Rosetta@home

minirosetta v1.15 bug thread

  UW Seal
 
[ Home ] [ Join ] [ About ] [ Participants ] [ Community ] [ Statistics ]
  [ login/out ]


Advanced search
Message boards : Number crunching : minirosetta v1.15 bug thread

Sort
AuthorMessage
James Thompson

Joined: Oct 13 05
Posts: 46
ID: 4392
Credit: 186,109
RAC: 0
Message 52672 - Posted 23 Apr 2008 22:43:17 UTC

Workunits for minirosetta v1.15 are going to be sent out in slowly increasing batch sizes over the next two days. Please report application bugs in this thread.
____________

Fernik

Joined: Dec 21 06
Posts: 1
ID: 137075
Credit: 17,454
RAC: 0
Message 52677 - Posted 24 Apr 2008 9:22:22 UTC - in response to Message ID 52672.

My NOD32 antivirus view minirosetta 1.15 as a win32 troyan type
____________

BarryAZ

Joined: Dec 27 05
Posts: 149
ID: 43659
Credit: 28,500,234
RAC: 13,501
Message 52697 - Posted 25 Apr 2008 6:32:43 UTC - in response to Message ID 52677.

Right, this has been an ongoing issue with minirosetta. The Rosetta folks have not gotten any help regarding this when working with the ESET folks.


My NOD32 antivirus view minirosetta 1.15 as a win32 troyan type


____________

BarryAZ

Joined: Dec 27 05
Posts: 149
ID: 43659
Credit: 28,500,234
RAC: 13,501
Message 52698 - Posted 25 Apr 2008 6:37:44 UTC - in response to Message ID 52677.

http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/forum_thread.php?id=4017

Note -- I believe you need to be on version 3.0 of NOD32 for this to work.

My NOD32 antivirus view minirosetta 1.15 as a win32 troyan type


____________

Evan

Joined: Dec 23 05
Posts: 268
ID: 42505
Credit: 402,585
RAC: 0
Message 52709 - Posted 25 Apr 2008 14:31:59 UTC

I had a validation error with this one:

144715592

It was stuck at about 2:53 hours with no graphics available.
I had to reboot the computer (for other purposes) and it began again at 2:08 hours and it ended there.

<core_client_version>5.10.20</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<stderr_txt>
# cpu_run_time_pref: 14400


Unhandled Exception Detected...

- Unhandled Exception Record -
Reason: Access Violation (0xc0000005) at address 0x005BD07D write attempt to address 0x4304D066

Engaging BOINC Windows Runtime Debugger...



********************


BOINC Windows Runtime Debugger Version 6.1.16


Dump Timestamp : 04/25/08 11:12:48
# cpu_run_time_pref: 14400
======================================================
DONE :: 1 starting structures 7702.44 cpu seconds
This process generated 1 decoys from 1 attempts
======================================================

BOINC :: Watchdog shutting down...
BOINC :: BOINC support services shutting down...
called boinc_finish

____________

Quidgydog

Joined: Sep 28 06
Posts: 3
ID: 115109
Credit: 499,462
RAC: 0
Message 52736 - Posted 26 Apr 2008 13:24:28 UTC
Last modified: 26 Apr 2008 13:29:09 UTC

minirosetta workunits (4 different ones attempted) not running on one of my systems. Process starts, but CPU time does not start counting and no progress despite leaving for long period of time. No errors, no exceptions, just doesn't run.

Running Core2Quad Q6600, Windows Server 2003 R2.

Workunits running fine on my other comps with XP and Vista.
____________

David Emigh Profile
Avatar

Joined: Mar 13 06
Posts: 158
ID: 65176
Credit: 417,178
RAC: 0
Message 52737 - Posted 26 Apr 2008 14:25:56 UTC
Last modified: 26 Apr 2008 14:28:18 UTC

Two "Compute Errors" to report, both with large and detailed debugger messages.

resultid=158425798
resultid=158582229

Two different computers had the errors linked above. Both computers had successfully run 1.15 tasks for RALPH@home.
____________
Rosie, Rosie, she's our gal,
If she can't do it, no one shall!

Gavin Shaw Profile
Avatar

Joined: Feb 1 07
Posts: 10
ID: 144828
Credit: 506,456
RAC: 0
Message 52744 - Posted 26 Apr 2008 23:24:39 UTC

Okay. Run my first Roseeta Mini unit over night while I was asleep. Woke up and found it had a compute error.

