171.64.65.71 assigning Core 65 to GPU clients

Moderators: Site Moderators, FAHC Science Team

Tobit
Posts: 342
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 2:35 pm
Location: Manchester, NH USA

171.64.65.71 assigning Core 65 to GPU clients

Post by Tobit »

Several users on my team are reporting that their GPU clients are trying to download fahcore_65.exe which doesn't exist. Correct me if I am wrong but Core 65 used to be the Tinker core, no?

[05:25:13] - Preparing to get new work unit...
[05:25:13] + Attempting to get work packet
[05:25:13] - Connecting to assignment server
[05:25:14] - Successful: assigned to (171.64.65.71).
[05:25:14] + News From Folding@Home: Welcome to Folding@Home
[05:25:14] Loaded queue successfully.
[05:25:14] - Deadline time not received.
[05:25:15] + Closed connections
[05:25:15]
[05:25:15] + Processing work unit
[05:25:15] Core required: FahCore_65.exe
[05:25:15] Core not found.
[05:25:15] - Core is not present or corrupted.
[05:25:15] - Attempting to download new core...
[05:25:15] + Downloading new core: FahCore_65.exe
[05:25:15] - Error: HTTP GET returned error code 404
[05:25:15] + Error: Could not download core
[05:25:15] + Core download error (#2), waiting before retry...
weedacres
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 11:18 pm
Hardware configuration: UserNames: weedacres_gpu ...
Location: Eastern Washington

Re: 171.64.65.71 assigning Core 65 to GPU clients

Post by weedacres »

I have the same problem.
Currently have 5 gpu2 clients down.
Image
pwnchu
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 6:40 am

Re: 171.64.65.71 assigning Core 65 to GPU clients

Post by pwnchu »

Deleting the WU/queue seems to be solving the problem for now.
weedacres
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 11:18 pm
Hardware configuration: UserNames: weedacres_gpu ...
Location: Eastern Washington

Re: 171.64.65.71 assigning Core 65 to GPU clients

Post by weedacres »

pwnchu wrote:Deleting the WU/queue seems to be solving the problem for now.
Good call, that got them back to Core 11,,, for now.
Image
oneran
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2010 3:05 am
Hardware configuration: Q6600
EVGA GTX470 1280MB
EVGA 8800GTS SSC 640MB
Location: The land of pickles

Re: 171.64.65.71 assigning Core 65 to GPU clients

Post by oneran »

This Just happened to me as well luckily I caught as soon as it happened

Code: Select all

05:46:59] Folding@home Core Shutdown: FINISHED_UNIT
[05:47:02] CoreStatus = 64 (100)
[05:47:02] Sending work to server
[05:47:02] Project: 10111 (Run 666, Clone 4, Gen 90)


[05:47:02] + Attempting to send results [November 22 05:47:02 UTC]
[05:47:04] + Results successfully sent
[05:47:04] Thank you for your contribution to Folding@Home.
[05:47:04] + Number of Units Completed: 268

[05:47:08] - Preparing to get new work unit...
[05:47:08] + Attempting to get work packet
[05:47:08] - Connecting to assignment server
[05:47:09] - Successful: assigned to (171.64.65.71).
[05:47:09] + News From Folding@Home: Welcome to Folding@Home
[05:47:10] Loaded queue successfully.
[05:47:10] - Deadline time not received.
[05:47:10] + Closed connections
[05:47:10] 
[05:47:10] + Processing work unit
[05:47:10] Core required: FahCore_65.exe
[05:47:10] Core not found.
[05:47:10] - Core is not present or corrupted.
[05:47:10] - Attempting to download new core...
[05:47:10] + Downloading new core: FahCore_65.exe
[05:47:11] - Error: HTTP GET returned error code 404
[05:47:11] + Error: Could not download core
[05:47:11] + Core download error (#2), waiting before retry...

[05:47:16] + Downloading new core: FahCore_65.exe
[05:47:17] - Error: HTTP GET returned error code 404
[05:47:17] + Error: Could not download core
[05:47:17] + Core download error (#3), waiting before retry...

[05:47:34] + Downloading new core: FahCore_65.exe
[05:47:34] - Error: HTTP GET returned error code 404
[05:47:34] + Error: Could not download core
[05:47:34] + Core download error (#4), waiting before retry...

[05:48:00] + Downloading new core: FahCore_65.exe
[05:48:00] - Error: HTTP GET returned error code 404
[05:48:00] + Error: Could not download core
[05:48:00] + Core download error (#5), waiting before retry...
Deleting the WU does seem to fix the problem, although I may not catch it the next time it happens :?
Image
bruce
Posts: 20824
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:13 pm
Location: So. Cal.

