Message boards :
Sixtrack Application :
SIXTRACKTEST
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 9 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
Send message Joined: 29 Feb 16 Posts: 157 Credit: 2,659,975 RAC: 0 |
I am playing with WUs to be crunched with sixtracktest. In particular, in the last batch of jobs submitted last week, the discrimination between successful and un-successful results was a missing setting in the template output .xml file. Now the next batch of jobs (34) is aimed at verifying that we can collect more data then the usual output we get back from you. Thanks a lot to everyone supporting sixtracktest! |
Send message Joined: 12 Jul 11 Posts: 857 Credit: 1,619,050 RAC: 0 |
Yes indeed, but some may miss the deadline but won't cost you. Eric. (I have the same problem!) |
Send message Joined: 28 Sep 04 Posts: 728 Credit: 49,045,644 RAC: 27,011 |
I got one sixtracktest task last night. Here: https://lhcathome.cern.ch/lhcathome/result.php?resultid=151408364 This failed for me and for two other hosts so far with error: upload failure: <file_xfer_error> <file_name>wTest_madxCode_withCC__1__s__26.13_26.18__4_6__4__85_1_sixvf_boinc34_2_1</file_name> <error_code>-131 (file size too big)</error_code> </file_xfer_error> |
Send message Joined: 12 Jul 11 Posts: 857 Credit: 1,619,050 RAC: 0 |
Seems to be a problem probably with the result template/xml. The result probably is too big but I don't see any "nbytes"... I'll leave this to my colleagues. Eric. I got one sixtracktest task last night. Here: https://lhcathome.cern.ch/lhcathome/result.php?resultid=151408364 |
Send message Joined: 27 Sep 08 Posts: 847 Credit: 691,725,398 RAC: 114,483 |
I see the same results on my computers, my mac even got one :) 9.Mac 118 LHC@home 07/18/17 05:09:03 Output file wTest_madxCode_withCC__1__s__26.13_26.18__4_6__4__85_1_sixvf_boinc34_3_1 for task wTest_madxCode_withCC__1__s__26.13_26.18__4_6__4__85_1_sixvf_boinc34_3 exceeds size limit. 119 LHC@home 07/18/17 05:09:03 File size: 20866468.000000 bytes. Limit: 20000000.000000 bytes |
Send message Joined: 29 Feb 16 Posts: 157 Credit: 2,659,975 RAC: 0 |
Thanks a lot, Toby, Eric, and Harri, for the very valuable feedback! It was essential to spot the actual problem! Indeed, it is an issue of maximum size of the result file as described in the template file of the sixtrack output. One of the new features of the new exes (sixtracktest) is the possibility to produce further output than the one strictly required for evaluating the dynamic aperture - eg for frequency map analysis, bunch evolution during tracking, ... This is collected in a second output file, of variable size. Initially it was set to 20MB, but the test I was submitting required slightly more - I have increased it by a factor 10. First results have been already produced and successfully uploaded, eg: https://lhcathome.cern.ch/lhcathome_ops/db_action.php?table=workunit&id=73333800 Many many thanks to all you! |
Send message Joined: 28 Sep 04 Posts: 728 Credit: 49,045,644 RAC: 27,011 |
Some validated sixtracktest tasks finally, here's one: https://lhcathome.cern.ch/lhcathome/result.php?resultid=153267772 Very short though, around 20...25 seconds each. |
Send message Joined: 12 Jul 11 Posts: 857 Credit: 1,619,050 RAC: 0 |
That sounds encouraging. I'll be submitting myself once I have figured out how to do it. I think we try and keep tests short to avoid wasting the volunteer CPU, we are testing some SixTrack or other system functionality. However, I want to try going for 10 million turns, a first, by running a series of 100,000 turn tasks, and I want to see the growth in the Checkpoint/Restart file size and the network activity. Eric. Some validated sixtracktest tasks finally, here's one: https://lhcathome.cern.ch/lhcathome/result.php?resultid=153267772 |
Send message Joined: 29 Feb 16 Posts: 157 Credit: 2,659,975 RAC: 0 |
Dear all, just to let you know that finally all tests performed so far on sixtracktest are successful! I think we will see soon new exes being released for production! The tests were pretty small, to check that all new features were working properly, and the necessary adjustments to BOINC settings (eg template output) were applied. At the same time, it was possible to better track problems and have a negligible impact on the credit granted to you, in case of failures at different stages of processing. Thanks again to all you who contributed with these tests! Alessio, for the SixTrack team. |
