LHC@home

error: Too many total results

https://lhcathome.cern.ch/lhcathome/workunit.php?wuid=73808269
https://lhcathome.cern.ch/lhcathome/workunit.php?wuid=73810588
https://lhcathome.cern.ch/lhcathome/workunit.php?wuid=73808561

I got 48 WU's and they all finished fairly fast. (ave. 1 hour)

32 Valid
15 Pending
1 Invalid

---

Volunteer Mad Scientist For Life

Hello Demis and computezrmle,

apologizes for that. Those WUs had a piece of input (including advanced settings) which can be correctly interpreted by sixtracktest, but not by sixtrack - the difference between the two being extensions to physics and user interfaces. The user who submitted that work simply forgot to specify submission to sixtracktest.

The WUs belonging to those studies have been deleted, so that we do not waist further resources.

Thanks a lot in advance for your understanding,

Hello Demis and computezrmle,

apologizes for that. Those WUs had a piece of input (including advanced settings) which can be correctly interpreted by sixtracktest, but not by sixtrack - the difference between the two being extensions to physics and user interfaces. The user who submitted that work simply forgot to specify submission to sixtracktest.

The WUs belonging to those studies have been deleted, so that we do not waist further resources.

Thanks a lot in advance for your understanding,

Ok. This is semaphore only. Thank you.

Two Tasks are finished and waiting:

https://lhcathome.cern.ch/lhcathome/workunit.php?wuid=80281036

The server have more than 100k for waiting validation or deleting.

I've been crunching primarily LHC VM jobs in the past, so I am fairly new to Sixtrack.
Maybe someone could explain me in short how this works with the validation of finished and uploaded tasks:

I got validation (and credit points) for tasks which were uploaded 1 and/or 2 days ago, and I have plenty of tasks which were uploaded 3 or 4 days ago with "validation pending".
On what does the validation depend? How come that there are that different time spans?

I got validation (and credit points) for tasks which were uploaded 1 and/or 2 days ago, and I have plenty of tasks which were uploaded 3 or 4 days ago with "validation pending".
On what does the validation depend? How come that there are that different time spans?

The validation needs a quorum of 2.
That means that 2 valid results from different clients (even different users) should have returned before the validator will process them both.
Why it takes that long?
Several reasons:
- Users have (over)filled their buffers, maybe cause SixTrack jobs are rare.
- Cause jobs are rare BOINC's Recent Estimated Credit is low for LHC and will request primarily LHC until REC is equal to other projects.
- The current jobs are running rather long depending on CPU-speed. AVG run-time 8.57 hours.
- Jobs not returned at all, errors and abandons should be resent, but resends seems to go to the end of the feeder queue.

Many thanks, Crystal Pellet, for the explanations :-)

No result for two Computer:
https://lhcathome.cern.ch/lhcathome/workunit.php?wuid=99843584

Your wingcomputer has a high error rate.
If it's not a general problem your result will be confirmed by the next computer.

Just checking mine I see many,many wingmen with errors or hundreds of tasks on old single and double cores with X86 memory

Before I even checked here I was looking at many of mine that will be on Validation pending for a while.

I think I will just finish my last 120 and switch back to the Theory and LHCb tasks.

Hi Magic,
I think you got your credit recognised, right?
In your checks, have you noticed hosts regularly giving invalid results?
Thanks a lot in advance,
Cheers,

Yes, many hosts regularly giving many hundreds of invalid results each. And not just Sixtrack, ATLAS too.

Hosts that return nothing but invalid results are called cyclers. BOINC server has an option to limit cyclers to 1 task per day. Either that option is broken or it has been disabled for some reason, maybe accidentally.

Hi Magic,
I think you got your credit recognised, right?
In your checks, have you noticed hosts regularly giving invalid results?
Thanks a lot in advance,
Cheers,

Yes I did eventually get those credits BUT I should have posted links to all those crooked hosts I found that day since now after a server update they seem to be all removed.

I will look for a few more minutes but I think all the evidence is gone right now since it has been about 10 days.

BUT I have to agree with bronco about this situation.

It used to be that after a host got errors all day the server would not allow new tasks for 24 hours and then the host could try again which was done hoping a user would check to see what the problem was.

But now they just keep getting tasks and the errors will never stop and I imagine some users do not check for problems like some of us always do.

Next time I find more evidence I will post that here for Sixtrack but for the VB problems like this I will post on the bronco thread.

(here is a quick example of computers that have hundreds of errors just because they have way too many tasks to even finish on time on both X86 and X64)

https://lhcathome.cern.ch/lhcathome/hosts_user.php?userid=570301

I see some are running really old Boinc versions but in this case it is mainly hosts getting more tasks than they can finish before the due time so they sit on these hosts until that due time happens and the server removes them but they keep getting more.

No result for two Computer:
https://lhcathome.cern.ch/lhcathome/workunit.php?wuid=114066713

Your wingman's computer has a huge rate of inconclusives/errors.
Just wait until the 3rd result returns and confirms your result.

No result for two Computer:

https://lhcathome.cern.ch/lhcathome/workunit.php?wuid=117806542

https://lhcathome.cern.ch/lhcathome/workunit.php?wuid=117806542

It seems like your pc did not crunch correctly the task
I have run it locally on a Ubuntu18.04 machine, and it finished regularly

A sixtrack with no result for all two Computer:
https://lhcathome.cern.ch/lhcathome/workunit.php?wuid=116951294

Hello, maeax,

thanks a lot for spotting this. At first glace I feared we ran into a corner case of a calculation not correctly coded, hence leading two different results on different platforms. Then, we checked re-running the WU, with the two exes - your result matches the linux one, as expected, whereas the windows one did not match the result from the other volunteer.
The windows and linux results match. Hence, we concluded that the other host most probably experienced a memory corruption not related to the code or the input files.

The wingman should confirm this.
Happy crunching!
A.