Assigned Bigadv WU? [No, PRCG 7809 10 241 5 Bad?]

Moderators: Site Moderators, FAHC Science Team

Post Reply
Kougar
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:39 am
Hardware configuration: Core i7 920 @ 4.3GHz 1.42v (HT on)
Gigabyte GA-X58-UD5 (F10)
3 x 2GB OCZ Platinum 16400MHz 8-8-8-24 1T
EVGA GTX 260 w/ D-Tek Fuzion 2 GFX
ASUS Xonar DX | Cooler Master UCP 1kW
Intel X25-M 80GB SSD | Windows 7 x64
Swiftech Apogee GTZ + MCP655 Pump & Thermochill PA120.3 Radiator
Location: Texas

Assigned Bigadv WU? [No, PRCG 7809 10 241 5 Bad?]

Post by Kougar »

This system is a stock Core i7 2600 without anything else running. It's a default 7.2.9 install as well, but it looks like it was somehow assigned a bigadv WU?

It's been running for three days already when I found it, but will take another ~20 to complete. All other processes are at 0% so there's nothing slowing it down.


Image
P5-133XL
Posts: 2948
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 4:36 am
Hardware configuration: Machine #1:

Intel Q9450; 2x2GB=8GB Ram; Gigabyte GA-X48-DS4 Motherboard; PC Power and Cooling Q750 PS; 2x GTX 460; Windows Server 2008 X64 (SP1).

Machine #2:

Intel Q6600; 2x2GB=4GB Ram; Gigabyte GA-X48-DS4 Motherboard; PC Power and Cooling Q750 PS; 2x GTX 460 video card; Windows 7 X64.

Machine 3:

Dell Dimension 8400, 3.2GHz P4 4x512GB Ram, Video card GTX 460, Windows 7 X32

I am currently folding just on the 5x GTX 460's for aprox. 70K PPD
Location: Salem. OR USA

Re: Assigned Bigadv WU??

Post by P5-133XL »

Log?
Image
mmonnin
Posts: 324
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 1:27 am

Re: Assigned Bigadv WU??

Post by mmonnin »

That is not a bigadv WU but that project has had several instances of handing out very high TPF WU, very near your TPF. A PG member said to dump one earlier this week so feel free to dump yours.
Joe_H
Site Admin
Posts: 7856
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: Assigned Bigadv WU??

Post by Joe_H »

Project 7809 is not a bigadv WU. It is possible that this particular WU is bad, see this topic about a recent 7808 WU that turned out to be bad. How many steps are listed in the log for this WU?
Image

iMac 2.8 i7 12 GB smp8, Mac Pro 2.8 quad 12 GB smp6
MacBook Pro 2.9 i7 8 GB smp3
Kougar
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:39 am
Hardware configuration: Core i7 920 @ 4.3GHz 1.42v (HT on)
Gigabyte GA-X58-UD5 (F10)
3 x 2GB OCZ Platinum 16400MHz 8-8-8-24 1T
EVGA GTX 260 w/ D-Tek Fuzion 2 GFX
ASUS Xonar DX | Cooler Master UCP 1kW
Intel X25-M 80GB SSD | Windows 7 x64
Swiftech Apogee GTZ + MCP655 Pump & Thermochill PA120.3 Radiator
Location: Texas

Re: Assigned Bigadv WU? [No, PRCG 7809 10 241 5 Bad?]

Post by Kougar »

Thank you all for your replies! Is there a resource I can use to check if projects are bigadv or not? (for future reference)

As requested here's the logfile from before I restarted the client to see if that would help anything (which it didn't):

