Printable View
Just a warning for those of you who've just started crunching. The Human Proteome 2 project has been known to cause errors. There are numerous threads at the WCG forum on this problem.
http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/fo...d_thread,26706
Hypernova says he's seen fewer errors on this project using an i7-980X.
http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/fo...fset,80#277196
Still, my advice to people is that unless you feel a strong need to run this project, uncheck it in your Device Profiles section.
Thanks Sierra (this works too) ;)
Yeah this project has many issues, especially with Vista and Win 7. Older OS's were OK but you'll still get the occasional WU that will "hang" at a certain % and stay there until it times out which is annoying as heck, not to mention wasteful.
yikes hope i havnt wasted much time..
You may be one of the lucky ones who isn't getting errors. If that's the case, there's no reason to stop running HP2.
You can check how many errors you're getting by going to your My Grid page. On the left-hand side, click Results Status. Then, on the second drop-down menu, go to Error and then click Filter.
ah i saw i had like 253 returned results..Quote:
Originally Posted by sierra_bound
hmmm no errors on QX6700 @ 3.5
and i have like P4 and a Dualcore all running differant OS :D yay for me time to check that box again
253 returned results or 253 work units with errors?
returned results out of the ammount of points in my siggy i only have 3 errors total from all projects. :up:Quote:
Originally Posted by sierra_bound
120 Errors since 4/12 :( works out to roughly 1400-1500 BOINC ppd.
My HP2 project participation has returned 119 errors, 25 pending WUs, 257 verified WUs, and 0 invalid WUs in the last 13 days since I've joined the team. That's about a 30% error rate. All of them have returned an error within 0.05 CPU time hours except for one WU which returned an error after 32.64 hours. The following is the claimed/granted BOINC credits for WUs that returned errors: 836.25/47.75 (take out that one bad 32.64 hour WU and it would have been 55.75/47.75).
I may be wrong, but I don't think the amount of wasted time I have had yet justifies discontinuing my participation in the HP2 project. Although, I'll have to keep a close eye on this because if I get another WU error that wastes 32+ hours again, I'll have to reevaluate my decision.
This is on two Windows 7 machines w/ i7-860 and i7-720QM.
HPF2 is ... rather error prone on a lot of machines. I refuse to run it to prevent wasting my time as well as a form of protest. A lot of people, I suspect, never check their results status and so never realize they're getting errors on this project.
Wow, ugly.
Two pages of HP2 errors for me.
Removed from my projects.
Thanks for the info.
I will sticky this thread for a week or two until everyone has a chance to see it.
The guys at WCG made some adjustments to the science application (version 6.17) and were able to significantly reduce the errors with that in the last beta test. The results are currently reviewed by the scientists to ensure everything is OK.
Here are two quotes from uplinger:
http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/fo...d_thread,28940
http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/fo...8872_offset,20Quote:
Sek, the slow part of the link was me on the beta test. The results on the beta test were not 100% complete so I was waiting on that before sending them the results. They recently have received the results and I have asked them to evaluate them and let us know if the results look good. We need to give them time to evaluate the results to make sure everything science wise is still good.
I can't wait to turn it on again :yepp:Quote:
The beta so far has been a good increase over what we saw in production for the same batch.
There were 57 exit 1's for BETA compared to 609 for production.
We are going to send this information to the researchers later today when a few more results come back in foor them to review.
What gets me is I currently have 10 errored units listed, all from my main rig, none HP2 as that is unchecked. And my system is stock :shrug:
Which project are they from? No random crashes or system reboots?
No system appears rock solid. Never had it do anything strange. They are from random projects that I'm running, cancer and FAAH and such.
You might want to do some stability testing just to be sure there's no issues with the rig. An hour of OCCT Linpack will usually turn up anything that's amiss. Also, if you use antivirus software, go in and exclude the BOINC folders(there's 2 of them) from scanning. This has been known to corrupt WU's too.
