[quote Currently the validator marks about 0.3% of results INVALID. Most of these are probably valid, it's just that the validator has a difficult job to do and is sometimes too conservative. We've done our best to tune it, but at the 0.3% level we don't know how to improve it.
Bruce me thinks if you do a newer pole you will find that your 0.3% is rising
It's not rising. Look at the server status page, linked from Einstein@Home front page.
Quote:
I also urge you into looking into the recent examples of work unit ID's given on this post as you can still access,and as I believe the more examples we give you the better you are to solve the problem :)
Currently none of your machines have any invalid results for me to look at.
It is indeed the case that results from different OSes are more likely to disagree. So this leads to higher invalid rates for Linux and Mac OSX users, because there are fewer of them than Win32 users. But even for Mac OSX users (the minority at E@H) there are currently 16726 valid results in the database and 221 invalid results. This is an invalid rate of only about 1.3%, which is low enough for me not to be too concerned, even if most of these are due to the validator being too conservative.
Thanks for contributing to E@H. Please don't give up on us!
But even for Mac OSX users (the minority at E@H) there are currently 16726 valid results in the database and 221 invalid results. This is an invalid rate of only about 1.3%, which is low enough for me not to be too concerned, even if most of these are due to the validator being too conservative.
Bruce, 1.3% wouldn't bother me a bit... but I'm concerned that the figure might be much higher for certain CPUs within the "Mac OSX" group. All of the recent optimizations were for Altivec - I would expect if there are any problems, it would show up most on 7450/7455 G4s, second most on G5s and 7400/7410 G4s, not at all on other CPUs.
Obviously my G4 (7455) can do far more Einstein WUs than my G3, and I'll certainly leave it crunching - but I'll also keep an eye on the results, and if the "invalid" percentage gets TOO bad, then I'll just "shuffle" the Einstein work around to another box and suspend it on that one.
We won't know for some time - until at least 50 or so WUs have been returned from my G4, I'd consider any numbers as "statistically questionable".
But even for Mac OSX users (the minority at E@H) there are currently 16726 valid results in the database and 221 invalid results. This is an invalid rate of only about 1.3%, which is low enough for me not to be too concerned, even if most of these are due to the validator being too conservative.
Bruce, 1.3% wouldn't bother me a bit... but I'm concerned that the figure might be much higher for certain CPUs within the "Mac OSX" group. All of the recent optimizations were for Altivec - I would expect if there are any problems, it would show up most on 7450/7455 G4s, second most on G5s and 7400/7410 G4s, not at all on other CPUs.
Obviously my G4 (7455) can do far more Einstein WUs than my G3, and I'll certainly leave it crunching - but I'll also keep an eye on the results, and if the "invalid" percentage gets TOO bad, then I'll just "shuffle" the Einstein work around to another box and suspend it on that one.
We won't know for some time - until at least 50 or so WUs have been returned from my G4, I'd consider any numbers as "statistically questionable".
Bill, also keep in mind that the 1.3% is an average across ALL workunits. The results do depend upon the data set; it may be that there are some data sets that tend to produce larger differences across processors and/or architectures. For these specific workunits, the rate may be higher.
here http://einsteinathome.org/workunit/2051583 is a possible new example 3 have responded 2 quorum mine is (217662host)1(not mine)invalid 0 exit status however this message is loaded into stderr out Memory allocation failure for SpOutliers.ratio.( 100's of instances ) Will be interesting if result #4 will come back as valid .... will post if I see anymore I am involved in have 0 credit problem
here http://einsteinathome.org/workunit/2051583 is a possible new example 3 have responded 2 quorum mine is (217662host)1(not mine)invalid 0 exit status however this message is loaded into stderr out Memory allocation failure for SpOutliers.ratio.( 100's of instances ) Will be interesting if result #4 will come back as valid .... will post if I see anymore I am involved in have 0 credit problem
If you look at other recent results from Bolek, you'll see he also has a couple of rejections for "Client error Computing". These ARE exactly the kind of problems I was having before changing to the BETA App. Maybe our problems aren't so different after all.
I'm sorry for resurrecting this thread which had gone dormant but I felt I needed to add my own postscript to it. There are a number of points I wanted to make.
Unfortunately, I had to leave on business just after my last post on Sept 10. In fact that post was made as I was doing the final packing to catch my flight. I have now returned and am catching up with what has happened since I departed. I didn't want it to appear that I was no longer interested in the outcome of these discussions.
I would like to move a personal vote of thanks to Prof Bruce Allen for taking the trouble to give full and frank reasons as to why there is a small persistent validation failure. I fully accept that the rate is very low and that everything possible has been done to keep it at the minimum possible level. Unfortunately, some will be more conscious of this than others.
Bruce was kind enough to comment that he felt he had a duty to respond because of the time I spend analysing other people's problems. Thank you, Bruce, for those kind words. I do tend to stick my nose into discussions where I think I may know something about what is happening. I have a personal motto that "The best way to fully understand something yourself is to try to explain it in detail to someone else". For me, it's a personal learning experience that I want to go through anyway so I don't particularly regard it as a chore.
One of the things that I find most impressive about this project is not just the science behind it, and not just how well managed and trouble free it is, but how personally involved the developers get in rendering basic assistance to users having any sort of real or imaginary problem at any level. Even the most blindingly tedious FAQ gets answered patiently without any hint of frustration. Bruce, you and Bernd and Ben Owen (and others) are a credit to the project.
