Posts by Ananas

21) Message boards : Number crunching : sixtracktest v450.09 (sse3) windows x86 : CreateProcess() failed (Message 26392) Posted 3 May 2014 by Ananas Post: Same for sixtrack_win32_4513_sse3.exe, works fine on XP Btw., 451.03 is listed as "sixtracktest" but filename is "sixtrack". This might be purpose of course but Justin Case told me to mention it
22) Message boards : Number crunching : sixtracktest v450.09 (sse3) windows x86 : CreateProcess() failed (Message 26391) Posted 3 May 2014 by Ananas Post: Same for sixtrack_win32_4513_sse3.exe, works fine on XP
23) Message boards : Number crunching : sixtracktest v450.09 (sse3) windows x86 : CreateProcess() failed (Message 26388) Posted 1 May 2014 by Ananas Post: Thumbs up for sixtracktest_win32_4512_sse3.exe (basic standalone test) : 14:37:09 (7720): Can't open init data file - running in standalone mode 14:37:09 (7720): called boinc_finish It created all dummy result files (including the final ZIP) and shows no weird message boxes anymore :-) The dependency walker still finds the same missing DLLs but this binary runs anyway.
24) Message boards : Number crunching : sixtracktest v450.09 (sse3) windows x86 : CreateProcess() failed (Message 26382) Posted 29 Apr 2014 by Ananas Post: Standalone test : failed on XP :-/ All three sse3/pni binaries are identical btw., win64 and both win32 are the same file.
25) Message boards : News : WU Submission SUSPENDED 19th April, 2014 (Message 26381) Posted 29 Apr 2014 by Ananas Post: Still no luck with sixtracktest_win32_4511_pni.exe / sixtracktest_win32_4511_sse3.exe on XP
26) Message boards : Number crunching : sixtracktest v450.09 (sse3) windows x86 : CreateProcess() failed (Message 26370) Posted 25 Apr 2014 by Ananas Post: sixtracktest_win32_4509_pni.exe with size 3,899,392 (April 25, 08:30) does not work on my XP x86, the dependency walker reports the same unresolved DLLs
27) Message boards : Number crunching : sixtracktest v450.09 (sse3) windows x86 : CreateProcess() failed (Message 26364) Posted 22 Apr 2014 by Ananas Post: The page title sounds somehow promising : https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/linking-applications-using-visual-studio-2012-to-run-on-windows-xp Here's some more on setting the targeted environment with screenshots : http://blogs.msdn.com/b/vcblog/archive/2012/10/08/10357555.aspx p.s.: If you need someone to run the basic standalone (offline) test, just upload the binary somewhere and post the link here, I'm 100% sure a lot of people will jump in and see if it runs on their systems (including me)
28) Message boards : Number crunching : sixtracktest v450.09 (sse3) windows x86 : CreateProcess() failed (Message 26358) Posted 21 Apr 2014 by Ananas Post: Suspicious (unresolved) dependencies : IESHIMS.DLL and WER.DLL Try static linking. After downloading those two DLLs, it still isn't happy. Missing now : API-MS-WIN-DOWNLEVEL-ADVAPI32-L1-1-0.DLL (referenced from IESHIMS.DLL) API-MS-WIN-DOWNLEVEL-OLE32-L1-1-0.DLL (referenced from IESHIMS.DLL) API-MS-WIN-DOWNLEVEL-SHLWAPI-L1-1-0.DLL (referenced from IESHIMS.DLL) NCRYPT.DLL (referenced from WER.DLL) Actually it seems that you have (dyn-) linked half the IE8 (or higher) API to the program, I wonder if that could not be excluded (project properties or so). Maybe some specific module of the .net framework requires that stuff. p.s.: Somewhere in a newsgroup I saw someone mention the same problem with Visual Fortran and he solved it by recompiling his stuff in "release mode" - sounds good as this usually produces files with much less overhead and without referring to non-distributable files that are part of the IDE and/or debug environment
29) Message boards : Number crunching : sixtracktest v450.09 (sse3) windows x86 : CreateProcess() failed (Message 26357) Posted 21 Apr 2014 by Ananas Post: The "file" command checks for some typical details for a file type, e.g. "MZ" as the first two letters, it cannot check for missing shared libraries, illegal use of privileged instructions and stuff like that. Maybe an interesting detail that I did not notice in my first offline test : After confirming the message box ("not a valid application"), it sends the text "Zugriff verweigert" / "access denied" to stderr (console, not disk file). The reason why an offline test should run on a machine without IDE is, that shell environment, paths, debug environment, special libraries ... on a development machine might be untypical and often cannot be compared to a "plain" windows installation.
30) Message boards : Number crunching : sixtracktest v450.09 (sse3) windows x86 : CreateProcess() failed (Message 26354) Posted 20 Apr 2014 by Ananas Post: here and on all others I received on this box When I start the program outside of BOINC, it tells me that it is not a "zulässige Win32-Anwendung" (valid application for Win32) The binary has an unusual large number of 0x00 bytes at the end. I downloaded a sixtrack_win32_4463_sse3.exe for comparison, that one does start properly and creates stderr with "15:49:08 (7132): Can't open init data file - running in standalone mode" ... edit : this is a basic test you should do on a machine without the development environment before you upload the new program An x64 wingman has the same problem : couldn't start CreateProcess() failed - : -148
