Message boards : Number crunching : Markku...It's still not working.
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
Profile The Gas Giant

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 04
Posts: 309
Credit: 715,258
RAC: 0
Message 5961 - Posted: 23 Feb 2005, 10:51:27 UTC
Last modified: 23 Feb 2005, 10:53:33 UTC

22.2.2005 20:00 UTC
The new keys are now properly signed. Sixtrack version 4.64 for windows is also released. The only change is that all the related files are now signed so using BOINC core client v4.22 and newer should work.
-----------------------
About 12 hrs later....

23/02/2005 9:37:57 PM||Insufficient work; requesting more
23/02/2005 9:37:57 PM|LHC@home|Requesting 345600.00 seconds of work
23/02/2005 9:37:57 PM|LHC@home|Sending request to scheduler: http://lhcathome-sched1.cern.ch/scheduler/cgi
23/02/2005 9:38:02 PM|LHC@home|Scheduler RPC to http://lhcathome-sched1.cern.ch/scheduler/cgi succeeded
23/02/2005 9:38:03 PM|LHC@home|Started download of sixtrack_4.63_windows_intelx86.exe
23/02/2005 9:38:03 PM|LHC@home|Started download of bottomOverlay_1.02_.tga
23/02/2005 9:38:10 PM|LHC@home|Finished download of bottomOverlay_1.02_.tga
23/02/2005 9:38:10 PM|LHC@home|Throughput 8986 bytes/sec
23/02/2005 9:38:10 PM|LHC@home|Started download of courier_16_bold_1.01_.tga
23/02/2005 9:38:10 PM|LHC@home|signature verification error for bottomOverlay_1.02_.tga
23/02/2005 9:38:10 PM|LHC@home|Checksum or signature error for bottomOverlay_1.02_.tga
23/02/2005 9:38:10 PM|LHC@home|Unrecoverable error for result v64lhc95-58s14_16545_1_sixvf_2521_1 (app_version download error: couldn't get input files: bottomOverlay_1.02_.tga -120 signature verification error)
23/02/2005 9:38:10 PM|LHC@home|Unrecoverable error for result v64lhc95-59s10_12575_1_sixvf_2531_1 (app_version download error: couldn't get input files: bottomOverlay_1.02_.tga -120 signature verification error)
23/02/2005 9:38:10 PM|LHC@home|Unrecoverable error for result v64lhc95-59s12_14530_1_sixvf_2532_1 (app_version download error: couldn't get input files: bottomOverlay_1.02_.tga -120 signature verification error)
23/02/2005 9:38:10 PM|LHC@home|Unrecoverable error for result v64lhc95-59s12_14575_1_sixvf_2533_2 (app_version download error: couldn't get input files: bottomOverlay_1.02_.tga -120 signature verification error)
23/02/2005 9:38:10 PM|LHC@home|Unrecoverable error for result v64lhc95-59s14_16515_1_sixvf_2534_2 (app_version download error: couldn't get input files: bottomOverlay_1.02_.tga -120 signature verification error)
23/02/2005 9:38:10 PM|LHC@home|Unrecoverable error for result v64lhc95-59s14_16530_1_sixvf_2535_1 (app_version download error: couldn't get input files: bottomOverlay_1.02_.tga -120 signature verification error)
23/02/2005 9:38:10 PM|LHC@home|Unrecoverable error for result v64lhc95-59s14_16545_1_sixvf_2536_1 (app_version download error: couldn't get input files: bottomOverlay_1.02_.tga -120 signature verification error)
23/02/2005 9:38:10 PM|LHC@home|Unrecoverable error for result v64lhc95-58s18_20515_1_sixvf_2525_2 (app_version download error: couldn't get input files: bottomOverlay_1.02_.tga -120 signature verification error)
23/02/2005 9:38:10 PM|LHC@home|Unrecoverable error for result v64lhc95-59s14_16560_1_sixvf_2537_1 (app_version download error: couldn't get input files: bottomOverlay_1.02_.tga -120 signature verification error)
23/02/2005 9:38:10 PM|LHC@home|Unrecoverable error for result v64lhc95-59s16_18515_1_sixvf_2538_1 (app_version download error: couldn't get input files: bottomOverlay_1.02_.tga -120 signature verification error)
23/02/2005 9:38:10 PM|LHC@home|Unrecoverable error for result v64lhc94-57s10_12515_1_sixvf_2626_2 (app_version download error: couldn't get input files: bottomOverlay_1.02_.tga -120 signature verification error)
23/02/2005 9:38:10 PM|LHC@home|Unrecoverable error for result v64lhc94-57s10_12530_1_sixvf_2627_2 (app_version download error: couldn't get input files: bottomOverlay_1.02_.tga -120 signature verification error)
23/02/2005 9:38:10 PM|LHC@home|Unrecoverable error for result v64lhc95-59s16_18530_1_sixvf_2539_1 (app_version download error: couldn't get input files: bottomOverlay_1.02_.tga -120 signature verification error)
23/02/2005 9:38:10 PM|LHC@home|Unrecoverable error for result v64lhc95-59s18_20515_1_sixvf_2540_1 (app_version download error: couldn't get input files: bottomOverlay_1.02_.tga -120 signature verification error)
23/02/2005 9:38:10 PM|LHC@home|Unrecoverable error for result v64lhc95-59s18_20530_1_sixvf_2541_1 (app_version download error: couldn't get input files: bottomOverlay_1.02_.tga -120 signature verification error)
23/02/2005 9:38:10 PM|LHC@home|Unrecoverable error for result v64lhc95-60s8_10530_1_sixvf_2542_1 (app_version download error: couldn't get input files: bottomOverlay_1.02_.tga -120 signature verification error)
23/02/2005 9:38:10 PM|LHC@home|Unrecoverable error for result v64lhc94-57s16_18515_1_sixvf_2635_2 (app_version download error: couldn't get input files: bottomOverlay_1.02_.tga -120 signature verification error)
.
.
.
.
23/02/2005 9:38:11 PM|LHC@home|Deferring communication with project for 3 hours, 30 minutes, and 11 seconds
23/02/2005 9:38:20 PM|LHC@home|Finished download of courier_16_bold_1.01_.tga
23/02/2005 9:38:20 PM|LHC@home|Throughput 1344 bytes/sec
23/02/2005 9:38:20 PM|LHC@home|Started download of courier_16_regular_1.01_.tga
23/02/2005 9:38:20 PM|LHC@home|signature verification error for courier_16_bold_1.01_.tga
23/02/2005 9:38:20 PM|LHC@home|Checksum or signature error for courier_16_bold_1.01_.tga
23/02/2005 9:38:31 PM|LHC@home|Finished download of courier_16_regular_1.01_.tga
23/02/2005 9:38:31 PM|LHC@home|Throughput 1978 bytes/sec
23/02/2005 9:38:31 PM|LHC@home|Started download of courier_24_bold_1.01_.tga
23/02/2005 9:38:31 PM|LHC@home|signature verification error for courier_16_regular_1.01_.tga
23/02/2005 9:38:31 PM|LHC@home|Checksum or signature error for courier_16_regular_1.01_.tga

