher USA Joined: Aug 15, 2006 Post Count: 865 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
xithryx said:
----------------------------------------Not sure if this is expected (intentional test) or not, so reporting. I was farmed out a WU which was already validated by two others, I'm the third one cranking away on it now. It has "quorum 2" listed, however. workunitId 1142307829 deviceId 5429224 screenshot: https://i.imgur.com/RT8T6ky.png (my device is the "In Progress" in the screenshot) In good news, the WU credit looks much better. :) The first beta WU (which is still trying to get validated, the other user timed out) has a credit of around 31, this new guy has a more proper looking 575 for the time it takes to run these suckers. It looks like the _2 work unit was at "No Reply" at 6/5/2019 6:12 so your device received the _3 work unit. The _2 person finally returned the work unit late, but since your device had already started working on it, the server didn't "Server Abort" it; instead you'll still get credit for it if you let it finish.
|
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
WCG/BOINC developers might want to consider to make this a client feature, even a project level option... Abort task if redundant to requirement. In for the science or in for the credit. Wasting 48 hours and more potentially on a unit that already has found it's validated pairing is not of my interest.
So, in this example, if you download a work unit that already has 4 work units returned with an error status, and the work unit requires a quorum of 2, this would indicate that another member has a work unit in progress when you downloaded the work unit. This at a minimum would mean 6 total work units have been sent. Then your wingman returns a result that is also an error. This would cause the server to try and abort all remaining work units in progress and if your work unit had not started running, you would receive a 'server aborted' message. If your device had started on the work unit before the server abort message was sent, the BOINC software cannot abort and your device will complete the work unit, but the result will be marked as 'too late'. Vaguely remember projects do have a server side option. Make this user level optional. End of OT |
||
|
|
Former Member
Cruncher Joined: May 22, 2018 Post Count: 0 Status: Offline |
It looks like the _2 work unit was at "No Reply" at 6/5/2019 6:12 so your device received the _3 work unit. The _2 person finally returned the work unit late, but since your device had already started working on it, the server didn't "Server Abort" it; instead you'll still get credit for it if you let it finish. Roger that. Opinion: I think the deadlines for ARP1 are too aggressive, then. This server has a healthy CPU (dual E5-2660v2) which crunches 24x7 (not the average start-stop BOINC client interrupted by other tasks) dedicated to WCG. The work unit has a deadline of about 27 more hours, but still has 9 hours of estimated crunching time left. If this were a more average machine which allowed the crunching to be suspended due to other activity I'd miss that deadline pretty easily. And you just explained how another cruncher also missed the deadline, causing this scenario (not their fault I'm sure). Snapshot as of this writing:
|
||
|
|
Mike.Gibson
Ace Cruncher England Joined: Aug 23, 2007 Post Count: 12594 Status: Offline Project Badges: 
|
As this is Beta testing, it is not just about crunching the unit. It is more about how the units perform on different machines.
Although the units are aligned to a particular type of operating system, such as MS Windows, they do run on different generations of Windows. For example, I have received a resend where suffices 0 & 1 were both sent to Windows 10 machines, one errored and the other finished. Suffix 2 was then sent to an 8.1 which didn't respond in time so I am now crunching suffix 3 on my Windows 7. This can give extra testing information. They also need testing results back as soon as possible. I presume that when crunching officially starts, a bit more time will be allowed. Mike |
||
|
|
|