Code: Select all

*********************** Log Started 2013-02-12T17:27:01Z ***********************
17:27:01:************************* Folding@home Client *************************
17:27:01:      Website: http://folding.stanford.edu/
17:27:01:    Copyright: (c) 2009-2012 Stanford University
17:27:01:       Author: Joseph Coffland <joseph@cauldrondevelopment.com>
17:27:01:         Args: --lifeline 3772 --command-port=36330
17:27:01:       Config: C:/Users/Techgage/AppData/Roaming/FAHClient/config.xml
17:27:01:******************************** Build ********************************
17:27:01:      Version: 7.2.9
17:27:01:         Date: Oct 3 2012
17:27:01:         Time: 18:05:48
17:27:01:      SVN Rev: 3578
17:27:01:       Branch: fah/trunk/client
17:27:01:     Compiler: Intel(R) C++ MSVC 1500 mode 1200
17:27:01:      Options: /TP /nologo /EHa /Qdiag-disable:4297,4103,1786,279 /Ox -arch:SSE
17:27:01:               /QaxSSE2,SSE3,SSSE3,SSE4.1,SSE4.2 /Qopenmp /Qrestrict /MT /Qmkl
17:27:01:     Platform: win32 XP
17:27:01:         Bits: 32
17:27:01:         Mode: Release
17:27:01:******************************* System ********************************
17:27:01:          CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz
17:27:01:       CPU ID: GenuineIntel Family 6 Model 42 Stepping 7
17:27:01:         CPUs: 8
17:27:01:       Memory: 3.98GiB
17:27:01:  Free Memory: 2.97GiB
17:27:01:      Threads: WINDOWS_THREADS
17:27:01:   On Battery: false
17:27:01:   UTC offset: -6
17:27:01:          PID: 3868
17:27:01:          CWD: C:/Users/Techgage/AppData/Roaming/FAHClient
17:27:01:           OS: Windows 7 Ultimate
17:27:01:      OS Arch: AMD64
17:27:01:         GPUs: 1
17:27:01:        GPU 0: ATI:4 Juniper [Radeon HD 5700 Series]
17:27:01:         CUDA: Not detected
17:27:01:Win32 Service: false
17:27:01:***********************************************************************
17:27:01:<config>
17:27:01:  <!-- User Information -->
17:27:01:  <passkey v='********************************'/>
17:27:01:  <team v='111065'/>
17:27:01:  <user v='Kougar'/>
17:27:01:
17:27:01:  <!-- Folding Slots -->
17:27:01:</config>
17:27:01:Trying to access database...
17:27:01:Successfully acquired database lock
17:27:01:Enabled folding slot 00: READY smp:8
17:27:01:WU01:FS00:Starting
17:27:01:WU01:FS00:Running FahCore: "C:\Program Files (x86)\FAHClient/FAHCoreWrapper.exe" C:/Users/Techgage/AppData/Roaming/FAHClient/cores/www.stanford.edu/~pande/Win32/AMD64/Core_a4.fah/FahCore_a4.exe -dir 01 -suffix 01 -version 702 -lifeline 3868 -checkpoint 15 -np 8
17:27:01:WU01:FS00:Started FahCore on PID 3068
17:27:01:WU01:FS00:Core PID:2992
17:27:01:WU01:FS00:FahCore 0xa4 started
17:27:02:WU01:FS00:0xa4:
17:27:02:WU01:FS00:0xa4:*------------------------------*
17:27:02:WU01:FS00:0xa4:Folding@Home Gromacs GB Core
17:27:02:WU01:FS00:0xa4:Version 2.27 (Dec. 15, 2010)
17:27:02:WU01:FS00:0xa4:
17:27:02:WU01:FS00:0xa4:Preparing to commence simulation
17:27:02:WU01:FS00:0xa4:- Ensuring status. Please wait.
17:27:04:Server connection id=1 on 0.0.0.0:36330 from 127.0.0.1
17:27:11:WU01:FS00:0xa4:- Looking at optimizations...
17:27:11:WU01:FS00:0xa4:- Working with standard loops on this execution.
17:27:11:WU01:FS00:0xa4:- Previous termination of core was improper.
17:27:11:WU01:FS00:0xa4:- Files status OK
17:27:11:WU01:FS00:0xa4:- Expanded 701608 -> 5386224 (decompressed 767.6 percent)
17:27:11:WU01:FS00:0xa4:Called DecompressByteArray: compressed_data_size=701608 data_size=5386224, decompressed_data_size=5386224 diff=0
17:27:11:WU01:FS00:0xa4:- Digital signature verified
17:27:11:WU01:FS00:0xa4:
17:27:11:WU01:FS00:0xa4:Project: 7809 (Run 10, Clone 241, Gen 5)
17:27:11:WU01:FS00:0xa4:
17:27:11:WU01:FS00:0xa4:Entering M.D.
17:27:17:WU01:FS00:0xa4:Using Gromacs checkpoints
17:27:17:WU01:FS00:0xa4:Mapping NT from 8 to 8 
17:27:17:WU01:FS00:0xa4:Resuming from checkpoint
17:27:18:WU01:FS00:0xa4:Verified 01/wudata_01.log
17:27:18:WU01:FS00:0xa4:Verified 01/wudata_01.trr
17:27:18:WU01:FS00:0xa4:Verified 01/wudata_01.xtc
17:27:18:WU01:FS00:0xa4:Verified 01/wudata_01.edr
17:27:22:WU01:FS00:0xa4:Completed 56670 out of 1500000 steps  (3%)
18:34:25:WU01:FS00:0xa4:Completed 60000 out of 1500000 steps  (4%)
******************************** Date: 12/02/13 ********************************
23:36:12:WU01:FS00:0xa4:Completed 75000 out of 1500000 steps  (5%)
04:37:44:WU01:FS00:0xa4:Completed 90000 out of 1500000 steps  (6%)
******************************** Date: 13/02/13 ********************************
09:39:47:WU01:FS00:0xa4:Completed 105000 out of 1500000 steps  (7%)
14:41:18:WU01:FS00:0xa4:Completed 120000 out of 1500000 steps  (8%)
******************************** Date: 13/02/13 ********************************
19:42:45:WU01:FS00:0xa4:Completed 135000 out of 1500000 steps  (9%)
00:44:17:WU01:FS00:0xa4:Completed 150000 out of 1500000 steps  (10%)
******************************** Date: 14/02/13 ********************************
05:45:48:WU01:FS00:0xa4:Completed 165000 out of 1500000 steps  (11%)
10:48:01:WU01:FS00:0xa4:Completed 180000 out of 1500000 steps  (12%)
******************************** Date: 14/02/13 ********************************
14:44:32:Lost lifeline PID 3772, exiting
14:44:33:FS00:Shutting core down
14:44:34:Server connection id=1 ended
14:44:36:Clean exit
bruce
Posts: 20910
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:13 pm
Location: So. Cal.