From the message log in Boinc this was given as the reason:

27/04/2008 7:51:52 AM|rosetta@home|Output file 1c8cA_BOINC_ABINITIO_IGNORE_THE_REST-S25-9-S3-3--1c8cA-_3092_209_0_0 for task 1c8cA_BOINC_ABINITIO_IGNORE_THE_REST-S25-9-S3-3--1c8cA-_3092_209_0 absent

Have reported it back and received no credits (not that I expected otherwise) and it is task 158393978

In short the first lines say the following:

Unhandled Exception Detected...

- Unhandled Exception Record -
Reason: Access Violation (0xc0000005) at address 0x005BD4A8 write attempt to address 0x00000008

Engaging BOINC Windows Runtime Debugger...

Memory addressing problem?

Hope this helps...

____________
Never surrender and never give up. In the darkest hour there is always hope.

P . P . L .
Avatar

Joined: Aug 20 06
Posts: 581
ID: 105843
Credit: 4,864,105
RAC: 0
Message 52745 - Posted 27 Apr 2008 0:12:12 UTC
Last modified: 27 Apr 2008 1:00:07 UTC

I just had this died in a screaming heap, boinc messages repeated many

times the same,[40+] never had this before. Not good.

http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/workunit.php?wuid=145104931

http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/result.php?resultid=158863990


4/27/2008 9:54:05 AM|rosetta@home|Starting task 2acy__BOINC_ABINITIO_IGNORE_THE_REST-S25-10-S3-11--2acy_-_3105_2_0 using minirosetta version 115

4/27/2008 9:54:06 AM|rosetta@home|Task 2acy__BOINC_ABINITIO_IGNORE_THE_REST-S25-10-S3-11--2acy_-_3105_2_0 exited with a DLL initialization error.

4/27/2008 9:54:06 AM|rosetta@home|If this happens repeatedly you may need to reboot your computer.

EDIT// Is there any way to find out which DLL's are missing and if they
can be installed manualy or not to fix this.//

pete.
____________


Thomas Leibold

Joined: Jul 30 06
Posts: 55
ID: 102494
Credit: 19,627,164
RAC: 0
Message 52753 - Posted 27 Apr 2008 6:41:48 UTC

What is wrong with the validater ?
Workunits 144724221,144734937,144747594 all apparently completed normally (around the specified runtime and without any errors), but got marked invalid and received no credit.
Two of those workunits were completed successfully by other users (however with shorter runtimes).

____________
Team Helix

Quidgydog

Joined: Sep 28 06
Posts: 3
ID: 115109
Credit: 499,462
RAC: 0
Message 52755 - Posted 27 Apr 2008 11:44:47 UTC

stderr output from previously mentioned problem . . . .


Unhandled Exception Detected...

- Unhandled Exception Record -
Reason: Access Violation (0xc0000005) at address 0x7C82A714 read attempt to address 0x00E9DD4D

Engaging BOINC Windows Runtime Debugger...


____________

v149907

Joined: Apr 11 08
Posts: 2
ID: 252342
Credit: 1,089,937
RAC: 0
Message 52757 - Posted 27 Apr 2008 17:38:54 UTC - in response to Message ID 52736.
Last modified: 27 Apr 2008 17:48:36 UTC

minirosetta workunits (4 different ones attempted) not running on one of my systems. Process starts, but CPU time does not start counting and no progress despite leaving for long period of time. No errors, no exceptions, just doesn't run.

Running Core2Quad Q6600, Windows Server 2003 R2.

Workunits running fine on my other comps with XP and Vista.



Is there any way (other than detaching from the project)to keep mini-rosetta tasks off a system? Status says running; but no progess, no errors, no exceptions... just see decreasing RAC while the CPUs aren't doing anything. Thanks

v149907

Joined: Apr 11 08
Posts: 2
ID: 252342
Credit: 1,089,937
RAC: 0
Message 52758 - Posted 27 Apr 2008 17:43:01 UTC - in response to Message ID 52757.
Last modified: 27 Apr 2008 17:49:26 UTC

minirosetta workunits (4 different ones attempted) not running on one of my systems. Process starts, but CPU time does not start counting and no progress despite leaving for long period of time. No errors, no exceptions, just doesn't run.

Running Core2Quad Q6600, Windows Server 2003 R2.

