Folding Forum

Posted: **Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:23 am**

Project: 10722 (Run 0, Clone 3171, Gen 1) took over a week to do and was worth 5000 points or so.
When it finished it had a problem and gave up! Was this an A4 or GB core- did they get crossed?
2 hours per step is the longest I've seen- on the 'not that slow' Duo e6600 core- going flat out.

It is overclocked, but otherwise stable with no issues on the 'Panther check list' occurring- and folding on the GPU, and both CPU cores now OK.
The unit crashed a few times setting up the new cores- but always carried on working without any warnings or variation in step times.
Disappointing if lost as a result.. but maybe worth reporting here.

NB: Missed from log: Client- Windows CPU Systray Edition Folding@Home Client Version 6.23

Code: Select all

[22:17:30] - Machine ID: 3
[22:17:30] 
[22:17:30] Loaded queue successfully.
[22:17:30] Initialization complete
[22:17:30] 
[22:17:30] + Processing work unit
[22:17:30] Core required: FahCore_a4.exe
[22:17:30] Core found.
[22:17:30] Working on queue slot 00 [February 2 22:17:30 UTC]
[22:17:30] + Working ...
[22:17:34] 
[22:17:34] *------------------------------*
[22:17:34] Folding@Home Gromacs GB Core
[22:17:34] Version 2.27 (Dec. 15, 2010)
[22:17:35] 
[22:17:35] Preparing to commence simulation
[22:17:35] - Ensuring status. Please wait.
[22:17:44] - Looking at optimizations...
[22:17:44] - Working with standard loops on this execution.
[22:17:44] Examination of work files indicates 8 consecutive improper terminations of core.
[22:17:44] - Expanded 271142 -> 354128 (decompressed 130.6 percent)
[22:17:44] Called DecompressByteArray: compressed_data_size=271142 data_size=354128, decompressed_data_size=354128 diff=0
[22:17:44] - Digital signature verified
[22:17:44] 
[22:17:44] Project: 10722 (Run 0, Clone 3171, Gen 1)
[22:17:44] 
[22:17:44] Entering M.D.
[22:17:50] Using Gromacs checkpoints
[22:17:50] Mapping NT from 1 to 1 
[22:17:51] Resuming from checkpoint
[22:17:51] Verified work/wudata_00.log
[22:17:52] Verified work/wudata_00.trr
[22:17:52] Verified work/wudata_00.xtc
[22:17:52] Verified work/wudata_00.edr
[22:17:52] Completed 3147040 out of 7000000 steps  (44%)
[22:22:52] Completed 3150000 out of 7000000 steps  (45%)
[00:16:43] Completed 3220000 out of 7000000 steps  (46%)
[02:00:35] Completed 3290000 out of 7000000 steps  (47%)
[03:44:34] Completed 3360000 out of 7000000 steps  (48%)
[04:17:30] + Working...
[05:30:53] Completed 3430000 out of 7000000 steps  (49%)
[07:17:47] Completed 3500000 out of 7000000 steps  (50%)
[09:04:39] Completed 3570000 out of 7000000 steps  (51%)
[10:17:30] + Working...
[10:55:48] Completed 3640000 out of 7000000 steps  (52%)
[12:49:58] Completed 3710000 out of 7000000 steps  (53%)
[14:36:18] Completed 3780000 out of 7000000 steps  (54%)
[16:17:30] + Working...
[16:23:32] Completed 3850000 out of 7000000 steps  (55%)
[18:12:23] Completed 3920000 out of 7000000 steps  (56%)
[20:08:31] Completed 3990000 out of 7000000 steps  (57%)
[22:03:51] Completed 4060000 out of 7000000 steps  (58%)
[22:17:30] + Working...
[23:50:04] Completed 4130000 out of 7000000 steps  (59%)
[01:36:14] Completed 4200000 out of 7000000 steps  (60%)
[03:23:46] Completed 4270000 out of 7000000 steps  (61%)
[04:17:30] + Working...
[05:09:38] Completed 4340000 out of 7000000 steps  (62%)
[06:55:29] Completed 4410000 out of 7000000 steps  (63%)
[08:43:21] Completed 4480000 out of 7000000 steps  (64%)
[10:17:30] + Working...
[10:32:24] Completed 4550000 out of 7000000 steps  (65%)
[12:19:13] Completed 4620000 out of 7000000 steps  (66%)
[14:07:14] Completed 4690000 out of 7000000 steps  (67%)
[15:53:50] Completed 4760000 out of 7000000 steps  (68%)
[16:17:30] + Working...
[17:24:28] Completed 4830000 out of 7000000 steps  (69%)
[18:55:43] Completed 4900000 out of 7000000 steps  (70%)
[20:27:00] Completed 4970000 out of 7000000 steps  (71%)
[21:58:46] Completed 5040000 out of 7000000 steps  (72%)
[22:17:30] + Working...
[23:30:03] Completed 5110000 out of 7000000 steps  (73%)
[01:01:23] Completed 5180000 out of 7000000 steps  (74%)
[02:31:42] Completed 5250000 out of 7000000 steps  (75%)
[04:02:07] Completed 5320000 out of 7000000 steps  (76%)
[04:17:30] + Working...
[05:32:27] Completed 5390000 out of 7000000 steps  (77%)
[07:03:31] Completed 5460000 out of 7000000 steps  (78%)
[08:34:00] Completed 5530000 out of 7000000 steps  (79%)
[10:04:28] Completed 5600000 out of 7000000 steps  (80%)
[10:17:30] + Working...
[11:49:45] Completed 5670000 out of 7000000 steps  (81%)
[13:53:49] Completed 5740000 out of 7000000 steps  (82%)
[15:59:37] Completed 5810000 out of 7000000 steps  (83%)
[16:17:30] + Working...
[17:57:06] Completed 5880000 out of 7000000 steps  (84%)
[19:42:44] Completed 5950000 out of 7000000 steps  (85%)
[21:54:50] Completed 6020000 out of 7000000 steps  (86%)
[22:17:30] + Working...
[00:10:39] Completed 6090000 out of 7000000 steps  (87%)
[02:17:47] Completed 6160000 out of 7000000 steps  (88%)
[04:16:35] Completed 6230000 out of 7000000 steps  (89%)
[04:17:30] + Working...
[06:15:57] Completed 6300000 out of 7000000 steps  (90%)
[08:23:42] Completed 6370000 out of 7000000 steps  (91%)
[10:17:30] + Working...
[10:28:09] Completed 6440000 out of 7000000 steps  (92%)
[12:26:50] Completed 6510000 out of 7000000 steps  (93%)
[14:29:47] Completed 6580000 out of 7000000 steps  (94%)
[16:17:30] + Working...
[16:27:54] Completed 6650000 out of 7000000 steps  (95%)
[18:27:33] Completed 6720000 out of 7000000 steps  (96%)
[20:42:20] Completed 6790000 out of 7000000 steps  (97%)
[22:17:30] + Working...
[22:37:58] Completed 6860000 out of 7000000 steps  (98%)
[00:36:31] Completed 6930000 out of 7000000 steps  (99%)
[02:27:20] Completed 7000000 out of 7000000 steps  (100%)
[02:27:21] DynamicWrapper: Finished Work Unit: sleep=10000
[02:27:31] 
[02:27:31] Finished Work Unit:
[02:27:31] - Reading up to 6825192 from "work/wudata_00.trr": Read 6825192
[02:27:31] - Checksum of file (work/wudata_00.trr) read from disk doesn't match
[02:27:31] 
[02:27:31] Folding@home Core Shutdown: FILE_IO_ERROR
[02:27:35] CoreStatus = 75 (117)
[02:27:35] Error opening or reading from a file.
[02:27:35] Deleting current work unit & continuing...

