Page 1 of 1
Assigned Bigadv WU? [No, PRCG 7809 10 241 5 Bad?]
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 5:35 pm
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.
Re: Assigned Bigadv WU??
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 5:38 pm
by P5-133XL
Log?
Re: Assigned Bigadv WU??
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 5:38 pm
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.
Re: Assigned Bigadv WU??
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 5:41 pm
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?
Re: Assigned Bigadv WU? [No, PRCG 7809 10 241 5 Bad?]
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 6:47 pm
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
Re: Assigned Bigadv WU? [No, PRCG 7809 10 241 5 Bad?]
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 6:56 pm
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
Re: Assigned Bigadv WU? [No, PRCG 7809 10 241 5 Bad?]
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 7:48 pm
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.
Re: Assigned Bigadv WU? [No, PRCG 7809 10 241 5 Bad?]
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 7:51 pm
by bollix47
AFAIK the only bigadv projects currently being assigned are P690x or P810x.
Re: Assigned Bigadv WU? [No, PRCG 7809 10 241 5 Bad?]
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 11:44 pm
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.