Re: 171.64.65.71 assigning Core 65 to GPU clients

Post by bruce »

The Pande Group is aware of the problem so something will probably change soon.

Additional "me too" reports won't change their investigation.
toTOW
Site Moderator
Posts: 6349
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:38 am
Location: Bordeaux, France
Contact:

Re: 171.64.65.71 assigning Core 65 to GPU clients

Post by toTOW »

By the way, it made me laugh a lot to see the reference to the good old Tinker core :lol:
Image

Folding@Home beta tester since 2002. Folding Forum moderator since July 2008.
HaloJones
Posts: 906
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:16 am

Re: 171.64.65.71 assigning Core 65 to GPU clients

Post by HaloJones »

bruce wrote:The Pande Group is aware of the problem so something will probably change soon.

Additional "me too" reports won't change their investigation.
No, I guess it won't but does it hurt to be able to moan about it? Or just maybe for PG to post what went wrong once they know why it happened and what they're going to do to stop the same thing happening again?
single 1070

Image
Mactin
Posts: 222
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 1:08 pm
Location: Côte-des-Neiges, Montréal, Québec

Re: 171.64.65.71 assigning Core 65 to GPU clients

Post by Mactin »

I just woke up. Horor !
Same problem sinse 5:19 (folding log time), it is now 11:51.
Image
VijayPande
Pande Group Member
Posts: 2058
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 6:25 am
Location: Stanford

Re: 171.64.65.71 assigning Core 65 to GPU clients

Post by VijayPande »

thanks for the report. We'll take this machine off of the AS until this is worked out.
Prof. Vijay Pande, PhD
Departments of Chemistry, Structural Biology, and Computer Science
Chair, Biophysics
Director, Folding@home Distributed Computing Project
Stanford University
VijayPande
Pande Group Member
Posts: 2058
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 6:25 am
Location: Stanford

Re: 171.64.65.71 assigning Core 65 to GPU clients

Post by VijayPande »

PS I see that Dr. Greg Bowman (project manager for this server) took this machine off of the AS last night when we got the first reports. We're looking to see why this happened. The v6 WS code has been developing rapidly, adding new features, and this looks to be a WS bug.
Prof. Vijay Pande, PhD
Departments of Chemistry, Structural Biology, and Computer Science
Chair, Biophysics
Director, Folding@home Distributed Computing Project
Stanford University
George144
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 2:45 pm
Hardware configuration: AMD Phenom ll 965/BE- Asus crosshair ll mobo- 8gb ocz 2chnl platinum memory- Corsair H50 htsnk 2/120mm fans p/p in exhaust- 2 Asus 24xDRW- WD 640gb HD bk ed. tri/sli gpu 285 gtx running ovclk @3749.49Mhz Shader clk1498 fan 100%-temps 60/64/72 C in lian li PC/P50 4/140mm fans 2top-2side 2/120mm fans intake 2/120mm fans exhaust Corsair psu HX 1000. Running 24/7
Location: Las Vegas NV
Contact:

Re: 171.64.65.71 assigning Core 65 to GPU clients

Post by George144 »

I have the same problem being assigned core 65 and tried deleting the wu queue but was not successful in getting back to normal. I am in my second day with this error. Any other suggestions
George144
AtwaterFS
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2009 9:08 pm

Re: 171.64.65.71 assigning Core 65 to GPU clients

Post by AtwaterFS »

same prob here, only one out of 3 GPU client seems to be affected FWIW
ImageImage
JimF
Posts: 651
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 2:03 pm

Re: 171.64.65.71 assigning Core 65 to GPU clients

Post by JimF »

George144 wrote:I have the same problem being assigned core 65 and tried deleting the wu queue but was not successful in getting back to normal.
Deleting everything in the "work" folder, the Core 65 file itself and the queue.dat file (along with the log files) worked for me on a couple of cards on two different PCs.
tofuwombat
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 4:06 pm

Re: 171.64.65.71 assigning Core 65 to GPU clients

Post by tofuwombat »

HaloJones wrote:
bruce wrote:The Pande Group is aware of the problem so something will probably change soon.

Additional "me too" reports won't change their investigation.
No, I guess it won't but does it hurt to be able to moan about it? Or just maybe for PG to post what went wrong once they know why it happened and what they're going to do to stop the same thing happening again?
Has a "me-too" button been considered? It might help to highlight the "popularity" of an issue. :)

(I had seven GPU's were choking on this core, last night. WU deletion wasn't helping with six of them . . .)

It is very helpful to me to know that my problems, might not be fixable by me just yet.

It made it easier to step away, knowing that others were suffering the same pain.

Regards,
tofuwombat.

P.S.: Looks better now. Thanks guys, for the quick fix.
Post Reply