Posted: **Tue Feb 07, 2012 2:01 pm**

Thanks for the report. That one appears to be a bad WU. I reported it, but I'm not sure the report went through. I'll bring that to the attention of Pande Group.

Posted: **Tue Feb 07, 2012 5:07 pm**

Thanks to Macaholic, the WU has been reported.

The WU (P10722,R0,C3171,G1) has been reported as a bad WU. Note that the list of reported WUs are stopped daily at 8am pacific time.

Posted: **Wed Feb 08, 2012 11:42 am**

I think I found an anomaly that could explain this failed unit.
For unknown reasons the cpu config on one client had changed to 1, from 3 previously.
I have a double click sensitivity on my mouse that sometimes starts the client twice from the short cut on desktop.
I noticed a few of these events which terminated with a warning that a client with same ident was already running.
Thus, I was off guard that the config of CPU2 was using the m/c ID 1- the same as the GPU [main workhorse client, usually running].
Maybe ,as my system is getting 3 or 4 times faster with CPU upgrades , the double click problem, irritating but minor in itself, has contributed to the glitch on units starting- and with a much faster system response, too.
I've corrected the config issue now- I always previously ran with 3 IDs for safety, as there's no problem with running short of idents on my rig.
I suppose the results on that unit are no good ?
- but it still may have a problem , of course...this is just an update on system function rather than a cure-all!
*** I'm not really sure if a machine number can be shared, if they are GPU and CPU clients , but it could explain why the A4 and GB cores got a mention on the same log file.