My understanding is this:
error = most likely WCG WU fault (if they're uncommon or have low reproducibility user system fault could be possible cause)
invalid = 100% user system fault (usually due to system instability)
Invalid means the work unit was completed and returned to WCG, but was not found to be similar to the other identical work units that were turned in. So the result gets tossed out.
Errors can be caused by various things - the user aborted the work unit, the work unit itself is bad, or system instability.
A result could also be called "inconclusive". What that means is that the validation program could not determine which of the results returned are valid. When that happens, the same work unit is sent out to more computers and a second validation will be attempted when they're turned in.
Good to hear it. I've got totally 8 errors, but 7 of them belongs this project. I thought something on my system didn't like them :noob:. It is good to know it wasn't only me. ;)
http://img.techpowerup.org/100428/Capture002.jpg
I had lot of errors on my main rig, found out by searching they were related to that project and not to my overclocking (which should be stabilized by now at 4.15Ghz stage).
A rig can seem stable for general use and still return errors with WCG. If all your trouble was HPF2, then yes, drop that project. If you were getting errors across the board, drop your clock slightly.
All errors were on HPF2 (0.02 cpu time on units etc.) and were the errors reported on the WCG thread. And my rig has gone under some tough stability tests (not general use by far) like Linpack, etc.. BOINC actually produces a BSOD if something's not right, as i found out ;)
I double checked by going to stock clocks, and still getting the errors on that project... Not disabling it for now as units that produce errors only run for a few seconds, not much of a loss.
I've been crunching almost a week now I think. I only got 1 error so far, which errored out in less than a minute, so I'm leaving it enabled now. Q9650 with Windows 7 x65 pro
Looking through my errors in more detail I have come a similar conclusion as Xenolith.
Almost all of them errored out in .02 or similar.
Longest was 2 1/2 hours and even that one granted near full points.
I have re-enabled HP2 trusting that they are "on it" but will keep a closer eye on this going forward.
hmmm I wonder if my others errors have something to do with not installing win updates?
I don't think Windows updates have any impact on errors. What I do know, however, is that shutting down or rebooting your computer too quickly can cause errors. This was a problem with Vista which has a tendency to shut down very fast. I have one computer that runs Vista. I always make a point of exiting BOINC first, then waiting ten seconds before rebooting.
Yeah Vista's fast shutdown would trip up F@H on my GPU all the time as well. At least it usually would restart where it left off but not always.Quote:
Originally Posted by sierra_bound
Is it typical to have a long list of pending validations for a new host?
Yes, that's typical. Until you build up a queue you won't get a steady flow of validations. The reason for that is some work units get validated in a day, while others take a week or more. If you have only a few work units awaiting validation, it may be days before they are approved. You're somewhat at the mercy of the other person who's crunching the identical work unit. If he or she has a very slow machine, it will take longer for them to crunch and return that work unit. Worse yet, if that person has an error, then another identical work unit has to be sent out to another user.
Thanks for the help S_B your always so helpful no wonder your the king :buddies:
You're welcome.:) I just checked. I have 29 pages of work units awaiting validation. If you have a lot of crunchers, that's typical.
Ideally, if you have a fast computer, you want the other guy or guys crunching the same work unit to have fast computers too. Unfortunately you're sometimes matched up with a person who's running a slow machine.
One other thing about validations. Completed work units are validated in the order they're received. It's like standing in line outside a movie theater. You start out at the back of the line and gradually make your way to the front.:)
On weekends, the validation process slows down for some reason and then picks up again when the work week starts. That's one reason why our team numbers tend to jump on Mondays.
If your waiting on other slower computers to complete units doesn't it make sense to keep a higher work buffer, so by the time you start computing someone else with a slower computer already completed it?
I'm not sure about that. There is one advantage to being paired with someone with a slow machine. Sometimes that other person will get a higher claimed credit than you do. If both work units are validated, BOINC awards credit based on an average of the two scores. That will boost the granted credit you're awarded.
