http://climateapps2.oucs.ox.ac.uk/cpdnboinc/show_user.php?userid=16598

My Athlon 64 system has been cranking out results for many months at around 2.00 to 2.10 sec/ts. Today I am now seeing it jumped up to 30 sec/ts then 16 then 11. What would cause this? Should I be worried?

Keith

---

> http://climateapps2.oucs.ox.ac.uk/cpdnboinc/show_user.php?userid=16598
>
> My Athlon 64 system has been cranking out results for many months at around
> 2.00 to 2.10 sec/ts. Today I am now seeing it jumped up to 30 sec/ts then 16
> then 11. What would cause this? Should I be worried?
>
> Keith
>
Looking at the trickles at:

<a href="http://climateapps2.oucs.ox.ac.uk/cpdnboinc/show_host_detail.php?hostid=29407">http://climateapps2.oucs.ox.ac.uk/cpdnboinc/show_host_detail.php?hostid=29407</a>

It looks like one model (407692) bombed out with an error after 7 trickles, it downloaded another one, yet somehow internally kept the start time as that of when you started 407692. So its sec/ts calculation is screwed up. It shouldn't be a problem.

What would cause it to "Bomb out"? Hardware problem or just a software error?

---

&gt; What would cause it to "Bomb out"? Hardware problem or just a software error?
&gt;
Difficult to say, but a possible hardware problem (i.e. proc running too hot, or not enough voltage, or RAM running on too tight timings, or not enough RAM voltage). Are you overclocking? Looks like that PC has completed two runs and errored on three others.

That one is slightly overclocked but I ran Prime 95 without errors and haven't had any strange behavior from it. The funny thing is that it looks like very machine I have, most of which aren't overclocked at all, have lots of client errors.

Keith

---

&gt; That one is slightly overclocked but I ran Prime 95 without errors and haven't
&gt; had any strange behavior from it. The funny thing is that it looks like very
&gt; machine I have, most of which aren't overclocked at all, have lots of client
&gt; errors.
&gt;
&gt; Keith
&gt;
If you've done the basic hardware maintenance from this thread

http://www.climateprediction.net/board/viewtopic.php?t=2124

and hardware specific tests from this thread

http://www.climateprediction.net/board/viewtopic.php?t=2126

successfully, then I don't know. Other problems can come about if not suspending and exiting BOINC before rebooting, although they don't seem to be the -5 errors.

It looks like the WU that had errors on mine also had errors on other computer when they were sent to them. Could it be that the WU was bad or flawed? Or that BOINC was having a problem or glitch?

Keith

---

&gt; It looks like the WU that had errors on mine also had errors on other computer
&gt; when they were sent to them. Could it be that the WU was bad or flawed? Or
&gt; that BOINC was having a problem or glitch?
&gt;
&gt; Keith
&gt;
It's possible. On the other hand, On two work units that I got on my PCs that were sent out in early October, each to 3 other PCs. Only one other was returned besides mine, i.e. 3 out of 8 were successful, the other 5 returned errors. I went through checking about 300 models sent out in early October. Each of these were sent to 4 different PCs. About half didn't have anyone complete them, about 3/8ths had only one person complete it (although some still had other PCs crunching on the work unit), and about 1/8 had more than one person complete the model. Of those, only 2 were completed by 3 people, and none completed by all 4. So while it's possible that the models would go unstable due to different parameter sets, the greater likelihood is that many people are having hardware or software configuration problems.

Well, I generally run Prime 95 torture test for about 4 hours then consider it stable. I also play alot of games and figure that if they don't crash or have problems then I am most likely ok. I am by nature though the type of person that is driven crazy by thinking my system might be causing the errors. Guess I shouldn't be overclocking. :) Anyway I am going to try running Prime 95 for 24 hours on my other system that has had lots of Client Errors and see what that shows.

Keith

---

Worriers will love(?) UK_Nick's testing suggestions at the top of the page <a href="http://www.climateprediction.net/board/viewforum.php?f=23">here</a> on the community forum, though it was written for CPDN classic so there are no references to BOINC.

---

I'm currently following my own advice with 'Dilly' - she's upchucked a whole bunch of models these last few days - so she's running her latest model along with Prime95 at priority 4 thus they're both using 50% of the CPU...

---

<a href="http://www.nmvs.dsl.pipex.com/"><img src="http://boinc.mundayweb.com/cpdn/stats.php?userID=6&amp;team=off&amp;trans=off"></a>

<a href="http://www.nmvs.dsl.pipex.com/">Distributed Mania</a>