Posted: **Wed Feb 08, 2012 1:59 pm**

new08 wrote:I have a double click sensitivity on my mouse that sometimes starts the client twice from the short cut on desktop.

I don't know if the above is the only issue, however what I do to avoid the same issue occuring is Right click + Open

Hope this helps

Posted: **Wed Feb 08, 2012 2:15 pm**

Yeah, Hondo- I'll do that. I did have a couple of scripts to cure the mouse sensitivity, but after working for a while they decided to lose interest and refuse to re- run now- so I've yet to find a generic solution [Win XP SP3]

Posted: **Thu Feb 09, 2012 6:35 am**

I know this is not the original unit for this thread ,but the next unit on that same core got through in one go.
What happens?- it completes OK, as done many times on these units -and then fails to upload.
I have the results file still -and a txt logfile in the results folder as follows:

Code: Select all

*------------------------------*
Folding@Home Gromacs GB Core
Version 2.27 (Dec. 15, 2010)

Preparing to commence simulation
- Ensuring status. Please wait.
- Looking at optimizations...
- Working with standard loops on this execution.
- Previous termination of core was improper.
- Files status OK
- Expanded 50669 -> 197152 (decompressed 389.0 percent)
Called DecompressByteArray: compressed_data_size=50669 data_size=197152, decompressed_data_size=197152 diff=0
- Digital signature verified

Project: 7016 (Run 1, Clone 21, Gen 87)

Entering M.D.
Mapping NT from 1 to 1 
Completed 0 out of 10000000 steps  (0%)
Completed 100000 out of 10000000 steps  (1%)
Completed 200000 out of 10000000 steps  (2%)
Completed 300000 out of 10000000 steps  (3%)
Completed 400000 out of 10000000 steps  (4%)
Completed 500000 out of 10000000 steps  (5%)
Completed 600000 out of 10000000 steps  (6%)
Completed 700000 out of 10000000 steps  (7%)
Completed 800000 out of 10000000 steps  (8%)
Completed 900000 out of 10000000 steps  (9%)
Completed 1000000 out of 10000000 steps  (10%)
Completed 1100000 out of 10000000 steps  (11%)
Completed 1200000 out of 10000000 steps  (12%)
Completed 1300000 out of 10000000 steps  (13%)
Completed 1400000 out of 10000000 steps  (14%)
Completed 1500000 out of 10000000 steps  (15%)
Completed 1600000 out of 10000000 steps  (16%)
Completed 1700000 out of 10000000 steps  (17%)
Completed 1800000 out of 10000000 steps  (18%)
Completed 1900000 out of 10000000 steps  (19%)
Completed 2000000 out of 10000000 steps  (20%)
Completed 2100000 out of 10000000 steps  (21%)
Completed 2200000 out of 10000000 steps  (22%)
Completed 2300000 out of 10000000 steps  (23%)
Completed 2400000 out of 10000000 steps  (24%)
Completed 2500000 out of 10000000 steps  (25%)
Completed 2600000 out of 10000000 steps  (26%)
Completed 2700000 out of 10000000 steps  (27%)
Completed 2800000 out of 10000000 steps  (28%)
Completed 2900000 out of 10000000 steps  (29%)
Completed 3000000 out of 10000000 steps  (30%)
Completed 3100000 out of 10000000 steps  (31%)
Completed 3200000 out of 10000000 steps  (32%)
Completed 3300000 out of 10000000 steps  (33%)
Completed 3400000 out of 10000000 steps  (34%)
Completed 3500000 out of 10000000 steps  (35%)
Completed 3600000 out of 10000000 steps  (36%)
Completed 3700000 out of 10000000 steps  (37%)
Completed 3800000 out of 10000000 steps  (38%)
Completed 3900000 out of 10000000 steps  (39%)
Completed 4000000 out of 10000000 steps  (40%)
Completed 4100000 out of 10000000 steps  (41%)
Completed 4200000 out of 10000000 steps  (42%)
Completed 4300000 out of 10000000 steps  (43%)
Completed 4400000 out of 10000000 steps  (44%)
Completed 4500000 out of 10000000 steps  (45%)
Completed 4600000 out of 10000000 steps  (46%)
Completed 4700000 out of 10000000 steps  (47%)
Completed 4800000 out of 10000000 steps  (48%)
Completed 4900000 out of 10000000 steps  (49%)
Completed 5000000 out of 10000000 steps  (50%)
Completed 5100000 out of 10000000 steps  (51%)
Completed 5200000 out of 10000000 steps  (52%)
Completed 5300000 out of 10000000 steps  (53%)
Completed 5400000 out of 10000000 steps  (54%)
Completed 5500000 out of 10000000 steps  (55%)
Completed 5600000 out of 10000000 steps  (56%)
Completed 5700000 out of 10000000 steps  (57%)
Completed 5800000 out of 10000000 steps  (58%)
Completed 5900000 out of 10000000 steps  (59%)
Completed 6000000 out of 10000000 steps  (60%)
Completed 6100000 out of 10000000 steps  (61%)
Completed 6200000 out of 10000000 steps  (62%)
Completed 6300000 out of 10000000 steps  (63%)
Completed 6400000 out of 10000000 steps  (64%)
Completed 6500000 out of 10000000 steps  (65%)
Completed 6600000 out of 10000000 steps  (66%)
Completed 6700000 out of 10000000 steps  (67%)
Completed 6800000 out of 10000000 steps  (68%)
Completed 6900000 out of 10000000 steps  (69%)
Completed 7000000 out of 10000000 steps  (70%)
Completed 7100000 out of 10000000 steps  (71%)
Completed 7200000 out of 10000000 steps  (72%)
Completed 7300000 out of 10000000 steps  (73%)
Completed 7400000 out of 10000000 steps  (74%)
Completed 7500000 out of 10000000 steps  (75%)
Completed 7600000 out of 10000000 steps  (76%)
Completed 7700000 out of 10000000 steps  (77%)
Completed 7800000 out of 10000000 steps  (78%)
Completed 7900000 out of 10000000 steps  (79%)
Completed 8000000 out of 10000000 steps  (80%)
Completed 8100000 out of 10000000 steps  (81%)
Completed 8200000 out of 10000000 steps  (82%)
Completed 8300000 out of 10000000 steps  (83%)
Completed 8400000 out of 10000000 steps  (84%)
Completed 8500000 out of 10000000 steps  (85%)
Completed 8600000 out of 10000000 steps  (86%)
Completed 8700000 out of 10000000 steps  (87%)
Completed 8800000 out of 10000000 steps  (88%)
Completed 8900000 out of 10000000 steps  (89%)
Completed 9000000 out of 10000000 steps  (90%)
Completed 9100000 out of 10000000 steps  (91%)
Completed 9200000 out of 10000000 steps  (92%)
Completed 9300000 out of 10000000 steps  (93%)
Completed 9400000 out of 10000000 steps  (94%)
Completed 9500000 out of 10000000 steps  (95%)
Completed 9600000 out of 10000000 steps  (96%)
Completed 9700000 out of 10000000 steps  (97%)
Completed 9800000 out of 10000000 steps  (98%)
Completed 9900000 out of 10000000 steps  (99%)
Completed 10000000 out of 10000000 steps  (100%)
DynamicWrapper: Finished Work Unit: sleep=10000