Workunits running fine on my other comps with XP and Vista.




I have a similar problem on one of my systems with exactly the same symptoms. I have had to abort every mini-rosetta task received...

AuthenticAMD
Dual-Core AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 2218 [x86 Family 15 Model 65 Stepping 2]
Number of CPUs 4
Operating System Microsoft Windows XP
Professional Edition, Service Pack 2, (05.01.2600.00)
Memory 3055.35 MB

158848050 145089669 27 Apr 2008 1:21:16 UTC 27 Apr 2008 12:12:56 UTC Over Client error Aborted by user 0.00 0.00 ---
158836624 145078554 26 Apr 2008 19:33:58 UTC 27 Apr 2008 12:12:56 UTC Over Client error Aborted by user 0.00 0.00 ---
158836584 145078487 26 Apr 2008 19:33:58 UTC 27 Apr 2008 12:12:56 UTC Over Client error Aborted by user 0.00 0.00 ---
158836531 145078395 26 Apr 2008 19:33:58 UTC 27 Apr 2008 0:06:36 UTC Over Client error Aborted by user 0.00 0.00 ---
158602197 144860512 25 Apr 2008 21:30:39 UTC 26 Apr 2008 18:11:58 UTC Over Client error Aborted by user 0.00 0.00 ---
158602195 144860508 25 Apr 2008 21:30:39 UTC 26 Apr 2008 18:11:58 UTC Over Client error Aborted by user 0.00 0.00 ---
158602193 144860504 25 Apr 2008 21:30:39 UTC 27 Apr 2008 0:06:36 UTC Over Client error Aborted by user 0.00 0.00 ---
158602191 144860500 25 Apr 2008 21:30:39 UTC 27 Apr 2008 0:06:36 UTC Over Client error Aborted by user 0.00 0.00 ---
158602189 144860497 25 Apr 2008 21:30:39 UTC 27 Apr 2008 0:06:36 UTC Over Client error Aborted by user 0.00 0.00 ---
158602187 144860493 25 Apr 2008 21:30:39 UTC 27 Apr 2008 0:06:36 UTC Over Client error Aborted by user 0.00 0.00 ---

Gavin Shaw Profile
Avatar

Joined: Feb 1 07
Posts: 10
ID: 144828
Credit: 506,456
RAC: 0
Message 52763 - Posted 28 Apr 2008 0:21:31 UTC

Ran a second Rosetta Mini unit. It dies after about 7 hours (target runtime is 8 hours).

Boinc output has the following:

28/04/2008 4:51:14 AM|rosetta@home|Computation for task 1cei__BOINC_ABINITIO_IGNORE_THE_REST-S25-13-S3-11--1cei_-_3105_1_0 finished
28/04/2008 4:51:14 AM|rosetta@home|Output file 1cei__BOINC_ABINITIO_IGNORE_THE_REST-S25-13-S3-11--1cei_-_3105_1_0_0 for task 1cei__BOINC_ABINITIO_IGNORE_THE_REST-S25-13-S3-11--1cei_-_3105_1_0 absent

Task 158649586

Looks like a similar error to my previous.

____________
Never surrender and never give up. In the darkest hour there is always hope.

glaesum

Joined: Oct 16 06
Posts: 21
ID: 120376
Credit: 106,074
RAC: 0
Message 52774 - Posted 28 Apr 2008 16:38:00 UTC
Last modified: 28 Apr 2008 16:57:38 UTC

I'm getting the same type of failure as Peter Leman (pm sent) using OS win98, the tasks don't even start:

the "stderr out" result report reads like this -

<core_client_version>5.10.30</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<message>
too many normally harmless exit(s)
</message>
]]>

the two tasks failed so far are:
wu145397531
wu145454437

(mini v.1.07 worked ok whilst mini v.1.09 did not, see (v.1.09 message) for slightly different stderr out report)

if anyone succeeds with win98 on these tasks please report happiness!!

[BAT] MaDr Profile

Joined: Nov 30 05
Posts: 1
ID: 24408
Credit: 1,383,050
RAC: 0
Message 52783 - Posted 29 Apr 2008 6:16:05 UTC - in response to Message ID 52736.

minirosetta workunits (4 different ones attempted) not running on one of my systems. Process starts, but CPU time does not start counting and no progress despite leaving for long period of time. No errors, no exceptions, just doesn't run.


