Project: 5902 (Run 4, Clone 827, Gen 10)

[patonb]

I think i got partial credit for this

Code: Select all

03:45:39] 
[03:45:39] Project: 5902 (Run 4, Clone 827, Gen 10)
[03:45:39] 
[03:45:39] Assembly optimizations on if available.
[03:45:39] Entering M.D.
[03:45:45] Tpr hash work/wudata_03.tpr:  2955632704 3373156849 98494476 1856991431 1852008175
[03:45:46] Working on Protein
[03:45:47] Client config found, loading data.
[03:45:47] Starting GUI Server
[03:50:31] Completed 1%
[03:55:38] Completed 2%
[04:00:47] Completed 3%
[04:05:58] Completed 4%
<Snip>
[10:08:24] Completed 74%
[10:13:39] Completed 75%
[10:14:42] SEH code: 3221225477
[10:14:42] Run: exception thrown during GuardedRun
[10:14:42] Run: exception thrown in GuardedRun -- Gromacs cannot continue further.
[10:14:42] Going to send back what have done -- stepsTotalG=8000000
[10:14:42] Work fraction=0.7517 steps=8000000.
[10:14:46] logfile size=312654 infoLength=312654 edr=0 trr=23
[10:14:46] - Writing 313190 bytes of core data to disk...
[10:14:46] Done: 312678 -> 6986 (compressed to 2.2 percent)
[10:14:46]   ... Done.
[10:14:46] 
[10:14:46] Folding@home Core Shutdown: UNSTABLE_MACHINE
[10:14:50] CoreStatus = 7A (122)
[10:14:50] Sending work to server
[10:14:50] Project: 5902 (Run 4, Clone 827, Gen 10)


[10:14:50] + Attempting to send results [March 18 10:14:50 UTC]
[10:14:51] + Results successfully sent
[10:14:51] Thank you for your contribution to Folding@Home.

[susato]

Hi patonb (team 12864),
Your WU (P5902 R4 C827 G10) was added to the stats database on 2009-03-17 03:35:15 for 1262.89 points of credit.
You're apparently the first person to try this WU, so it's too soon to identify it as "bad".
Thanks for the report.

[susato]

Followup - ihaque, the owner of this WU series, is monitoring them personally and removing failed WU's before they can be reassigned.
Your failed WU won't be allowed back in the pool.

[anko1]

I noticed that toTOW made a similar comment about ihaque. Does that mean we don't have to/Stanford doesn't want us to report the failed 59xx's?

[bruce]

I noticed that toTOW made a similar comment about ihaque. Does that mean we don't have to/Stanford doesn't want us to report the failed 59xx's?

You don't have to, but you may want to.

With respect to the science, the WIKI says that you don't need to report most EUEs because Stanford gets a report anyway (except when the report is deleted by the error).

The forum can help with an interpretation of how common the error is or help eliminating it (if that's possible) and the EUE report is a good place to start. Those of us who read the forums regularly are interested in the reports so we get a feel for what's happening, but that's not essential to the science.

[anko1]

Thanks for the response, Bruce. I'm happy to post the errors. I didn't want to be a pest if it wasn't useful.

[bruce]

I didn't want to be a pest if it wasn't useful.

Some reports are more useful that others, particularly to the Pande Group, but I don't think anyone who is making an error report is being a pest..

[anko1]