compute error

Annika
Annika
Joined: 8 Aug 06
Posts: 720
Credit: 494410
RAC: 0

Well, I do have an idea how

Well, I do have an idea how to start the client before the manager- I always use "screen" for that (I'm running Debian but I think screen is available for other flavors of Linux aswell). Bit the errors are completely new to me...

th3
th3
Joined: 24 Aug 06
Posts: 208
Credit: 2208434
RAC: 0

RE: BTW my cpu is far from

Quote:
BTW my cpu is far from overheating, but its a bit undervolted though.


Undervolting a CPU will give errors, Im sure its not prime stable (try Orthos for a few hours to confirm). Even if the errors started just lately its for sure your undervolting that is the reason, you just cant run a volt-starved CPU for extended periods without trouble, it will surface sooner or later.

And if you think you know better than Intel how many volts your CPU needs then think again =)

hitsov
hitsov
Joined: 2 Dec 06
Posts: 14
Credit: 38212
RAC: 0

RE: RE: BTW my cpu is far

Message 60434 in response to message 60433

Quote:
Quote:
BTW my cpu is far from overheating, but its a bit undervolted though.

Undervolting a CPU will give errors, Im sure its not prime stable (try Orthos for a few hours to confirm). Even if the errors started just lately its for sure your undervolting that is the reason, you just cant run a volt-starved CPU for extended periods without trouble, it will surface sooner or later.

And if you think you know better than Intel how many volts your CPU needs then think again =)

Ok you may be right but why than it doesnt give me validation errors when comparing the results, but it behaves like the application crashed?
And and i didnt undervolt the cpu a lot. That is why you've got the option to under/over-volt the cpu there is a range and no cpu is exactly like the other.Some overclock more some overclock less. It also depends on how good your PSU is how good the mobo and the voltage regulators on it is... so you cant just say "Its undervolted". I dont thinkl its just that.

DanNeely
DanNeely
Joined: 4 Sep 05
Posts: 1364
Credit: 3562358667
RAC: 0

Undervolting may or maynot

Undervolting may or maynot destablize your CPU. Intel/AMD don't have the time to perform an extended burnin process to find the exact performance levels thier chips can reach. As a result they spec them conservatively, which is why overclockers can often gain a fair amount of performance even with stock voltage/cooling.

Prime95 loads your CPU harder than einstien does, so if you can pass 24-48hr stress tests on all 3 settings you should be fully stable at your current voltage/clocking (or at an error/month level at a minimum).

th3
th3
Joined: 24 Aug 06
Posts: 208
Credit: 2208434
RAC: 0

I had the same errors here

I had the same errors here when overclocking Intels, both P-D and Core2, upping the voltage always solved the problem for me. Well, except the last few errors i had, like yesterday, was already at max voltage mainboard could give, so then i obviously had to lower the clock instead. =) It just stops working and gives an error like "unrecoverable error for ......" whenever i clocked to high on too low vcore.

Just try to run it at default vcore for a few days and see if the errors keep coming back.

PS, dont use Prime95 for dualcore CPU, it will only stress one core, Orthos does the same tests with multicore autodetection.

transient
transient
Joined: 3 Jun 05
Posts: 62
Credit: 115835369
RAC: 0

RE: I had the same errors

Message 60437 in response to message 60436

Quote:

I had the same errors here when overclocking Intels, both P-D and Core2, upping the voltage always solved the problem for me. Well, except the last few errors i had, like yesterday, was already at max voltage mainboard could give, so then i obviously had to lower the clock instead. =) It just stops working and gives an error like "unrecoverable error for ......" whenever i clocked to high on too low vcore.

Just try to run it at default vcore for a few days and see if the errors keep coming back.

PS, dont use Prime95 for dualcore CPU, it will only stress one core, Orthos does the same tests with multicore autodetection.

You can run 2 instances of Prime95. That is what I did

hitsov
hitsov
Joined: 2 Dec 06
Posts: 14
Credit: 38212
RAC: 0

RE: Undervolting may or

Message 60438 in response to message 60435

Quote:

Undervolting may or maynot destablize your CPU. Intel/AMD don't have the time to perform an extended burnin process to find the exact performance levels thier chips can reach. As a result they spec them conservatively, which is why overclockers can often gain a fair amount of performance even with stock voltage/cooling.

Prime95 loads your CPU harder than einstien does, so if you can pass 24-48hr stress tests on all 3 settings you should be fully stable at your current voltage/clocking (or at an error/month level at a minimum).

