Project: 6901 (Run 14, Clone 20, Gen 2) faulting

Moderators: Site Moderators, FAHC Science Team

Post Reply
sfield
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 3:36 am

Project: 6901 (Run 14, Clone 20, Gen 2) faulting

Post by sfield »

This work-unit faults nearly immediately, several times in a row before the client pulled a 6900. This is a stable machine.

[16:01:20] Project: 6901 (Run 14, Clone 20, Gen 2)
[16:01:20]
[16:01:21] Assembly optimizations on if available.
[16:01:21] Entering M.D.
[16:01:27] Mapping NT from 24 to 24
[16:01:30] Completed 0 out of 250000 steps (0%)
[16:03:24] CoreStatus = C0000005 (-1073741819)
[16:03:25] Client-core communications error: ERROR 0xc0000005
[16:03:25] Deleting current work unit & continuing...
toTOW
Site Moderator
Posts: 6334
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:38 am
Location: Bordeaux, France
Contact:

Re: Project: 6901 (Run 14, Clone 20, Gen 2) faulting

Post by toTOW »

There's no other report for this WU in the DB yet ...
Image

Folding@Home beta tester since 2002. Folding Forum moderator since July 2008.
sfield
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 3:36 am

Re: Project: 6901 (Run 14, Clone 20, Gen 2) faulting

Post by sfield »

Can you see all fault reports in the database? Is there a threshold of fault counts such that units will get pulled out of rotation (for investigation) automatically?
toTOW
Site Moderator
Posts: 6334
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:38 am
Location: Bordeaux, France
Contact:

Re: Project: 6901 (Run 14, Clone 20, Gen 2) faulting

Post by toTOW »

I can see something if the client send some results (even partial).

But with the error you got, nothing is reported since it deletes the WU (and partial results if it has been able to write some) : "Deleting current work unit & continuing..."
Image

Folding@Home beta tester since 2002. Folding Forum moderator since July 2008.
sfield
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 3:36 am

Re: Project: 6901 (Run 14, Clone 20, Gen 2) faulting

Post by sfield »

I'd say 99% of the faults I have seen were at 0%. I had a few in the early days of setting up an SR-2 system, but those are long gone.
toTOW wrote:I can see something if the client send some results (even partial).

But with the error you got, nothing is reported since it deletes the WU (and partial results if it has been able to write some) : "Deleting current work unit & continuing..."
sfield
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 3:36 am

Re: Project: 6901 (Run 14, Clone 20, Gen 2) faulting

Post by sfield »

This unit is still out there and faulting immediately -- can you mark bad?

Code: Select all

[21:43:42] Working on queue slot 07 [March 6 21:43:42 UTC]
[21:43:42] + Working ...
[21:43:43]
[21:43:43] *------------------------------*
[21:43:43] Folding@Home Gromacs SMP Core
[21:43:43] Version 2.27 (Mar 12, 2010)
[21:43:43]
[21:43:43] Preparing to commence simulation
[21:43:43] - Assembly optimizations manually forced on.
[21:43:43] - Not checking prior termination.
[21:43:47] - Expanded 24858880 -> 30796292 (decompressed 123.8 percent)
[21:43:47] Called DecompressByteArray: compressed_data_size=24858880 data_size=3
0796292, decompressed_data_size=30796292 diff=0
[21:43:47] - Digital signature verified
[21:43:47]
[21:43:47] Project: 6901 (Run 14, Clone 20, Gen 2)
[21:43:47]
[21:43:47] Assembly optimizations on if available.
[21:43:47] Entering M.D.
[21:43:54] Mapping NT from 24 to 24
[21:43:56] Completed 0 out of 250000 steps  (0%)
[21:44:15] CoreStatus = C0000005 (-1073741819)
[21:44:15] Client-core communications error: ERROR 0xc0000005
[21:44:15] Deleting current work unit & continuing...
bruce
Posts: 20824
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:13 pm
Location: So. Cal.

Re: Project: 6901 (Run 14, Clone 20, Gen 2) faulting

Post by bruce »

Is the machine overclocked? Have you run extensive memory diagnostics recently?

By policy, we ether wait for multiple uploads or reports from multiple people. That's why we often say "marked for followup"
sfield
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 3:36 am

Re: Project: 6901 (Run 14, Clone 20, Gen 2) faulting

Post by sfield »

Not applicable -- see PM as of a couple minutes ago for much more detail.
bruce wrote:Is the machine overclocked? Have you run extensive memory diagnostics recently?

By policy, we ether wait for multiple uploads or reports from multiple people. That's why we often say "marked for followup"
PantherX
Site Moderator
Posts: 6986
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:33 am
Hardware configuration: V7.6.21 -> Multi-purpose 24/7
Windows 10 64-bit
CPU:2/3/4/6 -> Intel i7-6700K
GPU:1 -> Nvidia GTX 1080 Ti
§
Retired:
2x Nvidia GTX 1070
Nvidia GTX 675M
Nvidia GTX 660 Ti
Nvidia GTX 650 SC
Nvidia GTX 260 896 MB SOC
Nvidia 9600GT 1 GB OC
Nvidia 9500M GS
Nvidia 8800GTS 320 MB

Intel Core i7-860
Intel Core i7-3840QM
Intel i3-3240
Intel Core 2 Duo E8200
Intel Core 2 Duo E6550
Intel Core 2 Duo T8300
Intel Pentium E5500
Intel Pentium E5400
Location: Land Of The Long White Cloud
Contact:

Re: Project: 6901 (Run 14, Clone 20, Gen 2) faulting

Post by PantherX »

No data in the WU DAtabase yet.
ETA:
Now ↞ Very Soon ↔ Soon ↔ Soon-ish ↔ Not Soon ↠ End Of Time

Welcome To The F@H Support Forum Ӂ Troubleshooting Bad WUs Ӂ Troubleshooting Server Connectivity Issues
sortofageek
Site Admin
Posts: 3110
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: Team Helix
Contact:

Re: Project: 6901 (Run 14, Clone 20, Gen 2) faulting

Post by sortofageek »

The WU (P6901,R14,C20,G2) has been reported as a bad WU. Note that the list of reported WUs are stoped daily at 8am pacific time.
Post Reply