Would it be safe to say to everyone then (just to simplify and make it easyer).
Dont use any new patches untill you have run throught your entire cache.
Then (close Boinc), patch the app, rename to 'einstein_S5R1_4.10_windows_intelx86.exe' and use the xml file with version '410'.
But run throught your cache first.
Dont use any new patches untill you have run throught your entire cache.
Then, patch the app, rename to 'einstein_S5R1_4.10_windows_intelx86.exe' and use the xml file with version '410'.
But run throught your cache first.
There are no differences betweem 4.02 and 4.10 versions, but would be good if your boinc reports the pathced version as 4.10. As far as i know the boinc client takes this info from app_info.xml ( anonymous platfrom ).
Thanks for the clarification Akos.
I was starting to get a bit confused by the discussion here! LoL.
For those of us who simply patched the existing 4.02 and replaced it, the work still crunches and validates fine, it's just that we are reporting the wrong application version number to the project. I can see now where we would want to make that distinction, so when my cache runs down, I'll rename the patched version to 410 and add an app_info.xml file.
Uptill 0709 all WU's ran without problem.
But starting 0712 I get error exit code -1073741819 (0xc0000005)on all 4.10 WU's !!
In stderr I find Access Violation (0xc0000005) at address 0x00400400
The error occurs immediately after start of the WU.
I'm using the zip-file posted here some hours ago, but same happens with a self-patched version.
Eg http://einsteinathome.org/task/35187623
MMC,SSE,SSE3,EM64T
Seems tobe a local problem because same software on other CPU is running smoothly
I am Homer of Borg. Prepare to be ...ooooh donuts!
Would it be safe to say to
)
Would it be safe to say to everyone then (just to simplify and make it easyer).
Dont use any new patches untill you have run throught your entire cache.
Then (close Boinc), patch the app, rename to 'einstein_S5R1_4.10_windows_intelx86.exe' and use the xml file with version '410'.
But run throught your cache first.
RE: Dont use any new
)
I think that is probably the safest way.
Stay tuned and keep crunching
Are the WU´s crunched with
)
Are the WU´s crunched with 410 and patch S5T0713 validied?
this was crunched with
)
this was crunched with S5T0712, reported as 402 and validated.
RE: There are no
)
Thanks for the clarification Akos.
I was starting to get a bit confused by the discussion here! LoL.
For those of us who simply patched the existing 4.02 and replaced it, the work still crunches and validates fine, it's just that we are reporting the wrong application version number to the project. I can see now where we would want to make that distinction, so when my cache runs down, I'll rename the patched version to 410 and add an app_info.xml file.
Thanks again,
Dig
Uptill 0709 all WU's ran
)
Uptill 0709 all WU's ran without problem.
But starting 0712 I get error exit code -1073741819 (0xc0000005)on all 4.10 WU's !!
In stderr I find Access Violation (0xc0000005) at address 0x00400400
The error occurs immediately after start of the WU.
I'm using the zip-file posted here some hours ago, but same happens with a self-patched version.
Eg http://einsteinathome.org/task/35187623
MMC,SSE,SSE3,EM64T
Seems tobe a local problem because same software on other CPU is running smoothly
I am Homer of Borg. Prepare to be ...ooooh donuts!
How can i report a 4.02 WU,
)
How can i report a 4.02 WU, crunched with opt. client, as 4.10 ?
I have over 120 wu's (402) in my cache.
Did i really must edit the client_state.xml and change the entries manually?
by now i have a 410 entry in
)
by now i have a 410 entry in my app_info, but i don't want to crunch all 402 wu's with the standard client, if i can have a gain of 35%.
Global search and replace is
)
Global search and replace is your friend.
Editing the client_state.xml
)
Editing the client_state.xml file killed all my WUs, so watch out.
cu,
Michael