Finished Work Unit:
- Reading up to 2026464 from "work/wudata_01.trr": Read 2026464
trr file hash check passed.
- Reading up to 210856 from "work/wudata_01.xtc": Read 210856
xtc file hash check passed.
edr file hash check passed.
logfile size: 80711
Leaving Run
- Writing 2342503 bytes of core data to disk...
Done: 2341991 -> 1548484 (compressed to 66.1 percent)
  ... Done.
- Shutting down core

Folding@home Core Shutdown: FINISHED_UNIT

From my [usual, not workfile] text file report was the added after: FINISHED_UNIT
[21:01:17] CoreStatus = 64 (100)
[21:01:17] Sending work to server
[21:01:17] Project: 7016 (Run 1, Clone 21, Gen 87)

[21:01:17] + Attempting to send results [February 8 21:01:17 UTC]
[21:01:30] - Server reports problem with unit.
[21:01:30] + Closed connections
[21:01:30] + Paused after finishing unit

Folding@Home Client Shutdown.

Now, I have to ask- is the results file any use and can it be uploaded?[It's 1.5 Mb]

The only thing that comes to mind is that the inability to shut down or pause on this core may be leaving a bad trace on restart.
It seems that using standard loops can't clear on a restart so goes back to zero work done -
Even if this doesn't occur when the unit finishes- a glitch occurs that the results server doesn't like.
The other core is fine for this, so not a connection problem.

Should I delete the core and let it reload after finishes current unit in two days?
This not uploading will make about 10 days work on one core lost.
PS: I noticed and corrected that the Bonus password was missing from config- I don't think this would affect uploading of the raw results.

Posted: **Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:47 am**

Starting two V6 clients in the same directory will always cause something to fail. i think they have made it impossible to do that in V7.