[Wed Feb 14 15:02:23 2007]
Self-test 1024K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 15:02:57 2007]
Self-test 1024K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 15:18:35 2007]
Self-test 8K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 15:19:02 2007]
Self-test 8K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 15:35:15 2007]
Self-test 10K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 15:35:34 2007]
Self-test 10K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 15:51:37 2007]
Self-test 896K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 15:52:01 2007]
Self-test 896K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 16:06:43 2007]
Self-test 768K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 16:07:07 2007]
Self-test 768K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 16:23:00 2007]
Self-test 12K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 16:23:26 2007]
Self-test 12K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 16:39:32 2007]
Self-test 14K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 16:40:08 2007]
Self-test 14K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 16:54:40 2007]
Self-test 640K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 16:55:53 2007]
Self-test 640K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 17:11:01 2007]
Self-test 512K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 17:11:40 2007]
Self-test 512K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 17:27:28 2007]
Self-test 16K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 17:28:19 2007]
Self-test 16K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 17:44:06 2007]
Self-test 20K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 17:44:52 2007]
Self-test 20K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 18:00:50 2007]
Self-test 448K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 18:01:38 2007]
Self-test 448K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 18:16:23 2007]
Self-test 384K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 18:17:06 2007]
Self-test 384K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 18:32:05 2007]
Self-test 24K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 18:32:59 2007]
Self-test 24K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 18:48:56 2007]
Self-test 28K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 18:49:49 2007]
Self-test 28K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 19:06:15 2007]
Self-test 320K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 19:07:09 2007]
Self-test 320K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 19:21:21 2007]
Self-test 256K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 19:22:16 2007]
Self-test 256K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 19:37:29 2007]
Self-test 32K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 19:38:16 2007]
Self-test 32K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 19:54:05 2007]
Self-test 40K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 19:54:38 2007]
Self-test 40K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 20:10:54 2007]
Self-test 224K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 20:11:29 2007]
Self-test 224K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 20:27:11 2007]
Self-test 192K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 20:29:57 2007]
Self-test 192K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 20:44:46 2007]
Self-test 48K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 20:47:33 2007]
Self-test 48K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 21:01:20 2007]
Self-test 56K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 21:02:49 2007]
Self-test 56K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 21:16:44 2007]
Self-test 160K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 21:18:12 2007]
Self-test 160K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 21:33:23 2007]
Self-test 128K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 21:34:16 2007]
Self-test 128K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 21:48:50 2007]
Self-test 64K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 21:49:58 2007]
Self-test 64K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 22:04:46 2007]
Self-test 80K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 22:05:31 2007]
Self-test 80K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 22:22:14 2007]
Self-test 112K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 22:22:56 2007]
Self-test 112K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 22:37:29 2007]
Self-test 96K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 22:38:03 2007]
Self-test 96K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 22:52:40 2007]
Self-test 1280K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 22:53:16 2007]
Self-test 1280K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 23:07:42 2007]
Self-test 1536K passed!
[Wed Feb 14 23:10:40 2007]
Self-test 1536K passed!

That looks pretty stable for me.
8 hrs 23 min on both cores with 0 errors.
So can someone tell me what the problem is?

Sou'westerly
Sou'westerly
Joined: 9 Jun 06
Posts: 57
Credit: 715838
RAC: 0

RE: So can someone tell me

Message 60439 in response to message 60438

Quote:
So can someone tell me what the problem is?

Hitsov, I’m not a Linux man so I can’t give you any specific help. I do notice however that the most common exit status for your failed WUs is 103. This usually means that BOINC had a problem writing to disc. Two possibilities are:-
1, Early signs of a failing hard disc.
2, Files being locked by other programs scanning them and so preventing BOINC writing to them. Likely culprits are anti-virus and indexing programs, if you have such things on Linux.
If it is not these then you will have to look into the whole permissions thing in Linux and hopefully the Gurus here will be able to help you solve it.
Best of Luck, Dave.

revealed
revealed
Joined: 14 Nov 06
Posts: 6
Credit: 237393
RAC: 0

Hi im using SUSE 10.2 (32

Hi im using SUSE 10.2 (32 bit) with a Intel C2D

Quote:
2.6.18.2-34-default #1 SMP Mon Nov 27 11:46:27 UTC 2006 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux


Till now im still using the BOINC 5.4.11 as i found this was the only one working.
When i export the "export BROWSER=" funktion before starting "BOINC 5.8.new" this Version hasnt accepted this. It wont start any URL from BOINC at all. Stating there was no standard app for which i shall issue out. But i already did. And for the 5.4.11 its working. Just not for the 5.8.new.
Seems like a Problem to the new Client. And starting it gives some errors with Icons and buttons was not found?

Mayber u try the old 5.4.11 till they state a fix for this Bug? If it is one. But in my thought it is one, as i expierienced this on 2 Installations already.

Both been running SUSE 10.2 with the 5.4.11 and the 5.8.8(11) Refuses Work.
Also docking it to the Systray with "ksystraycmd" doesnt sadly work for the newer version.
My Starter for the 5.4.11 looks like this:

Quote:
export BROWSER=firefox && ksystraycmd /home/boinc/BOINC/run_manager


Hope this helped.

Kind reguards

R

hitsov
hitsov
Joined: 2 Dec 06
Posts: 14
Credit: 38212
RAC: 0

RE: RE: So can someone

Message 60441 in response to message 60439

Quote:
Quote:
So can someone tell me what the problem is?

Hitsov, I’m not a Linux man so I can’t give you any specific help. I do notice however that the most common exit status for your failed WUs is 103. This usually means that BOINC had a problem writing to disc. Two possibilities are:-
1, Early signs of a failing hard disc.
2, Files being locked by other programs scanning them and so preventing BOINC writing to them. Likely culprits are anti-virus and indexing programs, if you have such things on Linux.
If it is not these then you will have to look into the whole permissions thing in Linux and hopefully the Gurus here will be able to help you solve it.
Best of Luck, Dave.

Thank you so much for the answer.
This is really weird because my hard drive is pretty ne - 3months old 320Gb seagate 7200.10.
SMART is showing the drive is ok. Just ran a test on it its showing its OK again.

I dont have an antivirus prog on my pc, but i do have an indexing program which however rung at 4:30AM for about 5 min.
Maybe its a BOINC problem after all.
Or a kernel bug, but i think its less likely.
Cheers!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.