Is anyone working on the 0.0 credit / Validator issue?
2 Jun 2007 16:30:11 UTC
Topic 192806
(moderation:
I've lost 6 WU's on 2 different AMD/Linux machines lately. This would not be an issue if we were not talking about 12 hours (5600 x2) or 16 hours (4200 x2) to run. This could start TO GET OLD.
PS- both machines have been crunching error free for months prior to the new WU's!
PPS - I just noticed that this subject is the basis for x number of threads, Sorry to start another, but an answer would be nice (other that just move my machines to another project).
Is anyone working on the 0.0 credit / Validator issue?
)
I see errors on only one of your computers, and they all took 0 seconds.
I'm not saying errors are good, but it's not like you're losing crunch time as a result.
edit: I run Einstein on a dozen computers and haven't had one error. Don't get mad at the project when there's something wrong with your computer :X
I'm talking about the
)
I'm talking about the validation errors. WU completed, 3xx.x claimed, 0.0 credited. It is the Linux vs Windows thing. I double checked and it wasn't as bad as I thought:
Result ID, WU ID, Sent, Reported, State, Outcome, Cs, Time, Cr Claimed, Cr Granted
84564076 33793258 23 May 2007 28 May 2007 Over Success Done 48,220.06 326.26 0.00
84465573 33754149 20 May 2007 23 May 2007 Over Success Done 48,206.82 326.27 0.00
84440537 33743891 19 May 2007 22 May 2007 Over Success Done 34,350.74 176.37 0.00
84322015 33696894 15 May 2007 16 May 2007 Over Success Done 34,274.77 176.39 0.00
1004 credits, 114 hours of CPU time.
RE: I'm talking about the
)
Yup, that would be the "Linux vs Windows thing" ;-)
There are far fewer Linux/OSX hosts to pair up with then Windows hosts, so usually it's the Linux/OSX box that fails validation.
I guess there had to be something to even the playing-field with Linux box's crunching faster then Windows.
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
I actually have a pairing
)
I actually have a pairing with one of Bruce Allen's Linux children and it is still pending....
Validate state says:
Checked, but no consensus yet
I assume this is the same issue. This is an old computer I use at work running Windows 2000. Sorry, I work for a non-profit. No high tech stuff there ;-)
Result ID 84558747
Name h1_0369.70_S5R2__85_S5R2c_1
Workunit 33791204
Created 23 May 2007 17:34:31 UTC
Sent 23 May 2007 17:59:08 UTC
Received 4 Jun 2007 15:26:16 UTC
Server state Over
Outcome Success
Client state Done
Exit status 0 (0x0)
Computer ID 834175
Report deadline 6 Jun 2007 17:59:08 UTC
......................
Validate state Checked, but no consensus yet
Claimed credit 281.97337962963
Granted credit 0
application version 4.17
RE: I actually have a
)
I hope you will not give up after a long time zero credit.
The boys are working on this problem.
Nope, I never give up. I
)
Nope, I never give up. I will still keep crunching away. I have another computer at home that loves Einstein ;-)
Thanks!
Dora
RE: I hope you will not
)
Good to hear that, thanks for the heads-up Akos.
DB
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