Re: Assigned Bigadv WU? [No, PRCG 7809 10 241 5 Bad?]

Post by bruce »

Kougar wrote:Thank you all for your replies! Is there a resource I can use to check if projects are bigadv or not?
;) The resource to check is right in front of you.;)

Code: Select all

17:27:01:******************************* System ********************************
17:27:01:          CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz
17:27:01:       CPU ID: GenuineIntel Family 6 Model 42 Stepping 7
17:27:01:         CPUs: 8
With only 8 cores, you have not been able to get bigadv WUs for nearly a year. The minimum requirements for "big" was changed. Even a lot of 16-core machines have trouble meeting the new deadlines without a pretty healthy overclock.
http://folding.typepad.com/news/2012/02 ... llout.html
Kougar
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 2:39 am
Hardware configuration: Core i7 920 @ 4.3GHz 1.42v (HT on)
Gigabyte GA-X58-UD5 (F10)
3 x 2GB OCZ Platinum 16400MHz 8-8-8-24 1T
EVGA GTX 260 w/ D-Tek Fuzion 2 GFX
ASUS Xonar DX | Cooler Master UCP 1kW
Intel X25-M 80GB SSD | Windows 7 x64
Swiftech Apogee GTZ + MCP655 Pump & Thermochill PA120.3 Radiator
Location: Texas

Re: Assigned Bigadv WU? [No, PRCG 7809 10 241 5 Bad?]

Post by Kougar »

bruce wrote:
Kougar wrote:Thank you all for your replies! Is there a resource I can use to check if projects are bigadv or not?
;) The resource to check is right in front of you.;)
With only 8 cores, you have not been able to get bigadv WUs for nearly a year. The minimum requirements for "big" was changed. Even a lot of 16-core machines have trouble meeting the new deadlines without a pretty healthy overclock.
http://folding.typepad.com/news/2012/02 ... llout.html
Yes however, there have been more than one past instance where projects were incorrectly assigned to incompatible or wrong hardware. Given the TPF and ETA dates I could only logically conclude this was an incorrectly assigned Bigadv unit as that best fit the parameters. :wink:
bollix47
Posts: 2941
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 5:04 am
Location: Canada

Re: Assigned Bigadv WU? [No, PRCG 7809 10 241 5 Bad?]

Post by bollix47 »

AFAIK the only bigadv projects currently being assigned are P690x or P810x.
bruce
Posts: 20910
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:13 pm
Location: So. Cal.

Re: Assigned Bigadv WU? [No, PRCG 7809 10 241 5 Bad?]

Post by bruce »

The indication that I use to tell which are limited to bigadv is a very short deadline and a very large k-factor and FahCore_a5. I agree with Bollix.
Post Reply