Message boards : Number crunching : 13-14 Feb 2012 - WU restart - but some short-lived
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
Profile jay

Send message
Joined: 10 Aug 07
Posts: 54
Credit: 813,704
RAC: 116
Message 25424 - Posted: 14 Feb 2013, 1:59:29 UTC
Last modified: 14 Feb 2013, 1:59:59 UTC

Greetings!!

I noticed that WU have restarted - Thanks!

I started to worry when the first
4 out of 5 had short run-times. (the 5th is still running.)

I am not sure how to interpret sterr out. Is this an error? Or just close-of-file?
All 4 say the same thing for stderr output (time stamps different..):
<core_client_version>6.10.58</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<stderr_txt>
20:00:52 (4370): called boinc_finish
</stderr_txt>
]]

Here is other data:
userid=81571
hostid=10169683 - AMD 64
wu,             task,              run time
wuid=6566397   resultid=14306839     _20.20
wuid=6566039   resultid=14306118     121.79
wuid=6565907   resultid=14305855     __8.17
wuid=6565400   resultid=14304840     _10.84

each of these 4 were validated with another user - with a short run-time.

Is it just chance that all 4 were, naturally, short-lived?
Or was there an error - somewhere?


Thanks!!
Jay
ID: 25424 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
S. Dagorath

Send message
Joined: 7 Feb 13
Posts: 19
Credit: 1,478
RAC: 0
Message 25426 - Posted: 14 Feb 2013, 2:28:29 UTC - in response to Message 25424.  
Last modified: 14 Feb 2013, 2:30:18 UTC

Greetings!!

I noticed that WU have restarted - Thanks!

I started to worry when the first
4 out of 5 had short run-times. (the 5th is still running.)

I am not sure how to interpret sterr out. Is this an error? Or just close-of-file?
All 4 say the same thing for stderr output (time stamps different..):
<core_client_version>6.10.58</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<stderr_txt>
20:00:52 (4370): called boinc_finish
</stderr_txt>
]]


Boinc_finish means the task has ended.

Here is other data:
userid=81571
hostid=10169683 - AMD 64
wu,             task,              run time
wuid=6566397   resultid=14306839     _20.20
wuid=6566039   resultid=14306118     121.79
wuid=6565907   resultid=14305855     __8.17
wuid=6565400   resultid=14304840     _10.84

each of these 4 were validated with another user - with a short run-time.


If they validate then they either the tasks completed properly and the results are good else another computer made exactly the same errors and produced a "bad" result that matches your "bad" result. That is very, very unlikely.

Is it just chance that all 4 were, naturally, short-lived?
Or was there an error - somewhere?


Yes, just chance. Most Sixtrack tasks run longer, some are very short like these. Yes, it seems unlikely you would receive 4 short ones so close together but it happens.
ID: 25426 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile jay

Send message
Joined: 10 Aug 07
Posts: 54
Credit: 813,704
RAC: 116
Message 25427 - Posted: 14 Feb 2013, 6:14:17 UTC - in response to Message 25426.  

Thanks for the info....

Now I know what a non-error looks like..

Thanks again,
Jay
ID: 25427 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Sunny129
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 12 Dec 05
Posts: 31
Credit: 9,709,398
RAC: 0
Message 25434 - Posted: 14 Feb 2013, 13:44:17 UTC

don't get too excited yet. remember, only 5 days ago Eric said that we might not see new work for a whole week or two. now perhaps he got his analysis done early and tasks are back. then again, it could just be a short injection of test tasks again. i wouldn't be surprised if the "ready to send" queue on the server runs dry again before we start seeing new tasks on a regular basis again...
ID: 25434 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Uffe F

Send message
Joined: 9 Jan 08
Posts: 66
Credit: 727,923
RAC: 0
Message 25460 - Posted: 26 Feb 2013, 14:49:39 UTC

By the way, some work started trickeling in again. So Eric might be done now.
ID: 25460 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote

Message boards : Number crunching : 13-14 Feb 2012 - WU restart - but some short-lived


©2024 CERN