|
1)
Message boards :
Sixtrack Application :
Inconclusive results
(Message 39780)
Posted 31 Aug 2019 by Stick Post: Eric - No apologies necessary. But thank you for the reply.! Stick Hi Stick, yes this is a real pain in the neck. Seen it often. |
|
2)
Message boards :
Sixtrack Application :
Inconclusive results
(Message 39756)
Posted 29 Aug 2019 by Stick Post: Slightly different take on this issue. This task https://lhcathome.cern.ch/lhcathome/result.php?resultid=244146071 is a tie breaker for an Inconclusive WU. It was created last weekend and is still unsent at this time. I had just assumed that the tiebreaker was somewhere in the queue and would be issued eventually. But earlier today, I noticed that one of my hosts had requested new tasks and received a No Sixtract Tasks Available message. Just wondering if there may be a problem with resends getting issued. OTOH, maybe the project had temporarily halted issuing all sixtract tasks at the time my host was requesting. |
|
3)
Message boards :
News :
new SixTrack version 5.02.05 released on BOINC for production
(Message 38757)
Posted 9 May 2019 by Stick Post: Thank you for the suggestion - but I'm not ready to learn a new OS at this time. So, I have set my Win XP hosts to NNT. |
|
4)
Message boards :
News :
new SixTrack version 5.02.05 released on BOINC for production
(Message 38739)
Posted 7 May 2019 by Stick Post: I have 2 old hosts running Win XP. Both of them are receiving new Sixtract 5.02.05 tasks and both of them crash the new tasks immediately.. Hopefully, you are planning to fix the new app. But, if not, I suggest you fix the download server to block systems that cannot run the new app from getting new tasks. https://lhcathome.cern.ch/lhcathome/show_host_detail.php?hostid=9631414 https://lhcathome.cern.ch/lhcathome/show_host_detail.php?hostid=9631419 |
|
5)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Message Board Issues ???
(Message 34341)
Posted 9 Feb 2018 by Stick Post: Just wondering if anybody else has experienced any problems with the message boards recently? A couple of hours ago, I replied to a message Deborah had posted on the Theory Application : Theory tasks all failing thread and I noticed a couple of strange things happened while writing my post. Specifically, when I opened the thread to read her message, her message was the only post on the thread and because her message was unanswered, I started drafting my reply, I also opened a second window (to find a message I wanted to reference) and began copying/pasting info into the message I was drafting. During that process, the window in which I was writing my reply was "updated?"/became intermingled with strange data, I later realized that this "update?" was a garbled refresh of the thread which included posted replies which I had not seen when I first opened it.. The problems seem to be gone now. So it looks to me that I just happened to be posting during a time when the MB server may have been having some transient issues. Just thought you'd like to know. |
|
6)
Message boards :
Theory Application :
Theory tasks all failing
(Message 34337)
Posted 9 Feb 2018 by Stick Post: This is from the first message posted in the VM Applications Errors thread. The sentence highlighted in red could be your problem, especially if you are using Win 10. EXIT_ABORTED_BY_CLIENT (194) |
|
7)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Persistent Windows 10/VM EXIT_ABORTED_BY_CLIENT (194) Errors
(Message 32521)
Posted 25 Sep 2017 by Stick Post: The problem (with the new host) appears to have been the bios hardware virtualization setting (now enabled). A Theory task is now running and is well passed the previous 25 minute failure point. (And another task is in "the waiting to start" queue.) My earlier stated concern regarding Win 10 Pro vs. Win 10 Home was not relevant. Win 10 Home won't run Hyper V but is apparently OK to run Vbox as long as the virtualization bios setting is enabled. Fixing the bios on old Win 10 host is proving to be more difficult. It is too old to access the bios via the UEFI route and when I try the F2 boot option it wants a password (and I have no idea what it is). Don't have time to research it right now. Again, thanks to everyone who replied - you were a big help. |
