Did you try a forum search for "shmget"? Though "No such file or directory" is another message than discussed there.
Gruß,
Gundolf
No, I had not. I'm not familiar with Unix (I should learn sometime--maybe after I finish my dissertation), so I failed to notice that message. There is a post on CPDN's boards about shared memory, but it was supposedly solved with BOINC 5.10.10.
I did increase the shared memory, so I'll see if that helps. Thanks for the link, Bikeman. That tutorial was very usefull.
For those who may be wondering how downgrading to BOINC 5.10.45 worked out, I've had two slab models finish successfully (8200621 and 8133874. One slab model failed due to a conflict with an application (OSXplanet) that I tried out during its run. Big mistake. Three CM3ivolc models failed due to a now known error with compilers in the Mac version that they are trying to fix.
So, in short, downgrading BOINC versions did not affect E@H and improved my performance with CPDN. I'd say it worked as far as I'm concerned.
I'm running crunch3r's 6.1.0 for Windows since a year or longer without any issue.
His Linux64-version get in trouble with my Suse10.2-64bit. I believe on missing libs or linkings but Berkeleys 64bit-client 5.10.45 makes also a good job and is even better as every beta-version like 6.2-4.X.
So does this mean you've joined the ranks of crunchers who feel that BOINC 6x is a big waste of time and effort? ;-)
Alinator
At this time, yes, although I'd qualify that with "if you are running CPDN." I've had no problems with BOINC 6 on any of the other projects I run. However, it appears that my jubilation with getting CPDN to work was premature.
I've had three system crashes in the last week. In each case, my crash log indicated that the problem was in my McAfee VirusScan antivirus software. The CPDN model I was running at the time crashed immediately when I restarted my computer. E@H units running simultaneously with the CPDN models were unaffected and finished normally. As these crashes only seem to occur when I am running a CPDN model and zap those models each time, I'm thinking the real problem might be a conflict between CPDN and McAfee. However, I'm not sure how to formally diagnose it or solve such a conflict.
As these crashes only seem to occur when I am running a CPDN model and zap those models each time, I'm thinking the real problem might be a conflict between CPDN and McAfee. However, I'm not sure how to formally diagnose it or solve such a conflict.
i had an issue where i couldnt get on to aol. turns out it was the "system guard" portion of mcafee the way to test your theory would be to disable mcafee for a while. however if it IS mcafee's live scanning thats causing the issue, weather the virus portion or script scanning, in my particulare version atleast i have been unable to find a way to exclude particulare files/folders from being scanned.
seeing without seeing is something the blind learn to do, and seeing beyond vision can be a gift.
At this time, yes, although I'd qualify that with "if you are running CPDN." I've had no problems with BOINC 6 on any of the other projects I run. However, it appears that my jubilation with getting CPDN to work was premature.
I've had three system crashes in the last week. In each case, my crash log indicated that the problem was in my McAfee VirusScan antivirus software. The CPDN model I was running at the time crashed immediately when I restarted my computer. E@H units running simultaneously with the CPDN models were unaffected and finished normally. As these crashes only seem to occur when I am running a CPDN model and zap those models each time, I'm thinking the real problem might be a conflict between CPDN and McAfee. However, I'm not sure how to formally diagnose it or solve such a conflict.
LOL...
I feel your pain!! Don't even get me started about Network Associates and the quality of their products. I dumped them before the change in millennium. ;-)
Symantec and CA weren't too bad until recently (at least from an operational impact for the rest of the system, their own UI performance is just plain awful unless you buy a new machine to go along with your new subscription every year. What's with that!!?? Sheesh). I have come to the conclusion that all the integrated 'do-all' security packages are more of a PITA than they are worth, especially since they all want you to cough more cash every year! :-D
I have come to the conclusion that all the integrated 'do-all' security packages are more of a PITA than they are worth, especially since they all want you to cough more cash every year! :-D
I have to admit, I'm a bit spoiled as far as SystemWorks. I have the Premier editions on both my computers. Disk Doctor has saved me once when I had a power failure and the MBR got trashed.
