Strange indeed.
As to the vaidation problems mentioned above for other BOINC projects, are there summaries available on the Web that describe what went wrong?
TIA
Bikeman
I'd look for an update from Matt when he's in the office Monday morning. It would be in the Technical News Forum. Scott posted to the projects list asking about new server hardware. I've not read the Cosmo boards recently, so I can't be certain there's nothing there. The Cosmo admins are pretty involved, so there might be something posted there.
I've not read the Cosmo boards recently, so I can't be certain there's nothing there. The Cosmo admins are pretty involved, so there might be something posted there.
95% of the time you can't get to the Cosmo forums anyway, as you'll get the message that the server is taking too much time to respond. I've long since given up trying to get there. If there's something there by Scott, then take a patient person to go look for it.
I've not read the Cosmo boards recently, so I can't be certain there's nothing there. The Cosmo admins are pretty involved, so there might be something posted there.
95% of the time you can't get to the Cosmo forums anyway, as you'll get the message that the server is taking too much time to respond. I've long since given up trying to get there. If there's something there by Scott, then take a patient person to go look for it.
The only thing I've seen from Scott in the last couple of days is what has already been said here, i.e. that they are seeing high file I/O, and that they think that they will need some more hardware to fix it.
Two results are reported in, one other was replicated without need.
One would not get any credit albeit the work is done and could be used.
Just curious...
I hope you don't mind but I've made your links clickable.
Normally, if an unneeded task is sent out, you would expect it to be awarded credit as well, as long as it was returned within the deadline. I notice in the second example above that not only was the third task unnecessary, but also all three were returned well within the deadline and the third to return was denied credit. Your task was the third to be returned but it was denied credit with the explanation, "Task was reported too late to validate".
Of the above four, you were denied credit on two and were granted credit on the other two. It appears that whoever is the last to return will be denied credit, even though all are well within the deadline. When I look at the full results list for your computer, there are actually 7 tasks where you have been denied credit so this is a bigger problem than just 4 isolated tasks.
There is something weird about the way the scheduler is dishing out the tasks. If you look at the second quorum in your list above, your task (for which you were given no credit) had the lowest resultID and is also flagged as the _0 task. In other words you would expect it to have been distributed first. However, the _1 task was distributed on 06 July and your _0 task wasn't sent to you until 11 July. It's almost as if the _0 task got lost for five days before the scheduler sent it out quite belatedly. Then the scheduler suddenly thought this belated task was overdue and so sent out a third. Only the first two back will win the prize if the scheduler thinks the deadline has already expired.
I think what is happing here also needs to be drawn to the attention of an Admin so I'll go do that now.
RE: Strange indeed. As to
)
I'd look for an update from Matt when he's in the office Monday morning. It would be in the Technical News Forum. Scott posted to the projects list asking about new server hardware. I've not read the Cosmo boards recently, so I can't be certain there's nothing there. The Cosmo admins are pretty involved, so there might be something posted there.
Kathryn :o)
Einstein@Home Moderator
RE: I've not read the Cosmo
)
95% of the time you can't get to the Cosmo forums anyway, as you'll get the message that the server is taking too much time to respond. I've long since given up trying to get there. If there's something there by Scott, then take a patient person to go look for it.
RE: RE: I've not read the
)
The only thing I've seen from Scott in the last couple of days is what has already been said here, i.e. that they are seeing high file I/O, and that they think that they will need some more hardware to fix it.
It's up to 51,600+ now.
)
It's up to 51,600+ now.
Someone seems to have fixed
)
Someone seems to have fixed it :-)
RE: Someone seems to have
)
Cool. :)
RE: RE: Someone seems to
)
Agreed! Very Cool! :)
Thank you validator fairie! ;)
Strange how those validator
)
Strange how those validator hicups always happen on weekends :-)
Thanks to David who fixed this again
CU
Bikeman
RE: Why are there so called
)
I hope you don't mind but I've made your links clickable.
Normally, if an unneeded task is sent out, you would expect it to be awarded credit as well, as long as it was returned within the deadline. I notice in the second example above that not only was the third task unnecessary, but also all three were returned well within the deadline and the third to return was denied credit. Your task was the third to be returned but it was denied credit with the explanation, "Task was reported too late to validate".
Of the above four, you were denied credit on two and were granted credit on the other two. It appears that whoever is the last to return will be denied credit, even though all are well within the deadline. When I look at the full results list for your computer, there are actually 7 tasks where you have been denied credit so this is a bigger problem than just 4 isolated tasks.
There is something weird about the way the scheduler is dishing out the tasks. If you look at the second quorum in your list above, your task (for which you were given no credit) had the lowest resultID and is also flagged as the _0 task. In other words you would expect it to have been distributed first. However, the _1 task was distributed on 06 July and your _0 task wasn't sent to you until 11 July. It's almost as if the _0 task got lost for five days before the scheduler sent it out quite belatedly. Then the scheduler suddenly thought this belated task was overdue and so sent out a third. Only the first two back will win the prize if the scheduler thinks the deadline has already expired.
I think what is happing here also needs to be drawn to the attention of an Admin so I'll go do that now.
Cheers,
Gary.
Well, the root cause of this
)
Well, the root cause of this evidently continues to be elusive because it's back:
waiting for validation 2,338
Give 'er another kick please! :)