|
8)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Persistent Windows 10/VM EXIT_ABORTED_BY_CLIENT (194) Errors
(Message 32518)
Posted 25 Sep 2017 by Stick Post: Thanks to all who replied. Obviously, I am not up-to-speed on virtualization and have some reading to do. So far, I have only scanned one article. But I saw something that is probably pertinent in my case: Windows 10 Home vs Windows 10 Pro. Again, thanks to everyone for pointing me in the right direction. |
|
9)
Message boards :
Number crunching :
Persistent Windows 10/VM EXIT_ABORTED_BY_CLIENT (194) Errors
(Message 32512)
Posted 24 Sep 2017 by Stick Post: I have 3 Win 10 hosts - all have the latest Win updates, BOINC 7.8.2, and VirtualBox-5.1.28. One has always run VM/Theory tasks flawlessly. The other 2 always fail with "heartbeat errors" after about 25 minutes runtime and getting to 1.850% complete. Project resets and installing/repairing newer versions of VirtualBox do not help. One of the failing hosts is only about a week old (and came loaded with Win 10). The other failing host is fairly old and came loaded with Win 7. It ran VM tasks without any problems on Win 7. The problem started immediately after updating to Win 10 and since then all the new releases of BOINC and VB were faithfully installed (and the project reset) - all to no avail. The host that runs VM tasks came loaded with Win 8. And, it has never had any problems running VM tasks on either Win 8 or 10. I have looked at set up issues, preferences, etc. for differences between the hosts and, although there are some, none seem pertinent. Any ideas? |
|
10)
Message boards :
Sixtrack Application :
Tasks aborted by project and BOINC 7.8.0
(Message 31623)
Posted 25 Jul 2017 by Stick Post: Thanks for the feedback. I "accidentally" caused the tasks to be aborted. My main thought was that the new BOINC developmental version had caused a server/client "sync" problem. But Toby's response put that idea to bed pretty quickly. |
|
11)
Message boards :
Sixtrack Application :
Tasks aborted by project and BOINC 7.8.0
(Message 31582)
Posted 23 Jul 2017 by Stick Post: I was reviewing my tasks a while ago and noticed that the page showed only 1 task "In progress". But I had just looked at the active tasks listed by BOINC Manager on my Host 10342612 and it had 3 tasks "In progress" - all were several hours in and showing 30% to 50% complete. Looking a little further, I discovered that the 1 "In progress" task listed on the tasks page was on a different host and that the 3 on Host 10342612 were not listed at all. So I did an Update (see log below) and all 3 were aborted by project: 7/23/2017 4:08:14 PM | LHC@home | update requested by user and then I did another Update to report them. 7/23/2017 4:15:07 PM | LHC@home | update requested by user After the second Update, I looked at the tasks list again and still couldn't find the 3 tasks. I should note that I updated to BOINC 7.8.0 several days ago. It is a Development version and has the warning (MAY BE UNSTABLE - USE ONLY FOR TESTING) - so I suspect this strange behavior can be blamed mainly on it. OTOH, considering the recent problems with Sixtract here, there might also be an issue with LHC. I just wanted to make you aware. I will also post a link on the BOINC message boards. I should note that BOINC 7.8.0 has also reported several Sixtract tasks successfully. |
|
12)
Message boards :
Sixtrack Application :
Inconclusive, valid/invalid results
(Message 31471)
Posted 17 Jul 2017 by Stick Post: Right, I haven't forgotten. I shall try and look at this fully tomorrow. You obviously have a great memory. OTOH, I have CRS. Although, Hostid 10388131 had been reported previously, I just noticed it again, for the first time, today - when it caused my inconclusive count to got up by 1. Sorry for being redundant. |
|
13)
Message boards :
Sixtrack Application :
Inconclusive, valid/invalid results
(Message 31460)
Posted 17 Jul 2017 by Stick Post: You probably also need to look at Host 10388131. It is a Linux 3.19.0-32-generic/AMD FX(tm)-8300 Eight-Core Processor [Family 21 Model 2 Stepping 0] machine. It has a high count of inconclusives and invalids. And, it is still getting new tasks. |
