S5GC1HF started

Bernd Machenschalk
Bernd Machenschalk
Joined: 15 Oct 04
Posts: 4,273
Credit: 245,126,198
RAC: 14,122
Topic 195461

As announced in this thread, a new run for the GW search named S5GC1HF has been started. You may have noticed it mainly from the server status page.

The "old" S5GC1 workunit generator has been "drained", i.e. all workunits that hadn't been generated up to then were generated and written into the database, and "tasks to send" were created from them (that's why the number of "tasks to send" is so unusually large).

The new run is a "seamless" continuation of the previous one, locality scheduling should work over the boundary, i.e. your download rate should not increase significantly compared to S5GC1.

The new run features new applications that differ only slightly from the ones used in S5GC1: the output file format is slightly different, leading to slightly larger result files. And we are using a newer version of the BOINC API/library, mainly addressing the "Linux signal 11" issue.

A problem with the new validator was already found and fixed, the six S5GC1HF results that were incorrectly marked as "validate errors" have been checked again and found valid.

So far all looks ok and apparently the smoothest run transition we ever had.



Joined: 31 Oct 08
Posts: 1
Credit: 398,074
RAC: 0

S5GC1HF started

i have just returned 147 errors on this type of work unit most did not even start? any ideas i dont normally crash workunits. i know i have slow hard drive access but i am working on that issue funds permitting

Gary Roberts
Gary Roberts
Joined: 9 Feb 05
Posts: 5,844
Credit: 109,722,883,862
RAC: 27,590,600

RE: i have just returned

i have just returned 147 errors on this type of work unit ...

If you click on the TaskID of one of the failed tasks (on the website) you can see the stderr.txt output that was sent back to the project. One part of that output gives the error as

exit code -1073741819 If you do an advanced all forum search for that error code you can find a thread containing this message where apparently the reason for the errors was to do with RAM. Other messages in the thread do suggest other possible causes to do with hardware/drivers, etc.

Perhaps some of that info may be relevant to your problem. It's worth reading the thread in detail. Good luck!!


Comment viewing options

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