Havin' the same problem on a Dell 2650 running Windows 2003.
____________

David Emigh Profile
Avatar

Joined: Mar 13 06
Posts: 158
ID: 65176
Credit: 417,178
RAC: 0
Message 52789 - Posted 29 Apr 2008 14:17:33 UTC

Two more errors to report, both include large and detailed debugger reports.

resultid=159151381
resultid=159146976

An observation:

In every case (these two, and the the preceding two, reported earlier in this thread) my "wingman" ran these tasks successfully. But in all four cases, my wingman's runtime preference was apparently much shorter than my own.

Coincidence? I don't know. The sample size is small, but the correlation is perfect.

I ran many successful mini 1.15 workunits on RALPH, where my runtime preference is set to the minimum. So far, I am 0/4 with mini 1.15 workunits on Rosie, where my runtime preference is set to the maximum.

I would be curious to know if this relationship has been observed by any other crunchers.
____________
Rosie, Rosie, she's our gal,
If she can't do it, no one shall!

Feet1st Profile
Avatar

Joined: Dec 30 05
Posts: 1740
ID: 44890
Credit: 2,350,568
RAC: 3,695
Message 52790 - Posted 29 Apr 2008 14:22:31 UTC

This 1tif task shows peak memory usage of 357M on WinXP. It's 7hrs in to an 8hr runtime preference.

Is that one a "high memory" task? Or is that higher then expected for Mini?
____________
If having a DC project with BOINC is of interest to you, with volunteer or cloud computing resources, but have no time for the BOINC learning curve,
use a hosting service that understands BOINC projects: http://DeepSci.com

David Emigh Profile
Avatar

Joined: Mar 13 06
Posts: 158
ID: 65176
Credit: 417,178
RAC: 0
Message 52794 - Posted 30 Apr 2008 3:33:29 UTC

I am 0/5 now on mini 1.15 workunits with these two computers:

hostid=623950
hostid=663412

Both have successfully completed mini 1.15 workunits on RALPH.

I am waiting to see how my wingman does with failure number five before taking any further action.

My wingmen, on the four tasks that have reported successful after my failures, were: two Linux boxes, one WinXp box, and a Darwin box. One thing they all had in common was run times of less than 11,000 seconds, so are probably set for a 3 hour runtime preference.

Have any other users had problems with mini 1.15 that seem related to long runtime preferences?
____________
Rosie, Rosie, she's our gal,
If she can't do it, no one shall!

James Thompson

Joined: Oct 13 05
Posts: 46
ID: 4392
Credit: 186,109
RAC: 0
Message 52799 - Posted 30 Apr 2008 7:06:37 UTC - in response to Message ID 52794.

Hi everyone,

I just wanted to post again and let you know that we're in the process of debugging minirosetta. Thank you all for your input, we're taking the errors from this application very seriously.

We're enlisting the help of Rom Walton, one of the BOINC developers to help us debug some of the trickier problems with minirosetta v1.15, so expect a new release up on Ralph very soon. Rom is a very talented programmer, and has helped us a great deal in the past with the rosetta_beta app in the past. We hope to have a new version of minirosetta (v1.16) on Ralph by tomorrow that should address some of the problems people have been having.

We've also fixed the problem with validating the results from some of our minirosetta test jobs, so please let us know if that happens in the future. This is a result of trying some new protocols for the next CASP, which we'll describe in detail in the Science threads as we apply these methods to CASP8 targets.

This is all very exciting for us, and thank you for crunching. CASP8 starts on Monday, and I'm very much looking forward to it. Cheers,

James
____________

Evan

Joined: Dec 23 05
Posts: 268
ID: 42505
Credit: 402,585
RAC: 0
Message 52810 - Posted 30 Apr 2008 14:06:08 UTC

I hope this is the last of the few. it got there in the end but needed a bit of kicking. 159497259
____________

David Emigh Profile
Avatar

Joined: Mar 13 06
Posts: 158
ID: 65176
Credit: 417,178
RAC: 0
Message 52814 - Posted 30 Apr 2008 21:12:59 UTC

Finally, a success with mini 1.15!

This computer, hostid=599043, made it to the end of a 24 hour run on resultid=159274026.

It may be important to note that this is a 64 bit processor with 4GB RAM and 8GB of swap space...
____________
Rosie, Rosie, she's our gal,
If she can't do it, no one shall!