|
14)
Message boards :
Sixtrack Application :
Inconclusive, valid/invalid results
(Message 31188)
Posted 29 Jun 2017 by Stick Post: I thought an update of my inconclusives is warranted here. After the old validator was reimplemented my inconclusives immediately dropped back to 5 from around 18. Since then, they have slowly climbed back to the current level of 19. And, as I stated below (relative to the new validator), the new group is different. That is, I am not only getting inconclusives when paired with x86_64-pc-linux-gnu hosts but now, also with some Windows hosts: see Validation inconclusive tasks for Stick Don't know if this is good or bad news, but immediately after the validator change, my inconclusive count jumped from 6 to 11. And the new group is very different. Prior to the change, all 6 of my inconclusives were paired against tasks done by x86_64-pc-linux-gnu machines. Now, 4 out of the 5 new ones were pairings between my SixTrack v451.07 (sse2) windows_x86_64 tasks and a variety of machines running SixTrack v451.07 (pni) windows_x86_64. |
|
15)
Message boards :
Sixtrack Application :
Inconclusive, valid/invalid results
(Message 31057)
Posted 25 Jun 2017 by Stick Post: Don't know if this is good or bad news, but immediately after the validator change, my inconclusive count jumped from 6 to 11. And the new group is very different. Prior to the change, all 6 of my inconclusives were paired against tasks done by x86_64-pc-linux-gnu machines. Now, 4 out of the 5 new ones were pairings between my SixTrack v451.07 (sse2) windows_x86_64 tasks and a variety of machines running SixTrack v451.07 (pni) windows_x86_64. |
|
16)
Message boards :
Sixtrack Application :
Inconclusive, valid/invalid results
(Message 31021)
Posted 24 Jun 2017 by Stick Post: I now have 6 inconclusives, all paired with x86_64-pc-linux-gnu hosts. Two of them are the kind Desti reported (1 long runtime, 1 very short): https://lhcathome.cern.ch/lhcathome/workunit.php?wuid=71263850 https://lhcathome.cern.ch/lhcathome/workunit.php?wuid=70924203 Both are from the same i5 processor - the one I reported earlier. |
|
17)
Message boards :
Sixtrack Application :
Inconclusive, valid/invalid results
(Message 31020)
Posted 24 Jun 2017 by Stick Post: Deleted and reposted after edit. |
|
18)
Message boards :
Sixtrack Application :
Inconclusive, valid/invalid results
(Message 30918)
Posted 21 Jun 2017 by Stick Post: You might want to look at All SixTrack tasks for computer 10452223. I am not sure if this is a good example of the thread's topic issue or just an example of one computer with problems. Obviously, I haven't done a thorough analysis, but I have noticed a lot of inconclusives when paired against Windows hosts. OTOH, it does have a number of valid results and, predominately, those seem to have been when paired against other x86_64-pc-linux-gnu hosts. |
|
19)
Message boards :
Sixtrack Application :
260.000 WUs to send, but no handed out
(Message 28787)
Posted 4 Feb 2017 by Stick Post: I am only guessing, but I think the issue here is related to the validation problem discussed on the MacOS executable thread. Right now, there is a large number of inconclusives in the DB but they are not yet sending out the tiebreakers. (Because they are still working on a fix.) That's how the server status can show WU's to send but none are actually going out. |
|
20)
Message boards :
Sixtrack Application :
MacOS executable
(Message 28770)
Posted 2 Feb 2017 by Stick Post: I suggest someone look carefully at All tasks for computer 10357822 before deciding how to resolve the validation vs. scientifically correct results issue. This computer is currently showing that is has returned over 25,000 Sixtrack results and approximately 24,500 of them are inconclusive. I believe the computer is most likely malfunctioning in some way and returning unreliable results - as evidenced by its 345 invalids and 5 errors. But, surprisingly, it also has returned 75 valids. Therefore, I suspect a substantial number of its inconclusives are truly invalid and not just "rounding errors". |
Next 20
©2024 CERN