Advanced search

Forums : Technical Support : 2.11 seems much better
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

1 · 2 · Next

AuthorMessage
Brian Silvers

Send message
Joined: 11 Dec 07
Posts: 420
Credit: 270,580
RAC: 0
Message 5136 - Posted: 10 Mar 2008, 6:45:28 UTC
Last modified: 10 Mar 2008, 6:46:16 UTC

...at least for me anyway.

Brief recap:

I initially thought 2.09 was ok for me. Looking at the process running in Task Manager, CPU usage was steady at 99%, which is typical for a running science application. The disk writes did seem a bit on the high side, but there was no thrashing of the HDD going on at the time. I then did what I often do when I am going to play any kind of game that requires significant CPU resources; I shut down BOINC via a right-click. A few minutes later, I decided I had better work on my Java midterm, so I opened Eclipse, Winamp, and then fired up BOINC again. This time the disk thrashing was instantly apparent and the CPU usage was bouncing all over the place. Before I shut down BOINC, app version 2.09 was indeed running on this host (my AMD). The only conclusion I could make based on what I saw is that something went wrong during science application / BOINC shutdown and the app didn\'t like it when it was restarted. If it wasn\'t that, then perhaps there are certain stages of a task that have less I/O than others...?

So, the first task being processed with 2.11 started out a little strange. It went at least 4 minutes trucking along with steady CPU usage, but absolutely no disk activity and no increase in the progress indicator. I then shut down BOINC the same way I had done when 2.09 was running. When I started BOINC again, the science app had a huge flurry of disk activity and the progress indicator shot up over 10% very quickly. Since then the CPU usage has been relatively steady in the 90s and the progress indicator has kept going up. It is currently in a very slow portion, with increases of only 0.00x% (currently at 46.574%). Disk I/O is not thrashing, but I don\'t know if it is checkpointing properly. I haven\'t taken the time to really check, so right now it\'s just a gut feeling that there\'s still something amiss...

The really interesting part is what happened with my Intel host. It was still using 2.08, but had the 2.09 and 2.10 applications downloaded. There was no disk thrashing going on, which according to other posts it was implied that 2.08 and 2.09 had the same I/O issues. I aborted all unstarted work downloaded that was registered to 2.08, 2.09, and 2.10. 2.11 was downloaded along with new tasks. When the 2.08 task that was running completed, the 2.11 application kicked in just fine and did not exhibit the initial 0% progress that happened on my AMD system.

So, could that also be a difference? HR is enabled for this project, so is perhaps the app not generic enough?
ID: 5136 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Yeti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Jul 07
Posts: 21
Credit: 3,448,022
RAC: 0
Message 5138 - Posted: 10 Mar 2008, 8:47:48 UTC

Just checked a little bit with 2.11; it seems to be fine again :-))

On those machines, where I tested the last days, all seems to be fine with 2.11 and, until now, 2.11 seems to suspend correcty !




Supporting BOINC, a great concept !
ID: 5138 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Brian Silvers

Send message
Joined: 11 Dec 07
Posts: 420
Credit: 270,580
RAC: 0
Message 5140 - Posted: 10 Mar 2008, 8:55:42 UTC - in response to Message 5138.  

Just checked a little bit with 2.11; it seems to be fine again :-))

On those machines, where I tested the last days, all seems to be fine with 2.11 and, until now, 2.11 seems to suspend correcty !



Did any of your hosts exhibit the behavior of running for the first several minutes with no change to the progress indicator? I\'m concerned about that as it could cause people to abort tasks thinking that nothing was happening...
ID: 5140 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Matthias Lehmkuhl

Send message
Joined: 29 Aug 07
Posts: 15
Credit: 1,068,141
RAC: 211
Message 5144 - Posted: 10 Mar 2008, 11:29:33 UTC

with 2.11 switching between different projects works again on my ubuntu linux 7.10 32 bit
just switching back to seti after 1 hour runtime.
the first mins of runtime i didn\'t see.
Matthias
ID: 5144 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Yeti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Jul 07
Posts: 21
Credit: 3,448,022
RAC: 0
Message 5146 - Posted: 10 Mar 2008, 13:38:48 UTC - in response to Message 5140.  

Did any of your hosts exhibit the behavior of running for the first several minutes with no change to the progress indicator? I\'m concerned about that as it could cause people to abort tasks thinking that nothing was happening...

If I remember right, the progress was shown immediatly, but sorry, I don\'t know exactly, because I don\'t bother about this detail.

I will have to watch it explicitly, this will take some time ...