Send message Joined: 27 Sep 08 Posts: 847 Credit: 691,725,398 RAC: 114,483 |
Great news |
Send message Joined: 28 Sep 04 Posts: 728 Credit: 49,045,644 RAC: 27,011 |
I just received 15 new sixtracktest tasks, they went back in the queue behind 17 sixtrack tasks. Let's see how they perform. |
Send message Joined: 12 Jul 11 Posts: 857 Credit: 1,619,050 RAC: 0 |
Great; I can now run on sixtracktest thanks to my colleague Alessio. There will be many more to come as I need statistics and error analysis for my upcoming paper. Just meed to check results first. Eric. I just received 15 new sixtracktest tasks, they went back in the queue behind 17 sixtrack tasks. Let's see how they perform. |
Send message Joined: 28 Sep 04 Posts: 728 Credit: 49,045,644 RAC: 27,011 |
Great; I can now run on sixtracktest thanks to my colleague Alessio. First tasks have finished OK, took about 40 minutes each. Waiting for the quorum partner to finish their bit. |
Send message Joined: 9 Dec 14 Posts: 202 Credit: 2,533,875 RAC: 0 |
had about 60 sixtracktest, all still waiting for validation (wingman), but no errors were reported (on windows and linux). what i recognized is that compared to the "production sixtrack tasks" they need roughly 5-8 times more ram per task (also on windows and linux). |
Send message Joined: 12 Jul 11 Posts: 857 Credit: 1,619,050 RAC: 0 |
Very good; your comment on memory is correct. My colleagues are trying to use a "big" version to limit the total number of versions. I am hoping that the working set size will be as before and that there will not be excessive paging. Eric. had about 60 sixtracktest, all still waiting for validation (wingman), but no errors were reported (on windows and linux). |
Send message Joined: 14 Jan 10 Posts: 1418 Credit: 9,467,215 RAC: 2,856 |
I got several sixtracktest tasks on different systems: Linux64, Win7 64bit, Win10 32bit. All tasks are running fine and meanwhile some are reported back. On Windows I do not see the 10-60 minutes low cpu-usage init phase anymore. One issue: On one Win7 64bit machine I first got a bunch that should run the 32 bit application. I don't know if that could be a performance problem. The last 4 tasks I got were assigned with the 64bit application. |
Send message Joined: 15 Jun 08 Posts: 2534 Credit: 253,863,642 RAC: 38,449 |
I got some sixtracktest WUs on both of my hosts. i7-2600: lin64 version (as expected) i7-3770K: lin32 version (should have been lin64) Both BOINC clients are configured to accept alternative platforms so that may be the reason for the mismatch. <edit> Oops: The lin64 walltimes on the i7-2600 are very short. https://lhcathome.cern.ch/lhcathome/results.php?hostid=10486393&offset=0&show_names=0&state=0&appid=10 This may be investigated. </edit> |
Send message Joined: 12 Jul 11 Posts: 857 Credit: 1,619,050 RAC: 0 |
Thanks a lot; I was about to ask if the "real time" problem had gone away on Windows 10! Great news. Eric. (More news tomorrow.) I got several sixtracktest tasks on different systems: Linux64, Win7 64bit, Win10 32bit. |
Send message Joined: 2 Sep 04 Posts: 4 Credit: 185,416 RAC: 0 |
https://lhcathome.cern.ch/lhcathome/results.php?hostid=10480067&offset=0&show_names=0&state=6&appid= https://lhcathome.cern.ch/lhcathome/results.php?hostid=10317541&offset=0&show_names=0&state=6&appid=10 sixtracktest v46.15 (sse2) windows_x86_64 At line 2515 of file C:/msys64/home/kyrsjo/code/SixTrack/SixTrack/SixTrack_cmakesix_API_BIGNBLZ_BOINC_BUILD_TESTING_CR_LIBARCHIVE_defaultcompiler_defaultbuildtype/sixve.f sixtracktest v46.15 (sse2) windows_intelx86 At line 2515 of file C:/msys64/home/kyrsjo/code/SixTrack-32bit/SixTrack/SixTrack_CMAKE_SHORTNAME/sixve.f |
Send message Joined: 29 Feb 16 Posts: 157 Credit: 2,659,975 RAC: 0 |
Hello Sergey, thanks for reporting these errors. We will investigate the issue (suspect a problem of input). As volunteer, I got 16 sixtracktest tasks, on both windows and linux - all ok for the moment: https://lhcathome.cern.ch/lhcathome/results.php?userid=384669&offset=0&show_names=0&state=0&appid=10 For the larger memory footprint, we are extending the capabilities of SixTrack also in view of way larger machines than the LHC, e.g. the Future Circular Collider (FCC), and we have quite some colleagues waiting to use the new version of the code, with a lot of brand new tasks for the next years. Hence, the idea to simplify things with only one version of the exe. |
©2024 CERN