1)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Server thinks I recevied a WU
(Message 18252)
Posted 17 Oct 2007 by 5th.rider Post: Hi Alex, Neasan, I am wondering about ResultID=9004176, WU=1743481. Beliveing your stats i should have received it - but in my clients log there is nothing to find. Better - my pc had no network connection the time your server states. So who has got "my" WU ? Is this failure in your side? Is my log wrong? Or am I just blind? thx for helping me find out.... :-) Oliver |
2)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Claimed 0 credits - still pending after all 5 results received
(Message 18118)
Posted 13 Oct 2007 by 5th.rider Post: Hi Alex, Neasan, could you pls. have a look at wuid=1711094. I wonder if this is ok, all 5 results were received, but it is still pending. May this be because all 5 claimed 0.0 (which is imho no wonder for max 1.67 seconds computing)? last but not least - many thanks to you to get lhc alive again! oliver |
3)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Can't Access Work Units
(Message 17597)
Posted 30 Jul 2007 by 5th.rider Post: Still not working for me. more than 8k available, but I am getting no work. |
4)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Can't Access Work Units
(Message 17509)
Posted 23 Jul 2007 by 5th.rider Post: 1860 WU to crunch - and I am getting "no work available" no checksum errors or anything else looking like an error. had some wu two days ago, but now? best regards 5th rider |
5)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Pending Credit
(Message 10369)
Posted 22 Sep 2005 by 5th.rider Post: "The correct behaviour would be to wait until all issued results had been returned, or had passed the deadline" That´s exactly what I tried to say - sorry for being misunderstandable ;-) regards 5th.rider |
6)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
And you thought *YOUR* WU count sucked
(Message 10368)
Posted 22 Sep 2005 by 5th.rider Post: I found another one - I guess the mechanism of 100 wu per day should be downsized to x WU max. http://lhcathome.cern.ch/show_host_detail.php?hostid=40044 regards 5th.rider |
7)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Pending Credit
(Message 10366)
Posted 22 Sep 2005 by 5th.rider Post: My 2 cent... I do agree, science is the goal - but you have to motivate people. I don't think I would be crunching the way I do for "null" - even if the credits are no valuable currency ;-) Imho the way the file deleter works is strange - why is there a deadline if this deadline isn't obligatory for all - including server side! So yes, that´s a point to work on for the programmers. Is it mission critical? No. But it is a "customer relationship" subject - so the responsible people may think about which value this has and put it somewhere on their to-do-list. As I said - just my 2 cents... best regards 5th.rider |
8)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Huge pending credit
(Message 10296)
Posted 19 Sep 2005 by 5th.rider Post: Hi Travis DJ, I don't think your network settings does affect this so much - I did play with the settings and had to crunch a bulk of Einstein and predictor WU's - so I was not in time@lhc like you. although I had up to 700 credits waiting (down to 440 right now) with summarized 1 cpu running lhc 100%. It seems they had some problems validating - take a look at http://www.boincstats.com/stats/project_graph3.php?pr=lhc&table=credits on 12/13th they have a contributed much less credit than normal. |
9)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Huge pending credit
(Message 10273)
Posted 18 Sep 2005 by 5th.rider Post: 660 waiting, with 1 PC running 66%, 1 PC running 33% LHC. |
10)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Why just half the credit than the others in one result?
(Message 10271)
Posted 18 Sep 2005 by 5th.rider Post: Hi there, @Travis DJ - thx again for advicing me - haven't decided yet which AV next one will be -one out of kapersky/trend micro/AVK. @VinylPusher Oh you are so right! But this is somehow not practicable to me ;-) @Michael: I really don't want to start this Windows/linux flame war - I am using both and both have their advantages ( and their problems). But a somehow astonishing detail: I do use two absolutely identical machines - one based on linux, one running win xp. take a look at the benches: GenuineIntel Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz Number of CPUs 1 Operating System Linux 2.6.11.4-21.7-defaultdell p4 2.8 linux Measured floating point speed 706.54 million ops/sec Measured integer speed 2157.9 million ops/sec -- GenuineIntel Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.80GHz Number of CPUs 1 Operating System Microsoft Windows XP Professional Edition, Service Pack 1, (05.01.2600.00) Measured floating point speed 1419.5 million ops/sec Measured integer speed 2736.3 million ops/sec That´s quite interesting, isn't it? |
11)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Why just half the credit than the others in one result?