Posted: **Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:18 am**

Yeah, Cody! I have the two cpu clients in separate disks just to remind me.
Mtm has commented on the other thread but I'm going to switch my response to here.
Historically, I had a client set up on C the boot loader disk, but not the O/S holder. I was just happy that XP reloaded OK on processer upgrades but I did find O/C limited by a disk read failure, rather than overstressed cpu cores.
I have looked into switching the ntldr to the D drive but tbh, been distracted by the odd behavour of my folding clients.
At least I've kept 80% production running but as the failures to send back what look like good results is not followed through -it is made harder to diagnose.
A report like- 'don't like the results' is not that helpful as feedback from the servers!
I will post O/C data later on this thread, but I'm not doing anything too heavy- just maxing the board.
I will leave a post for mtm as I don't want to hijack the other thread.
I could now easily not use the C folder if that is what the problem is and just use another D directory.
I've done troubleshooting before on here , helping with the GPU species issue which had caused a lot of grief over time.
So, even if it's old news, many people may find it explains odd behaviours- to thrash out why things happen.
In the PG overview , a superfluity of folders makes for a different dynamic than enthusiasts beating the clock

Adding hardware details for MtM :
LGA 775 for Intel® Dual Core Core™ 2 Extreme / Core™ 2 Duo / Pentium® Dual Core / Celeron®, supporting Dual Core Wolfdale processors
Intel® 945GC A2 Chipset
Compatible with all FSB1333/1066/800/533 MHz CPUs except Quad Core
Supports Dual Channel DDRII667/533 x 2 DIMM slots with max. capacity up to 4GB

Running [XP pro] at 1333 FSB 333 Bus speed X9 on a e6600 Duo core Pentium[stock 2.4GHz] o/c to 3.0 GHz.Temp. cores~ 52C;Case temp 48C air cooled
Memory -DDR2 6400 2 x1GB running@ 250 Mhz 4:3 and timimg 4:4:4 12
GPU is GT240 o/c 640 core 1640 shaders 1740 memory. Running at circa 64 C [will run @70C] latest drivers

Posted: **Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:25 pm**

new08 wrote:Yeah, Hondo- I'll do that. I did have a couple of scripts to cure the mouse sensitivity, but after working for a while they decided to lose interest and refuse to re- run now- so I've yet to find a generic solution [Win XP SP3]

What I (sometimes) do is a single click on the icon and then hit the enter key on my keyboard so I am always sure that the application has been started.

Posted: **Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:40 pm**

Thanx for that little tip Panther- I'm sure as hell going to get that script working one day though!
I'm caught out on the CPU client prob as I keep getting 2 days long units and if I stop the one with a problem- it resets. Never seen that before- so it's a slow process debugging the bugger

If the next one plays up in 5 hrs when it completes- I'll move it to another location and try again. I'm only doing this as a bug trace really!
I don't think it's a config problem- but you know Windows....

Posted: **Sat Feb 11, 2012 12:14 pm**

Update: The C Client finished an uploaded ok. the rest as normal.
The only change prior to this was to de -synch the PCIe bus from the FSB.
I can't imagine this had any real effect or that Ver6.23 can detect bios config changes like this. Instability is a different matter- by it's very name. That has not been seen in the course this issues.
I'm pleased things have settled down -and the little discussion I've had this thread has been useful.
I think many have just sat back and waited unable to comment- but I still think it's worth putting out the details for others to check on.
It's not that F@H is rocket science on the donors' end, relying on clever software impementation a lot, but it is a bit 'scatter gun' and why many drop out, I'd wager. I suspect that many a sidelong look gets taken on some of these comments by PG!
I , like many mods and contributors here must like a battle- and if it was easy wouldn't be so much fun!
So long as the results stack in the end.... losing 10 days of one cores output is no big deal.

Folding Forum

Failed unit after 1 long week... Project: 10722 (Run 0, Clon

Failed unit after 1 long week... Project: 10722 (Run 0, Clon

Re: Failed unit after 1 long week... Project: 10722 (Run 0,

Re: Failed unit after 1 long week... Project: 10722 (Run 0,

Re: Failed unit after 1 long week... Project: 10722 (Run 0,

Re: Failed unit after 1 long week... Project: 10722 (Run 0,

Re: Failed unit after 1 long week... Project: 10722 (Run 0,

Re: Failed unit after 1 long week... Project: 10722 (Run 0,

Re: Failed unit after 1 long week... Project: 10722 (Run 0,

Re: Failed unit after 1 long week... Project: 10722 (Run 0,

Re: Failed unit after 1 long week... Project: 10722 (Run 0,

Re: Failed unit after 1 long week... Project: 10722 (Run 0,

Re: Failed unit after 1 long week... Project: 10722 (Run 0,