Project: 2665 (Run 2, Clone 264, Gen 1)

Moderators: Site Moderators, FAHC Science Team

^w^ing
Posts: 136
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:29 pm
Hardware configuration: C2D E6400 2.13 GHz @ 3.2 GHz
Asus EN8800GTS 640 (G80) @ 660/792/1700 running the 6.23 w/ core11 v1.19
forceware 260.89
Asus P5N-E SLi
2GB 800MHz DDRII (2xCorsair TwinX 512MB)
WinXP 32 SP3
Location: Prague

Re: Project: 2665 (Run 2, Clone 264, Gen 1)

Post by ^w^ing »

There always were (atleast for me) 2 minutes of delay after the completed work is sent. According to your log, the client asked for new WU immediately after sending the finished one, no wonder those two servers didnt have time to sync up. The question is why didnt your client wait those 2 mins.
Last edited by ^w^ing on Tue May 27, 2008 3:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
sick willie
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:40 pm

Re: Project: 2665 (Run 2, Clone 264, Gen 1)

Post by sick willie »

^w^ing wrote:There always was (atleast for me) 2 minutes of delay after the completed work is sent. According to your log, the client asked for new WU immediately after sending the finished one, no wonder those two servers didnt have time to sync up. The question is why didnt your client wait those 2 mins.
As I started to respond to this, I realized what a specious post it was. I didn't write the software, I just run it. Re-read the log file.
^w^ing
Posts: 136
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:29 pm
Hardware configuration: C2D E6400 2.13 GHz @ 3.2 GHz
Asus EN8800GTS 640 (G80) @ 660/792/1700 running the 6.23 w/ core11 v1.19
forceware 260.89
Asus P5N-E SLi
2GB 800MHz DDRII (2xCorsair TwinX 512MB)
WinXP 32 SP3
Location: Prague

Re: Project: 2665 (Run 2, Clone 264, Gen 1)

Post by ^w^ing »

sick willie wrote:As I started to respond to this, I realized what a specious post it was. I didn't write the software, I just run it. Re-read the log file.
Of course I know that, I dont blame you for what your client did :) Sorry if it sounded like that. I was just pointing out that the client didnt proceed as it normally do. Maybe because first attempts to send that unit didnt succeed.
bruce
Posts: 20824
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:13 pm
Location: So. Cal.

Re: Project: 2665 (Run 2, Clone 264, Gen 1)

Post by bruce »

sick willie wrote:[09:53:13] + Could not connect to Work Server (results) / (171.64.65.64:8080)

[09:53:15] + Could not connect to Work Server (results) / (171.64.65.64:8080)

[09:53:15] Connecting to http://171.64.122.86:8080/
[09:57:46] + Results successfully sent

[09:57:46] Connecting to http://171.64.65.64:8080/
[09:58:00] - Downloaded at ~587 kB/s
You're right . . . I didn't see it.

Failed to connect to server .64 at 09:53:13 and again at 09:53:15 so reverted to the Collection server.
Successfully connected to server .64 at 09:58:00
sick willie
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:40 pm

Re: Project: 2665 (Run 2, Clone 264, Gen 1)

Post by sick willie »

It would've been nice to have been acknowledged with an answer. But, then, I guess the absence of an answer is an answer, in and of itself.
VijayPande
Pande Group Member
Posts: 2058
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 6:25 am
Location: Stanford

Re: Project: 2665 (Run 2, Clone 264, Gen 1)

Post by VijayPande »

We've been concentrating on making sure this doesn't happen again. We'll look into the feasibility of a manual stats recredit in this situation.
VijayPande
Pande Group Member
Posts: 2058
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 6:25 am
Location: Stanford

Re: Project: 2665 (Run 2, Clone 264, Gen 1)

Post by VijayPande »

PS We've done a manual recredit.
sick willie
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:40 pm

Re: Project: 2665 (Run 2, Clone 264, Gen 1)

Post by sick willie »

Thank you. :)
Post Reply