David Emigh Profile
Avatar

Joined: Mar 13 06
Posts: 158
ID: 65176
Credit: 417,178
RAC: 0
Message 52815 - Posted 1 May 2008 2:16:43 UTC - in response to Message ID 52794.

I am 0/5 now on mini 1.15 workunits with these two computers:

hostid=623950
hostid=663412

Both have successfully completed mini 1.15 workunits on RALPH.
{...}


Make that 0/8 now. Neither of the two above linked computers, normally stable, reliable crunchers, has been able to successfully complete a mini 1.15 workunit since that application version was released on Rosetta.

I have set the runtime preference for the two computers down to 3 hours, since that time frame seems to have worked for my wingmen on all of these failed tasks.
____________
Rosie, Rosie, she's our gal,
If she can't do it, no one shall!

Dave Mickey

Joined: Dec 29 07
Posts: 33
ID: 231007
Credit: 4,136,957
RAC: 0
Message 52816 - Posted 1 May 2008 2:53:27 UTC

One cruncher (333M Celeron, 192MB, NT4) got some mini 1.15s and every one
(of about 5 or 6) did the thing where they say they have started,
but accumulate no elapsed CPU time (remains as 0) and time to complete
is reported blank, and they certainly seem to be going no where.
After aborting them (giving each a fair chance to actually compute),
turned off new work for a while (and SETI ran in the mean time), then
it collected some Beta 5.96 WUs, and is crunching them now, seemingly
OK. Will have to wait to see if more 1.15s come along, but it doesn't
look good. Seems to be solid distinction of runnable vs. not.

Other machine (500M P3, 512M, W2K) has gotten one mini 1.15, and ran it
OK.

David Emigh Profile
Avatar

Joined: Mar 13 06
Posts: 158
ID: 65176
Credit: 417,178
RAC: 0
Message 52821 - Posted 1 May 2008 15:15:35 UTC
Last modified: 1 May 2008 15:17:53 UTC

I suspect the focus of development energy has already shifted to 1.16, but if there is any information still to be gleaned from the failures of 1.15, the data in this post may be significant.

I changed the runtime preference for the two computers that I've been whining about for several days now, decreasing it from 24 hours to 3 hours. The result was dramatic.

On one system, my success rate with mini 1.15 went from 0% to 100%. That computer is now 5/5 with the formerly un-runnable application.
link to host


The other system is still struggling, but the type of error reported has changed from "compute error" to "validate error."
link to host
____________
Rosie, Rosie, she's our gal,
If she can't do it, no one shall!

glaesum

Joined: Oct 16 06
Posts: 21
ID: 120376
Credit: 106,074
RAC: 0
Message 52823 - Posted 1 May 2008 16:29:27 UTC

so... ...it doesn't look terribly hopeful that minirosetta is fully ready for the launch of CASP8 next monday, does it!!!

mewbysea

Joined: Jan 29 06
Posts: 17
ID: 55265
Credit: 7,359,245
RAC: 5,494
Message 52826 - Posted 1 May 2008 23:56:08 UTC - in response to Message ID 52821.



I changed the runtime preference for the two computers that I've been whining about for several days now, decreasing it from 24 hours to 3 hours. The result was dramatic.

On one system, my success rate with mini 1.15 went from 0% to 100%. That computer is now 5/5 with the formerly un-runnable application.
link to host


The other system is still struggling, but the type of error reported has changed from "compute error" to "validate error."
link to host


I've been having the same problem as David with a runtime preference of 10 hours. I'll adjust to a shorter runtime and see if that helps.

____________

sslickerson Profile

Joined: Oct 14 05
Posts: 101
ID: 4578
Credit: 484,477
RAC: 0
Message 52827 - Posted 2 May 2008 1:35:54 UTC

I've been away from the boards for a few days and I just noticed 3 WU of mine errored out (all minirosetta). This appears to be a fairly known problem after reading about all the problems everyone else has had. My question is this, am I going to get credit for the lost time (about 600 credits by my count)?