I won't paste the rest....

I'm using BOINC V4.23 on XP.

Paul.
The Final Front Ear.

ID: 5961 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Professor Desty Nova
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 27 Sep 04
Posts: 34
Credit: 163,018
RAC: 122
Message 5963 - Posted: 23 Feb 2005, 11:23:03 UTC

Your BOINC was still trying to download the Sixtrack 4.63 (the one that won't work with BOINC 4.2x). The Sixtrack 4.64 will probably only come with the WU they said they were releasing today.


Professor Desty Nova
Researching Karma the Hard Way
ID: 5963 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Jim Baize
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Sep 04
Posts: 103
Credit: 38,543
RAC: 0
Message 5965 - Posted: 23 Feb 2005, 13:05:59 UTC - in response to Message 5963.  

thank you for the info. I was having the same problems and was going to post a question about it. I guess I don't have to now. :)

Jim

> Your BOINC was still trying to download the Sixtrack 4.63 (the one that won't
> work with BOINC 4.2x). The Sixtrack 4.64 will probably only come with the WU
> they said they were releasing today.
>
ID: 5965 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile {CurlY BracketS}
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Sep 04
Posts: 6
Credit: 42,158
RAC: 0
Message 5966 - Posted: 23 Feb 2005, 13:19:05 UTC - in response to Message 5963.  

> Your BOINC was still trying to download the Sixtrack 4.63 (the one that won't
> work with BOINC 4.2x). The Sixtrack 4.64 will probably only come with the WU
> they said they were releasing today.
>

Well now, they have created some more WUs now, but I'm still getting the old client:

LHC@home - 2005-02-23 14:10:50 - Started download of sixtrack_4.63_windows_intelx86.exe


<br><img src="http://curly-brackets.org/boincstats/counter_big.php?project=lhc&amp;id=1549&amp;style=23"><br> Plan to join a team? - Consider <a href="http://www.boincsynergy.com">BOINC Synergy</a>
ID: 5966 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile tiker
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 04
Posts: 34
Credit: 19,096
RAC: 0
Message 5968 - Posted: 23 Feb 2005, 14:50:31 UTC - in response to Message 5966.  

> Well now, they have created some more WUs now, but I'm still getting the old
> client:
>
> LHC@home - 2005-02-23 14:10:50 - Started download of
> sixtrack_4.63_windows_intelx86.exe

The old application will continue to try and download as long as there's work units created to be crunched with that application. Once the queue sends all of the older work units out, the new ones will start.