Supporting BOINC, a great concept !
ID: 5146 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Brian Silvers

Send message
Joined: 11 Dec 07
Posts: 420
Credit: 270,580
RAC: 0
Message 5151 - Posted: 10 Mar 2008, 18:23:38 UTC

I know that for perhaps many of you, 2.09 seemed terrible from the beginning. This is why I titled this thread \"seems much better\". I\'d encourage people to put the app through some paces, like do funky things with BOINC like closing it out periodically and see if 2.11 handles it gracefully...

The following is an example of why I thought 2.09 was ok for me initially. The gap between the point where the Einstein result was uploaded and the resumption of the Cosmology task was due to me having everything suspended. I noticed it and hit resume on the Cosmology task (or project, not sure which it was). Note the pieces that I\'ve put in bold...

2008-03-08 16:55:23 [Cosmology@Home] Starting wu_030608_110523_3_1
2008-03-08 16:55:23 [Cosmology@Home] Starting task wu_030608_110523_3_1 using camb version 209
2008-03-08 17:03:37 [Einstein@Home] Resuming task h1_0807.15_S5R3__184_S5R3b_1 using einstein_S5R3 version 436

2008-03-08 17:46:18 [Einstein@Home] Computation for task h1_0807.15_S5R3__184_S5R3b_1 finished
2008-03-08 17:46:20 [Einstein@Home] [file_xfer] Started upload of file h1_0807.15_S5R3__184_S5R3b_1_0
2008-03-08 17:46:24 [Einstein@Home] [file_xfer] Finished upload of file h1_0807.15_S5R3__184_S5R3b_1_0
2008-03-08 17:46:24 [Einstein@Home] [file_xfer] Throughput 33106 bytes/sec
2008-03-08 18:39:39 [Cosmology@Home] Resuming task wu_030608_110523_3_1 using camb version 209
2008-03-08 18:39:46 [Einstein@Home] Sending scheduler request: Requested by user
2008-03-08 18:39:46 [Einstein@Home] Reporting 1 tasks
2008-03-08 18:39:51 [Einstein@Home] Scheduler RPC succeeded [server version 601]
2008-03-08 18:39:51 [Einstein@Home] Deferring communication for 1 min 0 sec
2008-03-08 18:39:51 [Einstein@Home] Reason: requested by project
2008-03-08 20:38:07 [Cosmology@Home] Computation for task wu_030608_110523_3_1 finished


Looking at this example, there were 466 seconds of actual time that passed before I switched to the Einstein task, then 7118 seconds of runtime from resumption to completion. This is 7584 seconds of actual (\"wall clock\") time. Other running tasks would naturally take timeslices away from the computation, so it should be expected that the task completed in less time than the actual wall clock, but not with a huge amount of difference.

Here is what the reported task showed. A difference of 288 seconds (4 minutes, 48 seconds) is well within an acceptable difference between task cpu-time and wall-clock, given the fact the system was actively in use. Again note the bold:
Task ID 3590098
Name wu_030608_110523_3_1
Workunit 1656387
Created 6 Mar 2008 17:05:24 UTC
Sent 8 Mar 2008 21:54:32 UTC
Received 9 Mar 2008 3:00:18 UTC
Server state Over
Outcome Success
Client state Done
Exit status 0 (0x0)
Computer ID 10466
Report deadline 18 Mar 2008 21:54:32 UTC
CPU time 7296.28125
stderr out <core_client_version>5.8.16</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<stderr_txt>

</stderr_txt>
]]>

Validate state Initial
Claimed credit 31.2000285139226
Granted credit 0
application version 2.09

ID: 5151 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
muumi

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 07
Posts: 9
Credit: 2,014,260
RAC: 0
Message 5152 - Posted: 10 Mar 2008, 18:28:44 UTC - in response to Message 5146.  
Last modified: 10 Mar 2008, 18:30:34 UTC

With my Q6600 it takes 3-4 minutes before % comes along.
It jumps directly to several % and continues from there.
Same at the end, after reaching 95% it stops for awhile,
and then 100%.
I remember this happening for some time.
Ever since the % counter appeared...

#edit: typo
ID: 5152 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Yeti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Jul 07
Posts: 21
Credit: 3,448,022
RAC: 0
Message 5154 - Posted: 10 Mar 2008, 19:09:24 UTC - in response to Message 5146.  

Did any of your hosts exhibit the behavior of running for the first several minutes with no change to the progress indicator? I\'m concerned about that as it could cause people to abort tasks thinking that nothing was happening...

If I remember right, the progress was shown immediatly, but sorry, I don\'t know exactly, because I don\'t bother about this detail.