The quorum process is sort of like going on a blind date. Sometimes the other person turns out to be drop-dead gorgeous, while other times he or she may be the date from hell.:D
I'm going to try the 10 day buffer and see how it works out, plus its been really windy the last couple days and would hate for the cable to go out on me.
I think 10 days is a little too much. 4-5 days should be enough unless you're anticipating a prolonged cable outage. The wind may end up knocking out your power as well.
I haven't found much benefit in running a large cache in terms or reducing my pending validation queue. Once your machine goes over 2 days for it's average turnaround time, it is disqualified from receiving make-up a or repair WU's, ie- WU's that were sent out earlier but not returned or returned with an error or invalid. These WU's are validated and points awarded immediately when you return them which helps reduce your PV queue. Another way to reduce PV is to run a zero redundance project like FAAH, here you will never have a PV queue, only a few that are marked "inconclusive" and sent out to a second computer as a safety check on the work your machine sent in.
Who lost their power today?Quote:
Originally Posted by sierra_bound
<:::raises hand:::
I had no crunching for five hours due to 60mph winds. :(
30 errors for this project since the 20th :(
All failed very quickly though so not sure i will bother dropping it.
I haven't been paying much attention recently but only just noticed this. Had a quick look at my stats over on wcg and human protene folding has been churning out errors :shakes:
Pretty sure its not my system as its not OC'd at all.
I believe this is an OS problem rather than an OC problem...Vista and 7 are prone to errors
Thanks for the information I just looked at my stats
63 Tasks Run
9 in Progress
4 Valid
50 Error (Wow)
In some cases the error tasks took 15 or more hours of CPU time. Roughly 2k of Wasted CPU time.
I would counter this because I am running Linux on 3 crunchers that have generated errors. Only my primary computer is running Vista 64 and results from it have about the same mixture of being valid vs error status.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldChap
By what you're describing, I would say the version Linux you're using is by far worse than any other OS.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolfsburg18
50 returned error WUs totaling 2000 CPU hours? :eek: That can't be right.
If you're getting any errors, it's definitely worth dropping! The erroneous units may only report using a few minutes of CPU time, but I know my CPU hours on a fully-dedicated quad core were around 56hrs/day when it was enabled. Disabled it and averaging 95-96hrs/day now :)
It's the units, not the OS. If you re-read his post he says the Vista is getting the same mixture of errors and valids.Quote:
Originally Posted by xenolith
I understand it's the WUs not the OS. But by his initial description of 50 WU errors wasting 2000 CPU hours, that by far is the worst I've seen, regardless of OS. (I've been looking around at a few places concerning this common error.)Quote:
Originally Posted by D_A
Yesterday, I dropped HP2 just to be done with it...
I suffered through the errors long enough to get my badge, but I won't touch it after that. Too many errors, many many reports and the HPF2 team still won't do anything about it. By comparison, FAAH seems almost bullet proof. Can't kill it with a stick.
the errors strange because the HPF2 project description said they use the most stable version of rosetta. i guess that it has some of the memory instability issues that rosetta has. my old system ran these with no problems at all but my i7 fails them with in 20 minutes.
I have 7,979 results returned for HPF2, and numerous HPF2 tasks currently running, on xp and vista machines. I have a sapphire HPF2 badge (2 years). I've never had a problem with this project. I may have over-looked the odd error, I don't keep a super-close eye on my tasks status, but close enough to notice more than a few errors. I hate to drop it if it's doing good work, but I think I'll shift gears to my other favorite (HCC) for the rest of this week.
I think that's the key.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chumbucket843
hint: there's a LOT I'm not saying here.
And they still do........... it's the least stable of the projects ATM.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chumbucket843
Somewhat odd that my Q6600 (Main rig) Has not returned a single error with that project. However, All Athlon II X4 systems under my name (2 friends, one personal) have returned a page worth of errors. Sadly decided to disable them on all. Hopefully this will eventually get fixed.
I just had a string of errors from HP2...
