D41.xx Observation Thread

Raistmer*
Raistmer*
Joined: 20 Feb 05
Posts: 208
Credit: 180,189,304
RAC: 11,821

RE: RE: Athlon

Message 29842 in response to message 29825

Quote:
Quote:
Athlon Thoroughbred 2400+
D41.12
3914 +/- 8 av.59 - validated
2 invalidated (0 credit).
Don't forget that D41.12 produces worse results than D41.13/14.


Yes, sure :) But I recived only 2 invalid results that not affect science (cause no new WUs were issued) and no computation errors on this PC.
So i just keeped D41.12 till reliable statistics were gathered. Now on S41.07 - results in corresponding thread (S-version faster on this PC).

Nightbird
Nightbird
Joined: 17 Feb 05
Posts: 79
Credit: 561,723
RAC: 0

My machine (Barton 2500+ -

My machine (Barton 2500+ - Win98SE) has some "difficulties" with wus z1_1384.0 but look at this one running D41.13 :
wuid=8140486
computer : 27340

cpu time : 21,812.38 sec.
(usually ~ 3,500 sec)

[

Akos Fekete
Akos Fekete
Joined: 13 Nov 05
Posts: 561
Credit: 4,527,270
RAC: 0

RE: My machine (Barton

Message 29844 in response to message 29843

Quote:
My machine (Barton 2500+ - Win98SE) has some "difficulties" with wus z1_1384.0 but look at this one running D41.13 :
...
cpu time : 21,812.38 sec.
(usually ~ 3,500 sec)

Probably and other task used your CPU for ~18000 sec during this calculation just the Win98 (Win95,WinMe) wasn't able to calculate the task times correctly.

archae86
archae86
Joined: 6 Dec 05
Posts: 3,146
Credit: 7,098,854,931
RAC: 1,301,951

RE: RE: My machine

Message 29845 in response to message 29844

Quote:
Quote:
My machine (Barton 2500+ - Win98SE) has some "difficulties" with wus z1_1384.0 but look at this one running D41.13 :
...
cpu time : 21,812.38 sec.
(usually ~ 3,500 sec)
Probably and other task used your CPU for ~18000 sec during this calculation just the Win98 (Win95,WinMe) wasn't able to calculate the task times correctly.

Another possibility is that the timer was not even measuring time.

One of my two Win98SE machines has timing accuracy failures of two severe types.

1. Once in a while it just starts double counting time. You can set and watch a WU in progress and just see the CPU time column in BOINCmgr go up ten seconds for each elapsed five seconds. In my experience, if I exit BOINCmgr and restart before the WU is complete, the "correct" CPU time comes back from somewhere, and is reported, but if the WU completes, is uploaded and reported before a restart, the double time goes right on through. It then wreaks havoc on things like Result Duration Correction Factor. I see this fault on one of my two Win98SE machines about once a week, the other seldom if ever.

2. Just once or maybe twice, I've seen the first Win98SE host go a mode of claiming zero CPU time for its work. I saw this just recently on May 6. For example:
zero CPU time result
In this case the result validated and I got normal credit--so just the time was wrong.

I can also affirm that I weekly observe the case akosf mentions here. Each week both Win98SE machines do a Norton virus scan check, and the result in progress claims something like an extra hour of CPU time.

Win98SE and accurate BOINC cpu time don't go together, but these two old Pentium III's running akosf code are as productive as far more modern machines before akosf.

Ulrich Metzner
Ulrich Metzner
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 113
Credit: 963,370
RAC: 0

First irregularity on this

First irregularity on this workunit:
http://einsteinathome.org/workunit/8120674
there this result:
http://einsteinathome.org/task/28917157
Error: Checked, but no consensus yet

Aloha, Uli

Erik
Erik
Joined: 14 Feb 06
Posts: 2,815
Credit: 2,645,600
RAC: 0

RE: First irregularity on

Message 29847 in response to message 29846

Quote:
First irregularity on this workunit:
http://einsteinathome.org/workunit/8120674
there this result:
http://einsteinathome.org/task/28917157
Error: Checked, but no consensus yet



There was a problem with the validator at the time and they sent the wu back out to 3 more computers. I see that you was granted credit for it. Glad you posted, because you answered an earlier question I had submitted.

Ulrich Metzner
Ulrich Metzner
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 113
Credit: 963,370
RAC: 0

RE: (...) I see that you

Message 29848 in response to message 29847

Quote:
(...) I see that you was granted credit for it. (...)

Unfortunately not, as you can see here: http://einsteinathome.org/workunit/8120674. My computer is No. 7269

Aloha, Uli

Erik
Erik
Joined: 14 Feb 06
Posts: 2,815
Credit: 2,645,600
RAC: 0

RE: RE: (...) I see that

Message 29849 in response to message 29848

Quote:
Quote:
(...) I see that you was granted credit for it. (...)
Unfortunately not, as you can see here: http://einsteinathome.org/workunit/8120674. My computer is No. 7269

Sorry, I should've been more specific. Yes, if you look at the credit for all the machines that worked on that particular wu, it shows "-" in the claimed and granted columns. But if you click on the result ID and scroll down to the claimed and granted credit it will show 10.70 & 34.77 respectively.

Compare on two of my results (as of at this moment): granted and not granted.

thezfunk
thezfunk
Joined: 25 Feb 05
Posts: 14
Credit: 7,031,224
RAC: 0

Is D41.14 still kind of buggy

Is D41.14 still kind of buggy or dare I upgrade to it?

B52
B52
Joined: 19 Feb 05
Posts: 45
Credit: 273,899
RAC: 0

RE: Is D41.14 still kind of

Message 29851 in response to message 29850

Quote:
Is D41.14 still kind of buggy or dare I upgrade to it?

I have been using D14.14 on my t-bird 1.2 ghz for some time now. Absolutly no problems at my end. All results have been validated OK.

Comment viewing options

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