I will have to watch it explicitly, this will take some time ...



Just gave it a try:

The percentage started after 5 Minutes of crunching time. I think, this shouldn\'t be a problem, a lot of projects behave like this


Supporting BOINC, a great concept !
ID: 5154 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Brian Silvers

Send message
Joined: 11 Dec 07
Posts: 420
Credit: 270,580
RAC: 0
Message 5156 - Posted: 10 Mar 2008, 19:24:13 UTC - in response to Message 5154.  

Did any of your hosts exhibit the behavior of running for the first several minutes with no change to the progress indicator? I\'m concerned about that as it could cause people to abort tasks thinking that nothing was happening...

If I remember right, the progress was shown immediatly, but sorry, I don\'t know exactly, because I don\'t bother about this detail.

I will have to watch it explicitly, this will take some time ...



Just gave it a try:

The percentage started after 5 Minutes of crunching time. I think, this shouldn\'t be a problem, a lot of projects behave like this


Hmmm... I guess... although personally I\'d strive to have some sort of indicator within the first minute. Interesting though that my Intel host behaved differently from my AMD\'s first task, yet my AMD\'s second task started off with percentages right away... I still think this is something that needs a little more \"TLC\"...but if it can\'t be any better than what it is, then I guess it\'s good enough...
ID: 5156 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Brian Silvers

Send message
Joined: 11 Dec 07
Posts: 420
Credit: 270,580
RAC: 0
Message 5157 - Posted: 10 Mar 2008, 19:25:44 UTC
Last modified: 10 Mar 2008, 19:34:24 UTC

edited thread title back. I thought there was a suspend issue, but what I saw was actually normal...
ID: 5157 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Matthias Lehmkuhl

Send message
Joined: 29 Aug 07
Posts: 15
Credit: 1,068,141
RAC: 211
Message 5159 - Posted: 10 Mar 2008, 21:23:48 UTC

on two 32 bit machines (vista and ubuntu 7.10) switching now works.

i could look to one result from start.
up to 3 min the progress bar stays at 0%, when i returned at 6 min the progress bar has round 7%.

Restart of boinc not tested yet.
Matthias
ID: 5159 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Hefto99

Send message
Joined: 24 Jun 07
Posts: 7
Credit: 1,000,649
RAC: 0
Message 5161 - Posted: 10 Mar 2008, 22:46:48 UTC

My first 2.11 WU errored on AMD X2 3800+, 64-bit openSuSE:

Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:25:53 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|Task wu_030908_200915_2_0 exited with zero status but no \'finished\' file
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:25:53 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|If this happens repeatedly you may need to reset the project.
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:25:53 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|Restarting task wu_030908_200915_2_0 using camb version 211
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:28:39 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|Task wu_030908_200915_2_0 exited with zero status but no \'finished\' file
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:28:39 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|If this happens repeatedly you may need to reset the project.
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:28:39 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|Restarting task wu_030908_200915_2_0 using camb version 211
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:31:26 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|Task wu_030908_200915_2_0 exited with zero status but no \'finished\' file
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:31:26 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|If this happens repeatedly you may need to reset the project.
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:31:26 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|Restarting task wu_030908_200915_2_0 using camb version 211
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:34:21 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|[error] Can\'t rename output file wu_030908_200915_2_0_0
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:34:26 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|[error] Can\'t rename output file wu_030908_200915_2_0_1
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:34:32 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|[error] Can\'t rename output file wu_030908_200915_2_0_2
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:34:37 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|[error] Can\'t rename output file wu_030908_200915_2_0_3
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:34:43 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|[error] Can\'t rename output file wu_030908_200915_2_0_4
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:34:50 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|[error] Can\'t rename output file wu_030908_200915_2_0_5
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:34:50 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|Computation for task wu_030908_200915_2_0 finished
ID: 5161 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Hefto99

Send message
Joined: 24 Jun 07
Posts: 7
Credit: 1,000,649
RAC: 0
Message 5162 - Posted: 11 Mar 2008, 2:58:48 UTC - in response to Message 5161.  

My first 2.11 WU errored on AMD X2 3800+, 64-bit openSuSE:


The rest of WUs look OK so far.. :-)
ID: 5162 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
wscr

Send message
Joined: 29 Dec 07
Posts: 10
Credit: 868,801
RAC: 0
Message 5163 - Posted: 11 Mar 2008, 6:24:14 UTC - in response to Message 5161.  

