Project 7809 (7, 192, 16) sudden slow down, "about" error

Moderators: Site Moderators, FAHC Science Team

bollix47
Posts: 2941
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 5:04 am
Location: Canada

Re: Project 7809 (7, 192, 16) sudden slow down, "about" erro

Post by bollix47 »

The work unit was finished successfully and credited:

Credit: 1894.75 Credit Time: 2013-02-05 10:09:43
Entered into logs at: 2013-02-05 10:06:52
WU assigned to donor at: 2013-01-30 12:41:58
Days taken to complete WU: 5.89
Error code: 0

Hi Miranda822 (team 32),
Your WU (P7809 R7 C192 G16) was added to the stats database on 2013-02-05 10:09:43 for 1894.75 points of credit.

Report closed.
Ripper36
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 8:55 am

Re: Project 7809 (7, 192, 16) sudden slow down, "about" erro

Post by Ripper36 »

I had this problem also with 7809 (1,151,6) and when I followed these instructions resetting SMP from 4 to 3 I got an unstable machine code and FAH dumped the unit, so probably a bad unit? (Previously successfully completed multiple 7809s on this configuration)
Image
Joe_H
Site Admin
Posts: 7868
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2009 4:41 pm
Hardware configuration: Mac Pro 2.8 quad 12 GB smp4
MacBook Pro 2.9 i7 8 GB smp2
Location: W. MA

Re: Project 7809 (7, 192, 16) sudden slow down, "about" erro

Post by Joe_H »

Possibly a bad WU, so far three reports in the database including yours that it failed. There is one successful completion, but it took that folder nearly to the final deadline to complete - 50 of the 55 days. Not enough information in yet to be sure. As for changing the SMP setting, the usual recommendation is to change it between WU's as changing it mid-process can cause one to fail.
Image

iMac 2.8 i7 12 GB smp8, Mac Pro 2.8 quad 12 GB smp6
MacBook Pro 2.9 i7 8 GB smp3
codysluder
Posts: 1024
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:43 pm

Re: Project 7809 (7, 192, 16) sudden slow down, "about" erro

Post by codysluder »

It would be interesting to know if the failures are SMP:7 and the success isn't.

The new V7 power options are likely to promote SMP:7 and although it has a lower failure rate than larger prime numbers, I suspect that it's still problematic for some WUs.
Post Reply