Timothy

staffann Profile

Joined: Oct 7 07
Posts: 7
ID: 210542
Credit: 57,920
RAC: 44
Message 52834 - Posted 2 May 2008 12:24:22 UTC

First posted in the "problems with minirosetta 1.+" thread but realised that this is probably a better place:

I just had a minirosetta 1.15 fail right after I had hit the graphics button. My computer runs WinXPSP2 on an Athlon 64 X2 3800+ and has a NVidia graphics card. AV is Avast.

http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/result.php?resultid=160186210

2008-05-02 13:42:02|World Community Grid|Sending scheduler request: To report completed tasks
2008-05-02 13:42:02|World Community Grid|Reporting 1 tasks
2008-05-02 13:42:07|World Community Grid|Scheduler RPC succeeded [server version 601]
2008-05-02 13:42:07|World Community Grid|Deferring communication for 1 min 1 sec
2008-05-02 13:42:07|World Community Grid|Reason: requested by project
2008-05-02 13:45:11|rosetta@home|Deferring communication for 1 min 0 sec
2008-05-02 13:45:11|rosetta@home|Reason: Unrecoverable error for result 1who__BOINC_ABINITIO_IGNORE_THE_REST-S25-9-S3-3--1who_-_3092_1911_0 ( - exit code -1073741819 (0xc0000005))
2008-05-02 13:45:11|rosetta@home|Computation for task 1who__BOINC_ABINITIO_IGNORE_THE_REST-S25-9-S3-3--1who_-_3092_1911_0 finished
2008-05-02 13:45:11|rosetta@home|Output file 1who__BOINC_ABINITIO_IGNORE_THE_REST-S25-9-S3-3--1who_-_3092_1911_0_0 for task 1who__BOINC_ABINITIO_IGNORE_THE_REST-S25-9-S3-3--1who_-_3092_1911_0 absent
2008-05-02 13:45:11|World Community Grid|Resuming task faah4030_NSC119913_chem3D_B_xmd05230_02_1 using faah version 603


Computer & BOINC data:
2008-05-02 09:56:38||Starting BOINC client version 5.10.20 for windows_intelx86
2008-05-02 09:56:38||log flags: task, file_xfer, sched_ops
2008-05-02 09:56:38||Libraries: libcurl/7.16.4 OpenSSL/0.9.8e zlib/1.2.3
2008-05-02 09:56:38||Data directory: C:\Program\BOINC
2008-05-02 09:56:38|SETI@home|Found app_info.xml; using anonymous platform
2008-05-02 09:56:38||Processor: 2 AuthenticAMD AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 3800+ [x86 Family 15 Model 43 Stepping 1]
2008-05-02 09:56:38||Processor features: fpu tsc pae nx sse sse2 3dnow mmx
2008-05-02 09:56:38||OS: Microsoft Windows XP: Professional Edition, Service Pack 2, (05.01.2600.00)
2008-05-02 09:56:38||Memory: 1023.23 MB physical, 3.40 GB virtual
2008-05-02 09:56:38||Disk: 76.32 GB total, 5.24 GB free
2008-05-02 09:56:38||Local time is UTC +1 hours

david @ TPS

Joined: Nov 26 06
Posts: 3
ID: 131572
Credit: 881,762
RAC: 0
Message 52835 - Posted 2 May 2008 13:37:07 UTC

My Celeron with WinME seems happy with the mini's.

Dave
____________

amgthis

Joined: Mar 25 06
Posts: 60
ID: 67992
Credit: 112,772,244
RAC: 106,797
Message 52839 - Posted 2 May 2008 20:46:06 UTC

My minirosetta 1.15 apps crash about 50-60% of the time on AMD 64's and
Intel conroe duals Intel Kentsfield quads and none are overclocked.

Typical error is # 107374.

____________

(_KoDAk_) Profile

Joined: Jul 18 06
Posts: 109
ID: 100677
Credit: 1,859,263
RAC: 0
Message 52841 - Posted 3 May 2008 6:43:41 UTC

http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/results.php?hostid=736555
Invalid

Task ID 159962434
Task ID 159962433
Task ID 159962424
Task ID 159318279
Task ID 159128030

- Unhandled Exception Record -
Reason: Out Of Memory (C++ Exception) (0xe06d7363) at address 0x766C42EB

WTF ?????
____________

Blacksun Profile
Avatar

Joined: May 2 07
Posts: 2
ID: 172229
Credit: 80,733
RAC: 0
Message 52842 - Posted 3 May 2008 7:12:01 UTC

Client error

Task ID 160171745 and
Task ID 160164808

mfg Blacksun

Evan

Joined: Dec 23 05
Posts: 268
ID: 42505
Credit: 402,585
RAC: 0
Message 52844 - Posted 3 May 2008 8:35:52 UTC