My first 2.11 WU errored on AMD X2 3800+, 64-bit openSuSE:

Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:25:53 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|Task wu_030908_200915_2_0 exited with zero status but no \'finished\' file
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:25:53 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|If this happens repeatedly you may need to reset the project.
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:25:53 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|Restarting task wu_030908_200915_2_0 using camb version 211
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:28:39 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|Task wu_030908_200915_2_0 exited with zero status but no \'finished\' file
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:28:39 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|If this happens repeatedly you may need to reset the project.
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:28:39 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|Restarting task wu_030908_200915_2_0 using camb version 211
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:31:26 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|Task wu_030908_200915_2_0 exited with zero status but no \'finished\' file
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:31:26 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|If this happens repeatedly you may need to reset the project.
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:31:26 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|Restarting task wu_030908_200915_2_0 using camb version 211
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:34:21 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|[error] Can\'t rename output file wu_030908_200915_2_0_0
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:34:26 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|[error] Can\'t rename output file wu_030908_200915_2_0_1
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:34:32 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|[error] Can\'t rename output file wu_030908_200915_2_0_2
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:34:37 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|[error] Can\'t rename output file wu_030908_200915_2_0_3
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:34:43 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|[error] Can\'t rename output file wu_030908_200915_2_0_4
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:34:50 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|[error] Can\'t rename output file wu_030908_200915_2_0_5
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:34:50 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|Computation for task wu_030908_200915_2_0 finished


I have exactly the same problem with Win 32 on Intel !
ID: 5163 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Nothing But Idle Time

Send message
Joined: 27 Aug 07
Posts: 84
Credit: 148,380
RAC: 0
Message 5171 - Posted: 11 Mar 2008, 23:30:43 UTC

Anyone getting the \"too many exits\" error with v2.11? task

I also was sent this miserable task that ran to 95% complete, jumped to 100% (I think) then restarted back at 60%; I aborted it. WU
ID: 5171 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Brian Silvers

Send message
Joined: 11 Dec 07
Posts: 420
Credit: 270,580
RAC: 0
Message 5172 - Posted: 12 Mar 2008, 0:53:58 UTC - in response to Message 5171.  

Anyone getting the \"too many exits\" error with v2.11? task

I also was sent this miserable task that ran to 95% complete, jumped to 100% (I think) then restarted back at 60%; I aborted it. WU


I haven\'t seen that... Not to say that it won\'t happen to me eventually, but I haven\'t seen it so far. BOINC has been auto-switching between Eistein, LHC, and Cosmology during the day. No problems noticed...
ID: 5172 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Nothing But Idle Time

Send message
Joined: 27 Aug 07
Posts: 84
Credit: 148,380
RAC: 0
Message 5174 - Posted: 12 Mar 2008, 1:39:58 UTC

Here\'s another task/WU that reached the end then \"exited with zero status but no finished file\" then restarted and looped until I aborted it.
WU
ID: 5174 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Scott
Volunteer moderator
Project administrator
Project developer
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 1 Apr 07
Posts: 662
Credit: 13,742
RAC: 0
Message 5175 - Posted: 12 Mar 2008, 14:32:29 UTC - in response to Message 5163.  

My first 2.11 WU errored on AMD X2 3800+, 64-bit openSuSE:

Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:25:53 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|Task wu_030908_200915_2_0 exited with zero status but no \'finished\' file
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:25:53 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|If this happens repeatedly you may need to reset the project.
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:25:53 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|Restarting task wu_030908_200915_2_0 using camb version 211
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:28:39 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|Task wu_030908_200915_2_0 exited with zero status but no \'finished\' file
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:28:39 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|If this happens repeatedly you may need to reset the project.
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:28:39 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|Restarting task wu_030908_200915_2_0 using camb version 211
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:31:26 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|Task wu_030908_200915_2_0 exited with zero status but no \'finished\' file
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:31:26 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|If this happens repeatedly you may need to reset the project.
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:31:26 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|Restarting task wu_030908_200915_2_0 using camb version 211
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:34:21 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|[error] Can\'t rename output file wu_030908_200915_2_0_0
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:34:26 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|[error] Can\'t rename output file wu_030908_200915_2_0_1
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:34:32 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|[error] Can\'t rename output file wu_030908_200915_2_0_2
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:34:37 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|[error] Can\'t rename output file wu_030908_200915_2_0_3
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:34:43 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|[error] Can\'t rename output file wu_030908_200915_2_0_4
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:34:50 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|[error] Can\'t rename output file wu_030908_200915_2_0_5
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:34:50 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|Computation for task wu_030908_200915_2_0 finished


I have exactly the same problem with Win 32 on Intel !


