Project: 4625 (Run 3, Clone 6, Gen 44)

[anko1]

EUE

Code: Select all

[18:15:54] + Closed connections
[18:15:54] 
[18:15:54] + Processing work unit
[18:15:54] Core required: FahCore_82.exe
[18:15:54] Core found.
[18:15:54] Working on Unit 09 [November 30 18:15:54]
[18:15:54] + Working ...
[18:15:54] - Calling 'FahCore_82.exe -dir work/ -suffix 09 -checkpoint 15 -forceasm -verbose -lifeline 2504 -version 503'

[18:15:54] 
[18:15:54] *------------------------------*
[18:15:54] Folding@Home PMD Core
[18:15:54] Version 1.03 (September 7, 2005)
[18:15:54] 
[18:15:54] Preparing to commence simulation
[18:15:54] - Assembly optimizations manually forced on.
[18:15:54] - Not checking prior termination.
[18:15:54] - Expanded 12952 -> 82265 (decompressed 635.1 percent)
[18:15:54] 
[18:15:54] Project: 4625 (Run 3, Clone 6, Gen 44)
[18:15:54] 
[18:15:54] Assembly optimizations on if available.
[18:15:54] Entering M.D.
[18:15:56] + New frame time estimate; Working...
[18:16:01] Going to send back what have done.
[18:16:01] logfile size: 5649
[18:16:01] - Writing 6169 bytes of core data to disk...
[18:16:01]   ... Done.
[18:16:01] 
[18:16:01] Folding@home Core Shutdown: EARLY_UNIT_END
[18:16:01] + New frame time estimate; Working...
[18:16:04] CoreStatus = 72 (114)
[18:16:04] Sending work to server


[18:16:04] + Attempting to send results
[18:16:04] - Reading file work/wuresults_09.dat from core
[18:16:04]   (Read 6169 bytes from disk)
[18:16:04] Connecting to http://169.230.26.30:8080/
[18:16:05] Posted data.
[18:16:05] Initial: 0000; - Uploaded at ~7 kB/s
[18:16:05] - Averaged speed for that direction ~37 kB/s
[18:16:05] + Results successfully sent
[18:16:05] Thank you for your contribution to Folding@Home.

[toTOW]

There are 5 similar reports : this has been marked as bad.

[anko1]

Thanks, toTOW.

[anandhanju]

Offtopic (sorry anko1):

toTOW, is this a new feature that Mods have nowadays? The ability to mark WUs bad?

Is there any automatic notification or flag that the Mods/ PG see when a WU EUEs multiple times? Or do you mark them based upon reports like these? I asking this because many GPU WU EUEs may not be reported.

[toTOW]

Yes that's new.

The moderators are still those who decide if a WU is bad or not judging by the reports posted on the forum, and the data returned by the tool (which been available to us for a long time now).

After a WU is marked as bad, the deletion process should be automatic (I don't know if it's enabled yet ... the feature is brand new).

[anandhanju]

Great! Thanks for the info.

[bruce]

We certainly will not be marking a WU as bad unless there are a number of similar reports. It's still VERY difficult to tell if it's the WU or the machine.

[toTOW]

I'm getting use to some kind of repeated issues (ERROR 0x79, instant EUE on Amber projects, multiple EUE on GPU projects, ...) but I often don't know what to do, and I let the time decide (to see if the same issue happens again, or if someone from PG knows what happened).

[anko1]

Yes, it must be difficult in some cases. Iirc, on one of my reports, there were 5 EUE, but one person was able to complete it.

PS- anandhanju - I was wondering the same thing.