Took it off my work load.
good news: https://secure.worldcommunitygrid.or...e,yes#lastpost
Uplinger announces:
here from one of the scientists:Quote:
Greetings all,
We have recently updated the HPF2 science application. The BETA that was run a few weeks ago was confirmed by the researchers as being good. The new version will be 6.17 for all platforms. This latest version of HPF2 is to help decrease the number of Exit 1 status errors, people were getting on Windows.
Thanks,
-Uplinger
:clap:Quote:
Hi,
I just wanted to add that I've verified a few proteins run with the new executable and they look good. Also, I'll update everyone with a status update soon, but I just wanted to add that I've sent IBM more work units. We're going to fold Chlamydomonas reinhardtii in the interim before we get to the microbiome project. It's a nice little single celled alga whose metabolism is being exploited to create clean sources of hydrogen.
--
Patrick
Other WCG users report they have picked up the new application.
So I gonna try and turn it on for my machines once the Supercomputerweek is over.
Im getting HFCC errors on every WU on one of my machines, but not others. I even reduced it to stock and still the same....
Is this with the new version 6.17?Quote:
Originally Posted by T_M
What error do you get?
Result Name: HFCC_ s2_ 01839646_ s2_ 0001_ 1--
<core_client_version>6.10.43</core_client_version>
<![CDATA[
<message>
- exit code -1073741819 (0xc0000005)
</message>
]]>
I guess your client hasn't updated yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by T_M
WHat do you mean?
Im talking about HFCC WU's
This thread is for HPF errors, can you please open another thread for your errors with HFCC.
The error is a nasty one. Nobody can really tell what the reason is, because there could be any reason for this one to happen.
I could solve this error message once by re-seating my RAM modules. After taking out and putting them back in ti worked fine for me. But it could be anything on your machine.Quote:
Exit code -1073741819 (0xC0000005): This is the famous "General Access Violation". There a numerous reasons for this error to occur, from hardware problems to graphics drivers and more. Ideally when this happens, the "Windows Runtime Debugger" should start up and write a stack dump to stderr out that helps to further diagnose the problem. If the "Access Violation" is listed in the "*** Dump of the Graphics thread ***", it was almost certainly a problem with the graphics driver. The most common cause for an Access Violation listed in the "*** Dump of the Worker thread ***" shows "houghmap.c:" near the end of the first line of the Callstack. This is a problem that we might be able to do something about, we are currently hunting this. Apparently it only happens on certain machines, it might be related to the data these hosts are processing, but may also be a property of the hardware or other software on the system.
I suggest open another thread for this error and maybe others can chime in to help you.
In spite of the new application, people are still reporting errors on HPF2 over at the WCG forums. I'll wait a bit longer before restarting work on it.
i'm no longer getting errors on HPF2 with v6.17. its worth a try.
after may 8 i'm going to turn it back on long enough to get my gold badge, then I dono, probably go to Cancer and Aids
edit: make that a Ruby badge, I like how those look :P
Sorry to resurrect a dead thread, but are these errors still around? Us new guys don't know all the history - might be good to add to the "Everything you need to know" sticky. I seem to have gotten a couple errors from each of my SB systems (i7 2600k and i3 2100). If it were just the 2600k I'd wonder if my overclock isn't stable... but the i3 is definitely stock and it's not even running the same OS. No invalids from either system so far.
Bummer. I like the protein folding project too. My 920 was able to crunch this project without any errors at all. :(
Guess I will have to downcheck that one.
I haven't seen an error with this project in a while now. I have crunch it on different systems with Windows and Linux.
And when I had an error, it was always right away. So no real time lost anyway.
this project is hit or miss.
ive gotten like 3 failed results the whole time ive been crunching. and i run overclocked on main rig always, and alot of diff spec cpus.
some rigs have problems some dont. you should just check as you dont want to have a rig that is always failing just fail fail fail all day.
I think for now I'll just quit this project. Considering I have like 20 days of cpu time on that project on only two errors, the frequency of errors is really low. However, I'd rather let people with no issues crunch that one and devote my cpu time where I know it will not go to waste.