(Message 10249)
Posted 17 Sep 2005 by 5th.rider Post: @Travis DJ first - thx for your advices - I really do appreciate! My AV was from H+B EDV, called AntiVirGuard - at http://www.free-av.de After crashing of the boinc-client I was wandering through the CPDN fora and found that this one's non-compatible. After deinstalling the AV now CPDN seems to run - at least computing is further it was when the client crashed. The failure doesn't seem to be caused by filechecking, because disabling AV doesn't help. At least none at the cpdn fora did solve this - and I surely won't be able too. So a new AV will be next. Of course I do not want to danger the results I provide - better say the computing I donate. And of course I do OC very smooth - 5Mhz up, testing, and so on. I didn't reach the limit of the cpu or the ram yet (tested cpu 2800, ram 250), but this was too hot and noisy because all fans needed to run fullspeed. And I didn't feel well about OCing the RAM that much. So I reduced to my current config - but this is still "under costruction". And again of course, all is tested with prime, superpi, memtest,..., and boinc projects. One last thing I like to contradict - in my opinion it is a matter of "how many results". Results - not credits! Because it's all about providing CERN (and all the other boinc-projects out there) the best support I can offer. If I can help CERN scientists meeting their deadlines, making this gigantic machinery work - that´s what I crunch for. Not for beating statistics or personal records - although it's nice to compete sometimes ;-) 5th.rider |
12)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Why just half the credit than the others in one result?
(Message 10245)
Posted 17 Sep 2005 by 5th.rider Post: Hi there, maby I am making myself looking stupid now... The invalid result I produced was caused by my AntiVirus-prog, which doesn't like CPDN and crashed the whole boinc-client. I never had any troubles concerning invalid results - so I can't follow you right now. I do agree Travis DJ, and I can follow ( and I do agree with) his argues. But (again) - as long as I am receiving validations - the computing on my side should be fine? Or is it possible to scrumble a result without lhc recognizing? Could they validate a scrumbled result? sorry for asking this again - as I said, I also use Boinc-projects for being sure I don't OC too high and have a healthy system. Thx to you all! 5th.rider |
13)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Why just half the credit than the others in one result?
(Message 10242)
Posted 17 Sep 2005 by 5th.rider Post: Hi Travis, thx for your advice. I didn´t know about the problems OC could make to lhc. In fact Boinc projects are (also) used by me for stability (and performance) tests because of their intensive work. I thought that I would be able to recognize a "too high OC" by receiving "invaild results" if I'd reach a level cpu/ram/whatever hw-component couldn´t work properly. like all other software i use for testing, if it get´s unstable I am told. Isn't there a similar behaviour by boinc by validating the result? Pls correct me if I am wrong at this? At last - yes, this is about donating my resources for cern. ( and I do not feel slammed at all) - but why donate less I can? |
14)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Why just half the credit than the others in one result?
(Message 10236)
Posted 17 Sep 2005 by 5th.rider Post: @GX1020 HI, I can see a huge rise of my computing power by increasing fsb (and not touching multiplier). I benched follwing results: athlon64 wichestercore def.@2GHz, ram ocwear pc3200 def.@200Mhz cpu ram BoincBench 2000 200 -> 1887/3531 2400 200 -> 2270/4229 2600 217 -> 2502/4673 tbc ;-) in fact it seems for computing power that the cpu doesnt really care if it is triggered i.e. 300*9 or 270*10 - benchresults are about the same. thx for threadmaster hint - didn't know this. I'll try later on. 5th.rider |
15)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Why just half the credit than the others in one result?
(Message 10232)
Posted 17 Sep 2005 by 5th.rider Post: Hi GX1020, Michael, thx. Didn´t see the "invalid state". There was cdpn project which blew up (already did find the reason - my antivir). It seems that this also destroyed this particular lhc... :-( @Michael -yes, it´s a overclocked machine - but quit stable - no problems til now (athlon64 2Ghz@2,6 right now, still trying to reach 2.8 for comparing with my 2.8 P4 - altough the amd is already much much faster). Thx for your fast help! 5th.rider |
16)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Why just half the credit than the others in one result?
(Message 10228)
Posted 17 Sep 2005 by 5th.rider Post: Hi there, could someone tell me what happend to canonical result 3039723 -> my resultid: 3039726 by Computer 53613 15 Sep 2005 5:58:50 UTC 16 Sep 2005 4:57:38 UTC Over Success Done 6,520.75 claimed 27.08 granted 12.82 - all others granted 25,64 Why am I receiving just half the amount of credits the others do? Can someone pls. explain this behaviour to me? Best regards 5th.rider |
©2025 CERN