Download Bug Happening Again (*.220)

[bruce]

Once two WUs are stuck, you might as well reboot. (or otherwise restart FAHClient)

[Sn0wy23]

I have 2 machines running and have blocked the IP of the offending faulty download, this keeps me running. Prior to this I would pause the client, open task manager, open processes and end process tree for FAH client. Then open up the FAH Control again and then click on FAH client and all would restart without doing a full system reboot.
This maybe harder than doing a reboot, however I can use Anydesk to access both machines and perform the above tasks easily from my Mobile phone. However, I have now blocked the IP on both (Only done the 2nd PC today) and all is good.
As I said somewhere before, I'm not fully PC literate but can find a workaround sometimes.

Hope the server admin can find the fault and we can restart the IP again.

Offtopic, still cant figure out my Signature, BBCode shows from others but not in my Profile box.

[antropofob]

Once two WUs are stuck, you might as well reboot. (or otherwise restart FAHClient)

I did and now I am stuck at 4/4 stuck slots
Waiting for divine intervention on Stanford side.

[HaloJones]

reboot again. if you tell us your OS, we may be able to provide how to block this specific address outbound. that would stop your clients hitting .220

[HaloJones]

have now found that the IP block on my firewall is hurting even more than not having it. don't know why as it was working happily but now if it is .220 that my clients try to connect to, the client never times out.

[bruce]

I have no first-hand experience with blocked connections so somebody else may have more information than I do, but I do know that the AS follows certain load-balancing rules. It creates a list of servers that have WUs that meet the requirements of your client. I don't know what it does when it decides that a certain server isn't able to deliver its fair share of downloads.

[snapshot]

I've just lost twelve hours on my best client to this so I'm a bit cross that this hasn't been solved four weeks after it was first reported.
Do you still need log extracts posted and, if so, which bits?

[HaloJones]

I've also got problems hitting the 140.163.4.241 server.

rebooting two very expensive dual-gpu Linux boxes ten times this morning to get work? not acceptable

[b-morgan]

A router/firewall rule to drop all packets being sent to 155.247.166.220 is working very well for me. I'm getting a steady stream of workloads from 140.163.4.241.

Code: Select all

******************************* Date: 2020-03-03 *******************************
05:06:18:WARNING:WU01:FS01:WorkServer connection failed on port 8080 trying 80
05:06:39:ERROR:WU01:FS01:Exception: Failed to connect to 155.247.166.220:80: A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond.
05:07:01:WARNING:WU01:FS01:WorkServer connection failed on port 8080 trying 80
05:07:22:ERROR:WU01:FS01:Exception: Failed to connect to 155.247.166.220:80: A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond.
06:56:17:WARNING:WU00:FS01:WorkServer connection failed on port 8080 trying 80
06:56:38:ERROR:WU00:FS01:Exception: Failed to connect to 155.247.166.220:80: A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond.
08:44:52:WARNING:WU01:FS01:WorkServer connection failed on port 8080 trying 80
08:45:13:ERROR:WU01:FS01:Exception: Failed to connect to 155.247.166.220:80: A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond.
******************************* Date: 2020-03-03 *******************************
10:34:00:WARNING:WU00:FS01:WorkServer connection failed on port 8080 trying 80
10:34:21:ERROR:WU00:FS01:Exception: Failed to connect to 155.247.166.220:80: A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond.
10:34:43:WARNING:WU00:FS01:WorkServer connection failed on port 8080 trying 80
10:35:04:ERROR:WU00:FS01:Exception: Failed to connect to 155.247.166.220:80: A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond.
03:17:25:WARNING:WU00:FS01:WorkServer connection failed on port 8080 trying 80
03:17:47:ERROR:WU00:FS01:Exception: Failed to connect to 155.247.166.220:80: A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond.

[JimF]

I am a bit perplexed that I have not seen the problem this time around, with 8 to 10 cards (mostly GTX 1070) running under Ubuntu.
It may help that I run the machines 24/7. But I see my share of connections to .220 whenever I look.

[b-morgan]

I believe .220 is only intermittently failing. The failure mode appears to be that the download starts but does not finish. Since there are no timeouts associated with the download, the client is hung waiting for the download to finish.

[HaloJones]

This morning I had four clients stuck. I re-started them all until they were able to connect (took five goes on one of them). I then on a wild hunch changed them all to client-type=beta and they've all been fine since.

[JimF]

I then on a wild hunch changed them all to client-type=beta and they've all been fine since.

That is interesting. I have 7 out of 9 machines set to client-type=advanced, which may explain why no problems (if someone can figure out how it explains it).

[snapshot]

I don't think it does as my four clients are all set to advanced.

The last time this was a major issue, there was some sort of networking problem that somehow corrupted peoples routers. The cure was to reboot ones router. I wonder if this is worth trying again for those having serious problems this time round?

[HaloJones]

I don't think it does as my four clients are all set to advanced.

The last time this was a major issue, there was some sort of networking problem that somehow corrupted peoples routers. The cure was to reboot ones router. I wonder if this is worth trying again for those having serious problems this time round?

rebooting a router may be similar in impact to a TCP connection as rebooting the client