Windows vs Mac Validation

Dave Burbank
Dave Burbank
Joined: 30 Jan 06
Posts: 275
Credit: 1548376
RAC: 0
Topic 191554

I have had a workunit fail validation against a Mac.
The third result was also sent to a Mac; I wonder whose result would've been validated if it had gone to a Windows box?

All three machines in the quorum used stock apps, and my host has never had validation problems.
If all machines are running stock apps why are different (invalid) results being returned?

Could this be a problem with the science apps?

EDIT : I also put a post in Crunchers Corner

There are 10^11 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers. - Richard Feynman

Ananas
Ananas
Joined: 22 Jan 05
Posts: 272
Credit: 2500681
RAC: 0

Windows vs Mac Validation

Here is the other thread with a few more problem reports Mac vs. Windows

The bug hits only now and then, the affected Mac computers as well as the affected Windows boxes have mostly valid results except for those few.

Martin P.
Martin P.
Joined: 17 Feb 05
Posts: 162
Credit: 40156217
RAC: 0

RE: I have had a workunit

Quote:

I have had a workunit fail validation against a Mac.
The third result was also sent to a Mac; I wonder whose result would've been validated if it had gone to a Windows box?

All three machines in the quorum used stock apps, and my host has never had validation problems.
If all machines are running stock apps why are different (invalid) results being returned?

Could this be a problem with the science apps?

EDIT : I also put a post in Crunchers Corner

I CANNOT confirm this! I have 2 Macs running for weeks with the new client and only 1(!) WU produced an invalid result (the other client errors come from stopping this specific WU because the computer was overcommitted due to large downloads from Rosetta).

Dave Burbank
Dave Burbank
Joined: 30 Jan 06
Posts: 275
Credit: 1548376
RAC: 0

RE: I CANNOT confirm this!

Message 42126 in response to message 42125

Quote:
I CANNOT confirm this! I have 2 Macs running for weeks with the new client and only 1(!) WU produced an invalid result (the other client errors come from stopping this specific WU because the computer was overcommitted due to large downloads from Rosetta).

That one invalid result is exactly what I talking about though. You were first paired up with a Windows host, the results were dissimilar so a third WU was sent out. This third host was another Windows host so naturally the two windows results were more alike and yours got tossed out.

If the different apps are returning slightly different results is the integrity of the research being compromised? Also it leads to wasted computer cycles and electricity for the result that gets tossed.

There are 10^11 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers. - Richard Feynman

Bernd Machenschalk
Bernd Machenschalk
Moderator
Administrator
Joined: 15 Oct 04
Posts: 4273
Credit: 245185038
RAC: 13865

There is a problem indeed.

There is a problem indeed. It's not scientifically relevant, but confuses the validator. It only occurs with a few percent of WUs, and only if one task ran with a PPC Mac App and the other with an x86 App (on a SSE-CPU). I'm currently testing a PPC Mac App that should fix this.

BM

BM

Dave Burbank
Dave Burbank
Joined: 30 Jan 06
Posts: 275
Credit: 1548376
RAC: 0

RE: There is a problem

Message 42128 in response to message 42127

Quote:

There is a problem indeed. It's not scientifically relevant, but confuses the validator. It only occurs with a few percent of WUs, and only if one task ran with a PPC Mac App and the other with an x86 App (on a SSE-CPU). I'm currently testing a PPC Mac App that should fix this.

BM

Thanks Bernd, you guys are always on top of things! Best of luck with the new app, and I hope this validation error doesn't cause too much of a headache for you.
Dave

There are 10^11 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers. - Richard Feynman

Comment viewing options

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