Hi,
I've been getting only computation errors on six machines in two locations. Clearly I am doing something wrong globally. Most of the errors look like this:
<core_client_version>7.12.1</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<stderr_txt>
10:56:20 (229436): wrapper (7.5.26012): starting
10:56:20 (229436): wrapper: running llr.exe ( -d -oPgenInputFile=input.prp -oPgenOutputFile=primes.txt -oDiskWriteTime=10 -oOutputIterations=50000 -oResultsFileIterations=99999999 -t 4)
10:56:22 (229436): llr.exe exited; CPU time 0.000000
10:56:22 (229436): called boinc_finish(0)
</stderr_txt>
<message>
upload failure: <file_xfer_error>
<file_name>R879_350-400k_wu_6538_1_0</file_name>
<error_code>-240 (stat() failed)</error_code>
</file_xfer_error>
</message>
]]>
Any help?
/ 
Reply
Quote
Hi,
Have you tried using an app_config.xml file to limit the number of running tasks to 1 to start with ?
It is unlikely all your 100 processor machines can run up to 25 tasks at a time :)
/ Reply
Quote
rebirtherVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 2 Jan 13
Posts: 7601
Credit: 44,264,218
RAC: 120
your -t command is wrong, use -t4 not -t 4
/ Reply
Quote
your -t command is wrong, use -t4 not -t 4
Thank you. That appears to have been the problem.
/ Reply
Quote
Just a note, in my case, I ended up putting an "<avg_ncpus>x</avg_ncpus>" line (x being the same value as in the <cmdline> entry) to obtain the expected multithreaded behavior seen with other apps. Maybe this is wrong too, but it does seem to do what I want it to do now.
/ Reply
Quote
That's what I had to do, Conan pointed it out here...
http://srbase.my-firewall.org/sr5/forum_thread.php?id=1072&postid=4773#4773
/ Reply
Quote
Hi,
Have you tried using an app_config.xml file to limit the number of running tasks to 1 to start with ?
It is unlikely all your 100 processor machines can run up to 25 tasks at a time :)
I know of one defunct project, that wasn't NCI, that would run 96 WU on a 16 thread computer, get credits and complete the WU's. Well, until they increased the RAM per WU and sent my machine into a swap crisis which required a hard reset.
EDIT: Oooo, crashtech has a E5-2689 0. Never seen one of those in BOINC computer databases, had to look it up. No AVX, benchmarks faster than the 2690 0 althhough it's base clock is 300mhz lower, and runs 20W cooler.
/ Reply
Quote
Hi,
Have you tried using an app_config.xml file to limit the number of running tasks to 1 to start with ?
It is unlikely all your 100 processor machines can run up to 25 tasks at a time :)
I know of one defunct project, that wasn't NCI, that would run 96 WU on a 16 thread computer, get credits and complete the WU's. Well, until they increased the RAM per WU and sent my machine into a swap crisis which required a hard reset.
EDIT: Oooo, crashtech has a E5-2689 0. Never seen one of those in BOINC computer databases, had to look it up. No AVX, benchmarks faster than the 2690 0 althhough it's base clock is 300mhz lower, and runs 20W cooler.
I was not aware that the 2689 did not have AVX, would you mind linking to the source of the info? cpu-world says that it does:
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Xeon/Intel-Xeon%20E5-2689.html
Also about the 100 CPU thing, I just do that for convenience, it makes it so the CPU Limits field in the BOINC app becomes simply ncpus instead of a percentage. It's also convenient for other things too on occasion.
/ Reply
Quote
rebirtherVolunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Project tester
Project scientist
Send message
Joined: 2 Jan 13
Posts: 7601
Credit: 44,264,218
RAC: 120
That's what I had to do, Conan pointed it out here...
http://srbase.my-firewall.org/sr5/forum_thread.php?id=1072&postid=4773#4773
Added to the FAQ.
/ Reply
Quote
I was not aware that the 2689 did not have AVX, would you mind linking to the source of the info? cpu-world says that it does:
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Xeon/Intel-Xeon%20E5-2689.html
From CPU Boss comparison to an E5-2690, it pops right out: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Xeon-E5-2690-vs-Intel-Xeon-E5-2689
Although, instead of relying on spec sheets, that could be wrong, CPU-Z should report the abilities properly.
It's a potential upgrade to my current E5-2660's. Though, I'm more interested in performance/watt than maximum performance.
/ Reply
Quote
From CPU Boss comparison to an E5-2690, it pops right out: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Xeon-E5-2690-vs-Intel-Xeon-E5-2689
Although, instead of relying on spec sheets, that could be wrong, CPU-Z should report the abilities properly.
It's a potential upgrade to my current E5-2660's. Though, I'm more interested in performance/watt than maximum performance.
Good idea!
https://i.postimg.cc/9f0s3m8g/2689.jpg
I'm not sure if the img tag is working here?
My wish is to upgrade that platform this year, so perhaps I should keep you in mind when it's time to find another home for the CPUs.
/ Reply
Quote