Click image for more details.
ID: 5968 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile {CurlY BracketS}
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Sep 04
Posts: 6
Credit: 42,158
RAC: 0
Message 5970 - Posted: 23 Feb 2005, 14:53:36 UTC - in response to Message 5968.  


>
> The old application will continue to try and download as long as there's work
> units created to be crunched with that application. Once the queue sends all
> of the older work units out, the new ones will start.
>

Yes I was assuming that, but they said 'no work' all a.m. and then they came up with a bunch of WUs and it would still d/l the old client......


<br><img src="http://curly-brackets.org/boincstats/counter_big.php?project=lhc&amp;id=1549&amp;style=23"><br> Plan to join a team? - Consider <a href="http://www.boincsynergy.com">BOINC Synergy</a>
ID: 5970 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile rbpeake

Send message
Joined: 17 Sep 04
Posts: 76
Credit: 24,420,619
RAC: 12,608
Message 5971 - Posted: 23 Feb 2005, 15:03:22 UTC - in response to Message 5968.  
Last modified: 23 Feb 2005, 15:30:08 UTC

> > Well now, they have created some more WUs now, but I'm still getting the
> old
> > client:
> >
> > LHC@home - 2005-02-23 14:10:50 - Started download of
> > sixtrack_4.63_windows_intelx86.exe
>
> The old application will continue to try and download as long as there's work
> units created to be crunched with that application. Once the queue sends all
> of the older work units out, the new ones will start.
>


Any idea on timing? Today, tomorrow, next week....? It is frustrating to keep getting the same error messages again and again, and knowledge of when this might be resolved would help. Thanks!
Regards,
Bob P.
ID: 5971 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile littleBouncer
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 04
Posts: 358
Credit: 1,439,205
RAC: 0
Message 5972 - Posted: 23 Feb 2005, 15:24:27 UTC
Last modified: 23 Feb 2005, 15:31:02 UTC

I think this "old" WU's (sixtrack_4.63_windows_intelx86.exe) are resent WU's from the stormy restart, where near everybody had to detach / attach.!
So it seems That they who have troubles yet must wait until the new sixtrack_4.64_windows_intelx86.exe - release, or downgrade to CC 4.19.

For me it is working fine now (both machine(one with CC 4.62 and the other with CC 4.19) have the daily quota to crunch)!

I have discovered to predict if WU will take the full run or if it will leave the simulation by error (when particles colide or leaving the colider-area).
If there is an interest, I will post my expiriences.

greetz from Switzerland
littleBouncer

[BTW @ {CurlY BracketS}]Where do you come from; I'm from Winterthur (I can also speak french (better than english)).


ID: 5972 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Jim Baize
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Sep 04
Posts: 103
Credit: 38,543
RAC: 0
Message 5973 - Posted: 23 Feb 2005, 15:43:33 UTC - in response to Message 5972.  

I am interested. Please share your observations.

Jim

> I have discovered to predict if WU will take the full run or if it will leave
> the simulation by error (when particles colide or leaving the colider-area).
> If there is an interest, I will post my expiriences.

ID: 5973 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Vid Vidmar*
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Sep 04
Posts: 27
Credit: 17,091
RAC: 0
Message 5975 - Posted: 23 Feb 2005, 15:48:24 UTC - in response to Message 5972.  

> I have discovered to predict if WU will take the full run or if it will leave
> the simulation by error (when particles colide or leaving the colider-area).
> If there is an interest, I will post my expiriences.
>
> greetz from Switzerland
> littleBouncer

Hey there!

I would like to know how you can tell that and how you figured it out...

Greets
Vid Vidmar

ID: 5975 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile littleBouncer
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 04
Posts: 358
Credit: 1,439,205
RAC: 0
Message 5980 - Posted: 23 Feb 2005, 16:15:25 UTC - in response to Message 5975.  
Last modified: 23 Feb 2005, 16:46:44 UTC

> > I have discovered to predict if WU will take the full run or if it will
> leave
> > the simulation by error (when particles colide or leaving the
> colider-area).
> > If there is an interest, I will post my expiriences.
> >
> > greetz from Switzerland
> > littleBouncer
>
> Hey there!
>
> I would like to know how you can tell that and how you figured it out...
>
> Greets
> Vid Vidmar
>
>

@ Jim, Vid Vidmar and all others who have respective interests of the parties concerned:


On "show graphics" (not the screensaver) you can toggle the "F" - key. On the right appears 3 lines, marked TPS: #, max. TPS: #, FPS: #. (my interpretation: TPS=Turns Per Sec., FPS=Frames Per Sec.).