Did you suspend/resume at any point throughout the computation?
Scott Kruger
Project Administrator, Cosmology@Home
ID: 5175 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
muumi

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 07
Posts: 9
Credit: 2,014,260
RAC: 0
Message 5176 - Posted: 12 Mar 2008, 14:39:34 UTC - in response to Message 5175.  

Hello

I have had a few similar WU\'s
Here\'s one.
This computer has been running only Cosmology, 24/7.
Never suspended except for the benchmarks.
-----
12.3.2008 9:17:55|Cosmology@Home|Reason: Unrecoverable error for result wu_030908_180723_0_1 (too many exit(0)s)
12.3.2008 9:18:01|Cosmology@Home|[error] Can\'t rename output file wu_030908_180723_0_1_0
12.3.2008 9:18:07|Cosmology@Home|[error] Can\'t rename output file wu_030908_180723_0_1_1
12.3.2008 9:18:12|Cosmology@Home|[error] Can\'t rename output file wu_030908_180723_0_1_2
12.3.2008 9:18:18|Cosmology@Home|[error] Can\'t rename output file wu_030908_180723_0_1_3
12.3.2008 9:18:23|Cosmology@Home|[error] Can\'t rename output file wu_030908_180723_0_1_4
12.3.2008 9:18:30|Cosmology@Home|[error] Can\'t rename output file wu_030908_180723_0_1_5
12.3.2008 9:18:30|Cosmology@Home|Task wu_030908_190500_3_0 exited with zero status but no \'finished\' file
12.3.2008 9:18:30|Cosmology@Home|If this happens repeatedly you may need to reset the project.
12.3.2008 9:18:30|Cosmology@Home|Computation for task wu_030908_180723_0_1 finished
12.3.2008 9:18:30|Cosmology@Home|Output file wu_030908_180723_0_1_0 for task wu_030908_180723_0_1 absent
12.3.2008 9:18:30|Cosmology@Home|Output file wu_030908_180723_0_1_1 for task wu_030908_180723_0_1 absent
12.3.2008 9:18:30|Cosmology@Home|Output file wu_030908_180723_0_1_2 for task wu_030908_180723_0_1 absent
12.3.2008 9:18:30|Cosmology@Home|Output file wu_030908_180723_0_1_3 for task wu_030908_180723_0_1 absent
12.3.2008 9:18:30|Cosmology@Home|Output file wu_030908_180723_0_1_4 for task wu_030908_180723_0_1 absent
12.3.2008 9:18:30|Cosmology@Home|Output file wu_030908_180723_0_1_5 for task wu_030908_180723_0_1 absent
ID: 5176 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
wscr

Send message
Joined: 29 Dec 07
Posts: 10
Credit: 868,801
RAC: 0
Message 5178 - Posted: 12 Mar 2008, 19:24:44 UTC - in response to Message 5175.  

My first 2.11 WU errored on AMD X2 3800+, 64-bit openSuSE:

Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:25:53 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|Task wu_030908_200915_2_0 exited with zero status but no \'finished\' file
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:25:53 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|If this happens repeatedly you may need to reset the project.
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:25:53 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|Restarting task wu_030908_200915_2_0 using camb version 211
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:28:39 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|Task wu_030908_200915_2_0 exited with zero status but no \'finished\' file
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:28:39 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|If this happens repeatedly you may need to reset the project.
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:28:39 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|Restarting task wu_030908_200915_2_0 using camb version 211
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:31:26 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|Task wu_030908_200915_2_0 exited with zero status but no \'finished\' file
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:31:26 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|If this happens repeatedly you may need to reset the project.
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:31:26 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|Restarting task wu_030908_200915_2_0 using camb version 211
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:34:21 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|[error] Can\'t rename output file wu_030908_200915_2_0_0
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:34:26 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|[error] Can\'t rename output file wu_030908_200915_2_0_1
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:34:32 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|[error] Can\'t rename output file wu_030908_200915_2_0_2
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:34:37 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|[error] Can\'t rename output file wu_030908_200915_2_0_3
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:34:43 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|[error] Can\'t rename output file wu_030908_200915_2_0_4
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:34:50 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|[error] Can\'t rename output file wu_030908_200915_2_0_5
Tue 11 Mar 2008 05:34:50 AM CST|Cosmology@Home|Computation for task wu_030908_200915_2_0 finished


I have exactly the same problem with Win 32 on Intel !


Did you suspend/resume at any point throughout the computation?


Yes, I did.
ID: 5178 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
1 · 2 · Next

Forums : Technical Support : 2.11 seems much better