Validator stalled??

Author	Message
BarryAZ Send message Joined: 27 Dec 05 Posts: 153 Credit: 30,843,285 RAC: 0	Message 35922 - Posted: 1 Feb 2007, 16:27:15 UTC I noticed that my credits have temporarily paused and that essentially all work is showing up as pending. Is there a problem or very recent change with the validation process? ID: 35922 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

BarryAZ Send message Joined: 27 Dec 05 Posts: 153 Credit: 30,843,285 RAC: 0	Message 35923 - Posted: 1 Feb 2007, 16:42:07 UTC OK, I see from the server status that the validator has failed. This apparently happened sometime last night, but I've not seen any reference to why it failed or what the prognosis is. I'm assuming that I am not the only one who noticed this though.... ID: 35923 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Tom Philippart Send message Joined: 29 May 06 Posts: 183 Credit: 834,667 RAC: 0	Message 35925 - Posted: 1 Feb 2007, 17:25:27 UTC yes, you're right, I noticed it too ID: 35925 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

David E K Volunteer moderator Project administrator Project developer Project scientist Send message Joined: 1 Jul 05 Posts: 1480 Credit: 4,334,829 RAC: 0	Message 35927 - Posted: 1 Feb 2007, 18:18:16 UTC Our server went down. I'm running the daemons on another server for now. It may take a while for the validator to catch up. ID: 35927 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Tom Philippart Send message Joined: 29 May 06 Posts: 183 Credit: 834,667 RAC: 0	Message 35934 - Posted: 1 Feb 2007, 21:10:25 UTC https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/workunit.php?wuid=51477081 2.89 credits for 237 decoys??? sorry, but there must be something wrong ID: 35934 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

David E K Volunteer moderator Project administrator Project developer Project scientist Send message Joined: 1 Jul 05 Posts: 1480 Credit: 4,334,829 RAC: 0	Message 35937 - Posted: 1 Feb 2007, 21:31:57 UTC Tom, There were only two decoys in the result that was returned according to our logs. Unfortunately, it has already been deleted by our file deleter so I can't look into this particular case any further. ID: 35937 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Charlie Send message Joined: 25 Mar 06 Posts: 53 Credit: 424,472 RAC: 0	Message 36466 - Posted: 11 Feb 2007, 7:35:47 UTC I had 2 Wus that showe d up with no vadator on them also so is that 20 hours of work just junk now? Or is it still given credit for and does the system use the decoys fromthe return somehow? Charlie ID: 36466 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Mod.Sense Volunteer moderator Send message Joined: 22 Aug 06 Posts: 4018 Credit: 0 RAC: 0	Message 36478 - Posted: 11 Feb 2007, 16:25:10 UTC When errors occur, the Rosetta project teams sees them as "learning experiences" and therefore they are valuable. BOINC makes it difficult to award credit, because it is focused on preventing fraudulant result submissions in an effort to get more credits. But Rosetta created a credit awarding task which is run daily, which detects such problems and awards credit. You only see such credit awards in the results display. And I believe the credit awarded is capped at 20 credits, whereas your work probably deserves a bit more then that. But you should see "granted credit 20" there tomorrow. As for the models you crunched. I'd need a member of the project team to comment on that. Since the result does not show the decoy count on the result page, that it must mean the .out file of the work was not received by the Rosetta servers. Rosetta Moderator: Mod.Sense ID: 36478 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Chilango Send message Joined: 1 Feb 07 Posts: 1 Credit: 1,457 RAC: 0	Message 36603 - Posted: 12 Feb 2007, 12:32:17 UTC - in response to Message 35923. OK, I see from the server status that the validator has failed. This apparently happened sometime last night, but I've not seen any reference to why it failed or what the prognosis is. I'm assuming that I am not the only one who noticed this though.... Today also in my case the valdator failed, because normaly I get 50 points for one unit and today only 6. ID: 36603 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Chu Send message Joined: 23 Feb 06 Posts: 120 Credit: 112,439 RAC: 0	Message 36622 - Posted: 12 Feb 2007, 19:35:34 UTC - in response to Message 36603. In your stderr output, there were two repeated blocks which report the number of models produced and it indicates that the same workunit ran twice on your computer, produced 8 models for the first time and then added one more for the second time. During the second run, it probably overrided the output files and therefore you were only returning a result file containing only one model (the 9th model). That is why the validator granted 6 credits in stead of 50. Normally, the workunit should report those 8 models right away and complete the task. I am not sure why a second run was invoked. OK, I see from the server status that the validator has failed. This apparently happened sometime last night, but I've not seen any reference to why it failed or what the prognosis is. I'm assuming that I am not the only one who noticed this though.... Today also in my case the valdator failed, because normaly I get 50 points for one unit and today only 6. ID: 36622 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote

Peter Moss Send message Joined: 3 Oct 05 Posts: 3 Credit: 6,659,952 RAC: 0	Message 36773 - Posted: 14 Feb 2007, 10:05:52 UTC I have two PC's running this - both have had pending units which remain for over a week now and all I get is ... rosetta@home - 2007-02-14 09:52:53 - Sending request to scheduler: https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta_cgi/cgi rosetta@home - 2007-02-14 09:52:59 - Scheduler RPC to https://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta_cgi/cgi succeeded rosetta@home - 2007-02-14 09:52:59 - SCHEDULER_REPLY::parse(): bad first tag <?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?> rosetta@home - 2007-02-14 09:52:59 - Can't parse scheduler reply rosetta@home - 2007-02-14 09:52:59 - Deferring communication with project for xx minutes and xx seconds I put the xx in at the end as it varies between hours and even days! Depending on reboots or not. Whats going on?? (running 5.45) ID: 36773 · Rating: 0 · rate: / Reply Quote