Now: If the TPS is higher than max.TPS, the run will abort between the next 0.01 to 10 minutes). I call them "fast" WU's in the future
if TPS is equal or lower , then it will take the full run:

"normal" TPS's for my machines: 22-24 and 1Mio.turns will take about 9 to 12 hours (formerly known as 'tunescana', now 'boince6..')
33/34 TPS and 100000 turns will take about 45 to 65 min.

and general : if max.TPS is higher then 100 (for example:256) , this simulation will crash, the TPS mount and mount...WU finish-next WU

I made this expiriences last year and I wanted to post them, but then the project stopped. Now I have noticed the same.

If I'm in some sort of explaination wrong; say it to me

greetz from Switzerland
littleBouncer

[BTW]please don't abort this "fast" WU's; they are valuable for science(IMO)!!!
Sorry that this thread take a complete different direction from where it is/was started!

Q.:how you figured it out?
A.:watching and observing the graphics (that mean: empirical (german: empirisch)), this let your brain working...:-)



ID: 5980 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Markku Degerholm

Send message
Joined: 3 Sep 04
Posts: 212
Credit: 4,545
RAC: 0
Message 5983 - Posted: 23 Feb 2005, 16:56:47 UTC

Oops, I just realized that we didn't restart server processes since releasing the version 4.64. That means that the new version wasn't actually available.

Well, now it's reset, so please try again...

Markku Degerholm
LHC@home admin
ID: 5983 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile {CurlY BracketS}
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 18 Sep 04
Posts: 6
Credit: 42,158
RAC: 0
Message 5985 - Posted: 23 Feb 2005, 17:17:01 UTC - in response to Message 5983.  

> Oops, I just realized that we didn't restart server processes since releasing
> the version 4.64. That means that the new version wasn't actually available.
>
> Well, now it's reset, so please try again...
>
>

Ah! Now things look much better :-))


<br><img src="http://curly-brackets.org/boincstats/counter_big.php?project=lhc&amp;id=1549&amp;style=23"><br> Plan to join a team? - Consider <a href="http://www.boincsynergy.com">BOINC Synergy</a>
ID: 5985 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile tiker
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 1 Sep 04
Posts: 34
Credit: 19,096
RAC: 0
Message 5986 - Posted: 23 Feb 2005, 17:20:31 UTC - in response to Message 5970.  
Last modified: 23 Feb 2005, 17:21:23 UTC

> Yes I was assuming that, but they said 'no work' all a.m. and then they came
> up with a bunch of WUs and it would still d/l the old client......

It's possible that if a work units were all assigned so there were no available work to crunch and errors were reported with those work units, new work units would be sent out using the same application.

But from Markku's post above, that isn't what happened here. :)

Click image for more details.
ID: 5986 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile littleBouncer
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Oct 04
Posts: 358
Credit: 1,439,205
RAC: 0
Message 5988 - Posted: 23 Feb 2005, 17:37:38 UTC - in response to Message 5973.  
Last modified: 23 Feb 2005, 17:38:31 UTC

> I am interested. Please share your observations.
>
> Jim
>
Hi Jim , Vid Vidmar and others

in addition to the reply for VV:

What "fast" WU's are and how important they are!


Typically SixTrack simulates 60 particles at a time as they travel around the ring, and runs the simulation for 100000 loops around the ring. That may sound like a lot, but it is less than 10s in the real world. Still, it is enough to test whether the beam is going to remain on a stable orbit for a much longer time, or risks losing control and flying off course into the walls of the vacuum tube - a very serious problem that could result in the machine being stopped for repairs if it happens in real life. By repeating such calculations thousands of times, it is possible to map out the conditions under which the beam should be stable.


Hint: Did you remark 10s (10 sec.) and the results -name #s, combine yourself...





ID: 5988 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile rbpeake

Send message
Joined: 17 Sep 04
Posts: 76
Credit: 24,420,619
RAC: 12,608
Message 6001 - Posted: 23 Feb 2005, 19:46:29 UTC - in response to Message 5983.  

> Oops, I just realized that we didn't restart server processes since releasing
> the version 4.64. That means that the new version wasn't actually available.
>
> Well, now it's reset, so please try again...
>
>

Note: I needed to Detach and then Attach to the LHC project again, before I could download work. :)
Regards,
Bob P.
ID: 6001 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Paul D. Buck

Send message
Joined: 2 Sep 04
Posts: 545
Credit: 148,912
RAC: 0
Message 6038 - Posted: 24 Feb 2005, 12:47:26 UTC

Just a side note, I added the "Fast WU" as a question in my FAQ. The first LHC@Home entry (and it is pretty lonesome all by itself).

If there are topical questions that should be added, drop me a line ... or add the question yourself to the FAQ ... though if you also have the answer, it would be better by e-mail ...
ID: 6038 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote

Message boards : Number crunching : Markku...It's still not working.


©2020 CERN