Message boards :
Sixtrack Application :
exceeded elapsed time limit 30940.80 (180000000.00G/5817.56G)
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2
Author | Message |
---|---|
Send message Joined: 12 Jul 11 Posts: 857 Credit: 1,619,050 RAC: 0 |
Thanks a lot; the problems are identified but sadly we never get them fixed|! Eric. (I am not even sure that the DELETE WUs worked....) |
Send message Joined: 12 Jul 11 Posts: 857 Credit: 1,619,050 RAC: 0 |
Thanks a lot, but I dare not change the Validator. Mark you, if we don't get some fixes soon I\ll probably do that and to hang. Probably couldn't be much worse, and I could always undo. I'll sleep on it. Eric. |
![]() Send message Joined: 28 Mar 12 Posts: 2 Credit: 619,600 RAC: 1 ![]() ![]() |
Just a heads-up that I've noticed 34 of my tasks with errors containing a similar message. https://lhcathome.cern.ch/lhcathome/results.php?userid=233918&offset=20&show_names=0&state=6&appid= Most have "exceeded elapsed time limit 12140.55 (180000000.00G/14826.35G)" but a few have smaller numbers such as "time limit 7987.99 (180000000.00G/19907.96G". Kind of rough since they take 2-3 hours of computing time before they error. |
Send message Joined: 7 May 17 Posts: 10 Credit: 6,952,848 RAC: 0 ![]() ![]() |
@planetclown, you will know that this kind of trouble is ahead if newly downloaded, not yet started tasks are listed with an estimated time remaining of a few minutes or even less than a minute. Here is what I do on my clients which are in this situation:
|
![]() Send message Joined: 28 Mar 12 Posts: 2 Credit: 619,600 RAC: 1 ![]() ![]() |
@xii5ku Thanks for the workaround. I'm up to 42 errors at the time of this post. I've just updated my client_state.xml and will keep an eye on the # of errors going forward. Thanks again! |
Send message Joined: 12 Jul 11 Posts: 857 Credit: 1,619,050 RAC: 0 |
Sadly, I don't think we are quite there yet. See my latest comment about one out of two Tasks. All feedback appreciated but remember I am SixTrack "only". Surely you don't have to go through all these gymnastics for SixTrack, but I guess you are running a mixture like Crystal Pellet. Eric. |
Send message Joined: 27 Sep 08 Posts: 860 Credit: 707,872,563 RAC: 172,862 ![]() ![]() ![]() |
This came back for me. https://lhcathome.cern.ch/lhcathome/result.php?resultid=152246604 There is about 30 for this host. |
Send message Joined: 14 Jan 10 Posts: 1443 Credit: 9,702,417 RAC: 1,451 ![]() ![]() ![]() |
This came back for me. Somehow your machine had reported a floating point operations of 13161.52, what's much too high. BOINC expects such a machine to be faster of course. That machine is now reporting the fpops of 4446.94, what's more realistic. |
Send message Joined: 27 Sep 08 Posts: 860 Credit: 707,872,563 RAC: 172,862 ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Thx CP, I re-ran the benchmarks to bring it back to a normal number. Not sure how it got such a high number. |
Send message Joined: 12 Jul 11 Posts: 857 Credit: 1,619,050 RAC: 0 |
This is a "known" problem, BUT many thanks for the solution. What happens is that an "Intel family 6" with 4.8.* Linux, fails. It returns a fort.10 / result however afte a short time and is wrongly estimated to be very very fast. Subsequent tasks then fail because they take "too long"! Thanks again for the solution for the client but we need a fix at our end. Sadly I am not too involved anymore but I'll pass the message. Eric. This came back for me. |
Send message Joined: 12 Jul 11 Posts: 857 Credit: 1,619,050 RAC: 0 |
A fix has been applied to the Validator to redefine outliers. Seems to be working as I see the overall error rate has dropped significantly. If you still the REAL_TIME_EXCEEDED please let me know. If you have a hyper fast machine maybe it is enough to rerun the benchmark on the BOINC client i.e. your side. Eric. |
©2025 CERN