And now we have the icing on the cake. I'm referring to the well written progress report that has appeared during my absence. I have read it through once and intend to digest it more fully in the coming weeks. I'm extremely pleased to be able to more fully understand the importance of the science to which I'm contributing. My personal prediction is that as more people visit the website and discover this report, there will be a steady stream of previously "diehard" Seti only crunchers who will suddenly realise that EAH is equally worthy of their support. As one of those who were canvassing for this type of progress report many months ago, let me say that the wait has been more than worthwhile. Well done - from a very satisfied contributor.
I'm sorry for resurrecting this thread which had gone dormant but I felt I needed to add my own postscript to it. There are a number of points I wanted to make.
[...SNIP...]
My personal prediction is that as more people visit the website and discover this report, there will be a steady stream of previously "diehard" Seti only crunchers who will suddenly realise that EAH is equally worthy of their support. As one of those who were canvassing for this type of progress report many months ago, let me say that the wait has been more than worthwhile. Well done - from a very satisfied contributor.
[quote Currently the
)
[quote Currently the validator marks about 0.3% of results INVALID. Most of these are probably valid, it's just that the validator has a difficult job to do and is sometimes too conservative. We've done our best to tune it, but at the 0.3% level we don't know how to improve it.
Cheers,
Bruce
RE: Bruce me thinks if you
)
It's not rising. Look at the server status page, linked from Einstein@Home front page.
Currently none of your machines have any invalid results for me to look at.
It is indeed the case that results from different OSes are more likely to disagree. So this leads to higher invalid rates for Linux and Mac OSX users, because there are fewer of them than Win32 users. But even for Mac OSX users (the minority at E@H) there are currently 16726 valid results in the database and 221 invalid results. This is an invalid rate of only about 1.3%, which is low enough for me not to be too concerned, even if most of these are due to the validator being too conservative.
Thanks for contributing to E@H. Please don't give up on us!
Cheers,
Bruce
Director, Einstein@Home
RE: But even for Mac OSX
)
Bruce, 1.3% wouldn't bother me a bit... but I'm concerned that the figure might be much higher for certain CPUs within the "Mac OSX" group. All of the recent optimizations were for Altivec - I would expect if there are any problems, it would show up most on 7450/7455 G4s, second most on G5s and 7400/7410 G4s, not at all on other CPUs.
Obviously my G4 (7455) can do far more Einstein WUs than my G3, and I'll certainly leave it crunching - but I'll also keep an eye on the results, and if the "invalid" percentage gets TOO bad, then I'll just "shuffle" the Einstein work around to another box and suspend it on that one.
We won't know for some time - until at least 50 or so WUs have been returned from my G4, I'd consider any numbers as "statistically questionable".
RE: RE: But even for Mac
)
Bill, also keep in mind that the 1.3% is an average across ALL workunits. The results do depend upon the data set; it may be that there are some data sets that tend to produce larger differences across processors and/or architectures. For these specific workunits, the rate may be higher.
Bruce
Director, Einstein@Home
here
)
here http://einsteinathome.org/workunit/2051583 is a possible new example 3 have responded 2 quorum mine is (217662host)1(not mine)invalid 0 exit status however this message is loaded into stderr out Memory allocation failure for SpOutliers.ratio.( 100's of instances ) Will be interesting if result #4 will come back as valid .... will post if I see anymore I am involved in have 0 credit problem
RE: here
)
If you look at other recent results from Bolek, you'll see he also has a couple of rejections for "Client error Computing". These ARE exactly the kind of problems I was having before changing to the BETA App. Maybe our problems aren't so different after all.
I'm sorry for resurrecting
)
I'm sorry for resurrecting this thread which had gone dormant but I felt I needed to add my own postscript to it. There are a number of points I wanted to make.
Unfortunately, I had to leave on business just after my last post on Sept 10. In fact that post was made as I was doing the final packing to catch my flight. I have now returned and am catching up with what has happened since I departed. I didn't want it to appear that I was no longer interested in the outcome of these discussions.
I would like to move a personal vote of thanks to Prof Bruce Allen for taking the trouble to give full and frank reasons as to why there is a small persistent validation failure. I fully accept that the rate is very low and that everything possible has been done to keep it at the minimum possible level. Unfortunately, some will be more conscious of this than others.
Bruce was kind enough to comment that he felt he had a duty to respond because of the time I spend analysing other people's problems. Thank you, Bruce, for those kind words. I do tend to stick my nose into discussions where I think I may know something about what is happening. I have a personal motto that "The best way to fully understand something yourself is to try to explain it in detail to someone else". For me, it's a personal learning experience that I want to go through anyway so I don't particularly regard it as a chore.
One of the things that I find most impressive about this project is not just the science behind it, and not just how well managed and trouble free it is, but how personally involved the developers get in rendering basic assistance to users having any sort of real or imaginary problem at any level. Even the most blindingly tedious FAQ gets answered patiently without any hint of frustration. Bruce, you and Bernd and Ben Owen (and others) are a credit to the project.
And now we have the icing on the cake. I'm referring to the well written progress report that has appeared during my absence. I have read it through once and intend to digest it more fully in the coming weeks. I'm extremely pleased to be able to more fully understand the importance of the science to which I'm contributing. My personal prediction is that as more people visit the website and discover this report, there will be a steady stream of previously "diehard" Seti only crunchers who will suddenly realise that EAH is equally worthy of their support. As one of those who were canvassing for this type of progress report many months ago, let me say that the wait has been more than worthwhile. Well done - from a very satisfied contributor.
Cheers,
Gary.
RE: I'm sorry for
)
Gary, thank you!
Director, Einstein@Home