Compute error
160204008
____________

(_KoDAk_) Profile

Joined: Jul 18 06
Posts: 109
ID: 100677
Credit: 1,859,263
RAC: 0
Message 52849 - Posted 3 May 2008 17:27:20 UTC

Client error
http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/result.php?resultid=158424537
http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/result.php?resultid=158422144
http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/result.php?resultid=158418985

____________

Venturini Dario[VENETO] Profile

Joined: May 25 07
Posts: 22
ID: 179805
Credit: 245,028
RAC: 0
Message 52851 - Posted 3 May 2008 19:07:19 UTC

Not sure if this is a bug, but it's definitely weird:

Workunit 146096927

stderr out

<core_client_version>5.10.45</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<stderr_txt>
# cpu_run_time_pref: 14400
======================================================
DONE :: 1 starting structures 14353.2 cpu seconds
This process generated 14 decoys from 14 attempts
======================================================

BOINC :: Watchdog shutting down...
BOINC :: BOINC support services shutting down...
called boinc_finish
# cpu_run_time_pref: 14400
======================================================
DONE :: 1 starting structures 15500.1 cpu seconds
This process generated 1 decoys from 1 attempts
======================================================

BOINC :: Watchdog shutting down...
BOINC :: BOINC support services shutting down...
called boinc_finish

</stderr_txt>
]]>


Validate state Valid
Claimed credit 80.519063844009
Granted credit 5.15238734890731
application version 1.15

amgthis

Joined: Mar 25 06
Posts: 60
ID: 67992
Credit: 112,772,244
RAC: 106,797
Message 52856 - Posted 4 May 2008 4:02:03 UTC

The mini rosetta 1.15 units just continually crash. Why keep queuing them to
distribute until the problems are sorted? People are wasting k watts of power
for nothing in the meantime...
I would think we would just line up 5.96 units until the bugs were sorted instead
of wasting thousands of watts of energy for nothing.

????

____________

sslickerson Profile

Joined: Oct 14 05
Posts: 101
ID: 4578
Credit: 484,477
RAC: 0
Message 52861 - Posted 4 May 2008 14:48:15 UTC - in response to Message ID 52856.

The mini rosetta 1.15 units just continually crash. Why keep queuing them to
distribute until the problems are sorted? People are wasting k watts of power
for nothing in the meantime...
I would think we would just line up 5.96 units until the bugs were sorted instead
of wasting thousands of watts of energy for nothing.

????


I just abort them as soon as I see them but I'm sure that may be a problem for someone such as yourself with 14K RAC, sadly I only have 1 computer...

I would set Rosetta to "no new work" for the time being and come back later when this gets all sorted out.


____________



glaesum

Joined: Oct 16 06
Posts: 21
ID: 120376
Credit: 106,074
RAC: 0
Message 52863 - Posted 4 May 2008 17:01:41 UTC - in response to Message ID 52835.

My Celeron with WinME seems happy with the mini's.

Dave


that's interesting as it must mean that win98 is only one tweak away from working...

meanwhile, as long I'm trashing under 50% of tasks sent I'll keep going on that pc (no probs on the XP m/ch at all).

amgthis

Joined: Mar 25 06
Posts: 60
ID: 67992
Credit: 112,772,244
RAC: 106,797
Message 52870 - Posted 5 May 2008 13:51:35 UTC - in response to Message ID 52861.

The mini rosetta 1.15 units just continually crash. Why keep queuing them to
distribute until the problems are sorted? People are wasting k watts of power
for nothing in the meantime...
I would think we would just line up 5.96 units until the bugs were sorted instead
of wasting thousands of watts of energy for nothing.

????


I just abort them as soon as I see them but I'm sure that may be a problem for someone such as yourself with 14K RAC, sadly I only have 1 computer...

I would set Rosetta to "no new work" for the time being and come back later when this gets all sorted out.

Yes, you are right. I should stop whining and do as you say or just run another
project in the meantime. Hopefully it will be sorted out soon.

/amgthis



____________

Message boards : Number crunching : minirosetta v1.15 bug thread


Home | Join | About | Participants | Community | Statistics

Copyright © 2017 University of Washington

Last Modified: 10 Nov 2010 1:51:38 UTC
Back to top ^