That said though, it is annoying that the subscription to renew is almost the same as the new version, which is naturally targeting more enhancements for Vista and not XP...
Since this is on a mac....
)
Since this is on a mac.... this could be related to the issue.
RE: Did you try a forum
)
No, I had not. I'm not familiar with Unix (I should learn sometime--maybe after I finish my dissertation), so I failed to notice that message. There is a post on CPDN's boards about shared memory, but it was supposedly solved with BOINC 5.10.10.
I did increase the shared memory, so I'll see if that helps. Thanks for the link, Bikeman. That tutorial was very usefull.
For those who may be
)
For those who may be wondering how downgrading to BOINC 5.10.45 worked out, I've had two slab models finish successfully (8200621 and 8133874. One slab model failed due to a conflict with an application (OSXplanet) that I tried out during its run. Big mistake. Three CM3ivolc models failed due to a now known error with compilers in the Mac version that they are trying to fix.
So, in short, downgrading BOINC versions did not affect E@H and improved my performance with CPDN. I'd say it worked as far as I'm concerned.
LOL... So does this mean
)
LOL...
So does this mean you've joined the ranks of crunchers who feel that BOINC 6x is a big waste of time and effort? ;-)
Alinator
I use an early BOINC 6.x.x -
)
I use an early BOINC 6.x.x - 6.1.0 - and all has run fine for over a year.
Shih-Tzu are clever, cuddly, playful and rule!! Jack Russell are feisty!
I'm running crunch3r's 6.1.0
)
I'm running crunch3r's 6.1.0 for Windows since a year or longer without any issue.
His Linux64-version get in trouble with my Suse10.2-64bit. I believe on missing libs or linkings but Berkeleys 64bit-client 5.10.45 makes also a good job and is even better as every beta-version like 6.2-4.X.
RE: LOL... So does this
)
At this time, yes, although I'd qualify that with "if you are running CPDN." I've had no problems with BOINC 6 on any of the other projects I run. However, it appears that my jubilation with getting CPDN to work was premature.
I've had three system crashes in the last week. In each case, my crash log indicated that the problem was in my McAfee VirusScan antivirus software. The CPDN model I was running at the time crashed immediately when I restarted my computer. E@H units running simultaneously with the CPDN models were unaffected and finished normally. As these crashes only seem to occur when I am running a CPDN model and zap those models each time, I'm thinking the real problem might be a conflict between CPDN and McAfee. However, I'm not sure how to formally diagnose it or solve such a conflict.
RE: As these crashes only
)
i had an issue where i couldnt get on to aol. turns out it was the "system guard" portion of mcafee the way to test your theory would be to disable mcafee for a while. however if it IS mcafee's live scanning thats causing the issue, weather the virus portion or script scanning, in my particulare version atleast i have been unable to find a way to exclude particulare files/folders from being scanned.
seeing without seeing is something the blind learn to do, and seeing beyond vision can be a gift.
RE: At this time, yes,
)
LOL...
I feel your pain!! Don't even get me started about Network Associates and the quality of their products. I dumped them before the change in millennium. ;-)
Symantec and CA weren't too bad until recently (at least from an operational impact for the rest of the system, their own UI performance is just plain awful unless you buy a new machine to go along with your new subscription every year. What's with that!!?? Sheesh). I have come to the conclusion that all the integrated 'do-all' security packages are more of a PITA than they are worth, especially since they all want you to cough more cash every year! :-D
Alinator
RE: I have come to the
)
I have to admit, I'm a bit spoiled as far as SystemWorks. I have the Premier editions on both my computers. Disk Doctor has saved me once when I had a power failure and the MBR got trashed.
That said though, it is annoying that the subscription to renew is almost the same as the new version, which is naturally targeting more enhancements for Vista and not XP...