31) Message boards : Number crunching : Invalid tasks (Message 26352) Posted 17 Apr 2014 by Ananas Post: Here we have quite a strange invalid result : wuid=16556468 One of the first two delivered workunits has been returned after the deadline, so the server side scheduler decided to send out some more. The second one (in time Linux) didn't validate against the third and fourth (both in time Win x64), but when the delayed first result (Win x64) came back, it validated against the Linux result.
32) Message boards : Number crunching : Not getting tasks. Probably need help (Message 26326) Posted 7 Apr 2014 by Ananas Post: You're running a >10 days CPDN task AND you had some of those underrated LHC tasks lately which messed up the task duration correction factor of your host (don't worry, that will fix itself, but it needs quite a few "normal" results), maybe that's why your BOINC client "thinks" that the work cache contents are sufficient to meet your preferences. You can try to modify the "... and up to an additional" cache settings in your global preferences, sometimes that helps. Don't set this value too high, that sometimes has the opposite effect (when the server side scheduler "thinks" that your cache is overloaded).
33) Message boards : Number crunching : w8_job_tracking jobs need higher rsc_fpops_est (Message 26318) Posted 2 Apr 2014 by Ananas Post: Those things run 10+ hours on my C2Q 9400, compared to other LHC jobs their estimated runtime is much too low (I think it should be ~5 times as high as it is now). Not a big problem as long as rsc_fpops_bound is sufficient, the scheduler might deliver too much work to a machine though if the runtime is underestimated so much.
34) Message boards : Number crunching : Invalid tasks (Message 26316) Posted 30 Mar 2014 by Ananas Post: currently 8 inconclusive, 1 invalid, 768 valid Inconclusive/invalid had been down to 0 for a while.
35) Message boards : News : Status, March 2014 (Message 26313) Posted 25 Mar 2014 by Ananas Post: Not even one inconclusive in this batch for me :-) ... still get slightly different results ... Nothing really changed in the result quality. Before : The inconclusive workunits became either results with windows rounding or with ix rounding after the third result has been returned. The third result decides about win or ix. Now : The workunits, that would have been inconclusive become either results with windows rounding or with ix rounding. They just skip the temporary "inconclusive" state now. The first result decides about win or ix.
36) Message boards : News : Status, March 2014 (Message 26309) Posted 23 Mar 2014 by Ananas Post: LHC@Home has a large user base, if nothing else helps, you could still configure homogenous redundancy level 2 (the basic 4-classes OS level, ignoring the CPU vendors)
37) Message boards : Number crunching : Invalid tasks (Message 26295) Posted 14 Mar 2014 by Ananas Post: ... (By the way I cannot undrestand why Intel has different Code generation between Linux/Windows. A different OS interface OK....but why code generation which is surely just hardware dependent!) ... The CPUs sure do the same - but the math. functions are often compiler specific, sometimes in the floating point libraries that the programs rely on, sometimes in the generated code. Microsoft for example used to change their rounding policy nearly from each x86 version to the next. With GCC, if you tell the linker to use a specific runtime library (which then has to be delivered with the project files), you can get identical results between Windows versions that would differ if you used the bundled runtime libraries. Afaik. the windows x64 libraries (currently) produce identical rounded results, independant from the windows version, so the problem is worse in x86. We didn't manage to get guaranteed identical results at RNA-World between Linux and Windows, so the project decided to deliver two results of the same workunit always to the same operating system class. This solved the validator problem - but it is sure not the ideal way. Einstein ) (or Pirates or both together) did a lot of research on this issue, afaik. they have written their own libraries. I cannot give you reliable informations about the functions they use, but they might have something like wrappers for the standard libraries, but with a reproducable rounding behaviour. ) The project, not the guy with the funny haircut :-)
38) Message boards : Number crunching : 1.6 GHZ takes over 160,000 seconds. Possible to get LHCatH preference for short WU?? (Message 26261) Posted 11 Mar 2014 by Ananas Post: A bit OT, but maybe still interesting in this context : In this one of your results, your wingman has been a (dual CPU) Xeon L5520 The latest Atom CPU (C2750, 8x 2.40GHz) has been benchmarked against the L5520 (single CPU) and those two CPUs have about the same average crunching power - but the L5520 (the "L" indicates it is tagged "low power") has a TDP of 60W whereas the C2750 has only 20W. So when it comes to Atom CPUs, it is a good idea to compare the efficiency rather than the plain floating point power, because that's what they have been optimized for.
39) Message boards : Number crunching : Server can't open database (Message 26232) Posted 6 Mar 2014 by Ananas Post: Message from server : Server can't open database when trying to contact the scheduler. Maybe too many connections as work currently flows steadily. edit : Not a constant problem, it occurs now and then.
40) Message boards : Number crunching : Sixtrack with newer CPU extentions (Message 26230) Posted 4 Mar 2014 by Ananas Post: oops, I thought that SSE3 came later than P4 - but I skipped that CPU type and went from Tualatin and Thoroughbred (and one Dothan) to Core2. Thanks for clearing that up.

Previous 20 · Next 20

LHC@home