2.4 Unrecoverable Errors ??

[speedy67]

I've been trying the updated 2.4 SSSE3 app since earlier today, and so far 6 workunits have errored out within 2 or 3 seconds, and 4 workunits have been succesfully completed, uploaded, reported and credit was granted. This host has Vista/32 Ultimate with a Core2Duo 6320 and Boinc 5.10.13......

[Edit:] Noticed a 35% decrease in crunching time in comparison to the stock client on an AR0.776008 workunit.

[Edit2:] Update: 7 compute errors, 10 successful, 3 pending.

[Edit3:] It seems that a workunit can error out in two or three seconds after a restart, even if it was running fine before the restart.

Greetings,
Sander

[Richard Haselgrove]

I'm just in the process of re-activating my test http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/show_host_detail.php?hostid=3728483 - currently running an SSE3 test build for Crunch3r.

I'm not sure if he's planning to work on it today, being Sunday and all that - we had a long session yesterday - but if you're willing to help with beta testing you could send him a private message.

[Crunch3r]

I'm just in the process of re-activating my test http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/show_host_detail.php?hostid=3728483 - currently running an SSE3 test build for Crunch3r.

I'm not sure if he's planning to work on it today, being Sunday and all that - we had a long session yesterday - but if you're willing to help with beta testing you could send him a private message.

Howdy,

as you might know Richard Haselgrove did some stress test on his Xeon (see his link above) it seems to work well now,so i decided to release some new apps based on what was used for the test app.

I hope that those errors are fixed now, otherwise i'm running out of options now.

However if you want to test them ---> http://calbe.dw70.de/seti.html

Make sure you copy all files including the KWSN_DEBUG.pdb.

[Richard Haselgrove]

Great news - everything certainly seems to have gone very smoothly with today's build.

In that case, I'll drain down the test account over the next couple of hours, and swich to using the builds you've just linked under my normal host ID (2901600): that way, we'll also get some experience of BOINC v5.10.13, a larger cache (which means they'll validate quicker - though that's a relative term, at the moment), and co-running with other BOINC projects.

[speedy67]

Running the latest KWSN_2.4V_MB_SSSE3.exe now... I'll post my findings when this host finishes some workunits. Thanks for the hard work! It's really appreciated.

Greetings,
Sander

[Update1:] So far so good: 7 results returned and credit granted. 0 errors. Restarted boinc service twice without errors.

[Gus]

Thanks Crunch3r.  I've updated a Conroe/Vista Home Premium running 5.10.13 with the new app.  It's currently running a few 22 minute WU's so we should get confirmation quickly.

Update.  OK so far, two WU's started and returned, both have received credit.  Two new WU's started, so far none have errored-out.  The latest two will take longer.

[Gus]

OK.  So far I am running 2.4V on the following-
SSE2 on a Willamette with Windows 2000
SSE2 on a Northwood with XP Pro
SSE3 on a Prescott with XP Pro
Two - SSSE3 on a Conroe (Duo) both with Vista Home Premium
SSSE3 on a Kentsfield (Quad) with Vista Home Basic
All are running the 5.10.13 CC.
So far there has been NO sign of trouble.  I've had a few "normal" -9 overflows but no sign of the dreaded -1073741819 error.  All -9's that I've checked, about 6 or 7, have matched my wingman so they were valid.

Great Job ! to Crunch3r and thanks Richard for helping to rush this through.
Regards,
Gus

[Pepo]

Well done, guys! 

...i decided to release some new apps based on what was used for the test app. I hope that those errors are fixed now...

Crunch3r, what's the difference between the 'good' build and the failing one? Only different compile options, or indeed the selection code, run each time at the beginning?

Peter

[Devaster]

yo well done hurry to crunching on  vistas

[Crunch3r]

Well done, guys! 

...i decided to release some new apps based on what was used for the test app. I hope that those errors are fixed now...

Crunch3r, what's the difference between the 'good' build and the failing one? Only different compile options, or indeed the selection code, run each time at the beginning?

Peter

The main difference is that the failing apps were based on the 32 bit code base and the 'good' builds are based on the x64 code. Besides that ICC 10 and IPP 5.2 were used to compile the apps.

HTH

[Sinned383]

This the report I keep getting. Where did I go wrong?

Thanx
Dennis
Kompooter User


<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-16"?>
<DATABASE>
<EXE NAME="KWSN_2.4_SSE2-AMD_MB.exe" FILTER="GRABMI_FILTER_PRIVACY">
    <MATCHING_FILE NAME="KWSN_2.4_SSE2-AMD_MB.exe" SIZE="1723904" CHECKSUM="0x9345E91" BIN_FILE_VERSION="2.4.0.0" BIN_PRODUCT_VERSION="5.0.2.7" PRODUCT_VERSION="5, 0, 2, 7" FILE_DESCRIPTION="Compiled with ICC 9.1 and IPP 5.1" COMPANY_NAME="Lunatics.at" PRODUCT_NAME="SETI@Home Enhanced Worker" FILE_VERSION="2, 4, 0, 0" ORIGINAL_FILENAME="KWSN_2.4_SSE2-AMD_MB.exe" INTERNAL_NAME="seti_boinc" LEGAL_COPYRIGHT="Copyright 2007, Regents University of California" VERFILEDATEHI="0x0" VERFILEDATELO="0x0" VERFILEOS="0x4" VERFILETYPE="0x1" MODULE_TYPE="WIN32" PE_CHECKSUM="0x0" LINKER_VERSION="0x0" UPTO_BIN_FILE_VERSION="2.4.0.0" UPTO_BIN_PRODUCT_VERSION="5.0.2.7" LINK_DATE="08/10/2007 21:51:57" UPTO_LINK_DATE="08/10/2007 21:51:57" VER_LANGUAGE="English (United States) [0x409]" />
</EXE>
<EXE NAME="kernel32.dll" FILTER="GRABMI_FILTER_THISFILEONLY">
    <MATCHING_FILE NAME="kernel32.dll" SIZE="930816" CHECKSUM="0xF60887C3" BIN_FILE_VERSION="5.1.2600.1560" BIN_PRODUCT_VERSION="5.1.2600.1560" PRODUCT_VERSION="5.1.2600.1560" FILE_DESCRIPTION="Windows NT BASE API Client DLL" COMPANY_NAME="Microsoft Corporation" PRODUCT_NAME="Microsoft® Windows® Operating System" FILE_VERSION="5.1.2600.1560 (xpsp2_gdr.040517-1325)" ORIGINAL_FILENAME="kernel32" INTERNAL_NAME="kernel32" LEGAL_COPYRIGHT="© Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved." VERFILEDATEHI="0x0" VERFILEDATELO="0x0" VERFILEOS="0x40004" VERFILETYPE="0x2" MODULE_TYPE="WIN32" PE_CHECKSUM="0xEC3A9" LINKER_VERSION="0x50001" UPTO_BIN_FILE_VERSION="5.1.2600.1560" UPTO_BIN_PRODUCT_VERSION="5.1.2600.1560" LINK_DATE="06/17/2004 17:58:35" UPTO_LINK_DATE="06/17/2004 17:58:35" VER_LANGUAGE="English (United States) [0x409]" />
</EXE>
</DATABASE>

[Josef W. Segur]

This the report I keep getting. Where did I go wrong?
...

Hmm, the version of kernel32.dll indicates you're using Windows XP SP2 and we haven't had any other reports of difficulty on that OS.

I see you chose the SSE2 AMD version. Could it be that you have an Athlon XP system, for which you need the SSE version? If that's not it, please post more details about your system, and maybe a link to the host page at SETI@home.
                                                            Joe