Search found 22 matches
- Fri Jul 30, 2021 9:26 pm
- Forum: Issues with a specific server
- Topic: 128.252.203.10 Does not accept ANY uploads
- Replies: 19
- Views: 39095
Re: 128.252.203.10 Does not accept ANY uploads
I have a similar problem with 4 WUs stuck. They stop while uploading at around 70 to 80%, retry and fail again. The messages are like 21:10:27:WU00:FS00:Upload 75.02% 21:10:30:ERROR:WU00:FS00:Exception: Transfer failed 21:10:30:WU00:FS00:Sending unit results: id:00 state:SEND error:NO_ERROR project:...
- Mon Apr 11, 2011 12:44 pm
- Forum: Issues with a specific server
- Topic: 171.67.108.25
- Replies: 19
- Views: 2615
Re: 171.67.108.25
Thank you! But my problem is still there and I don't know, if it's a problem of the server or the client. Is there a way to delete a WU from the queue with v7?
- Sun Apr 10, 2011 8:21 am
- Forum: Issues with a specific server
- Topic: 171.67.108.25
- Replies: 19
- Views: 2615
Re: 171.67.108.25
Sorry, I don't know the difference between a work and a collection server. "Collection" sounds for me, as if it would collect the WUs and "work" as it would distribute the work to the folders.
But it's fact, that the WU doesn't upload...
But it's fact, that the WU doesn't upload...
- Sat Apr 09, 2011 4:45 pm
- Forum: Issues with a specific server
- Topic: 171.67.108.25
- Replies: 19
- Views: 2615
Re: 171.67.108.25
Oh, it was an EUE and not a bad WU. Excuse me! Here's the log: Writing local files Completed 37500 out of 250000 steps (15%) Gromacs cannot continue further. Going to send back what have done. logfile size: 12592 - Writing 13128 bytes of core data to disk... Done: 12616 -> 3989 (compressed to 31.6 p...
- Sat Apr 09, 2011 7:29 am
- Forum: Issues with a specific server
- Topic: 171.67.108.25
- Replies: 19
- Views: 2615
171.67.108.25
Hi, 2 days ago, 6513 (17, 274, 51) failed (Bad WU) and it won't upload. I'm using v7. Here's the log data. 07:12:32:Sending unit results: id:01 state:SEND project:6513 run:17 clone:274 gen:51 core:0x78 unit:0x225dd2554d9d926b0033011200111971 07:12:32:Unit 01: Uploading 4.40KiB 07:12:32:Connecting to...
- Tue Dec 28, 2010 7:47 am
- Forum: Issues with a specific WU
- Topic: Missing 2 Protomol Units
- Replies: 9
- Views: 1178
Re: Missing 2 Protomol Units
The same with Project 10015 (R:4598/C:0/G:85). Any ideas, what I can do? It makes no sense for me to keep on folding on these WUs, if they are not uploaded correctly. That's a waste of energy. The units from my other client (mostly GROMACS; on advmethods) are obviously uploaded.
- Mon Dec 27, 2010 8:45 pm
- Forum: Issues with a specific WU
- Topic: Missing 2 Protomol Units
- Replies: 9
- Views: 1178
Re: Missing 2 Protomol Units
Thank you for checking this toTOW. Here are the logs: Project: 10009 (Run 2392, Clone 0, Gen 84) [18:42:29] Folding@home Core Shutdown: FINISHED_UNIT [18:42:33] CoreStatus = 64 (100) [18:42:33] Unit 8 finished with 97 percent of time to deadline remaining. [18:42:33] Updated performance fraction: 0....
- Mon Dec 27, 2010 4:59 pm
- Forum: Issues with a specific WU
- Topic: Missing 2 Protomol Units
- Replies: 9
- Views: 1178
Re: Missing 2 Protomol Units
Well, I considered the HFM-thing as a bug of that program. I never had that behavior before and it appeared just at the time, that 2 (!) Protomol-WUs were not credited. I just wanted to know, if the WUs are lost, which I mentioned above. By the way, isn't the bonus just added to the bigadv-SMP-WUs? ...
- Mon Dec 27, 2010 7:51 am
- Forum: Issues with a specific WU
- Topic: Missing 2 Protomol Units
- Replies: 9
- Views: 1178
Missing 2 Protomol Units
Hello, I recently completed 2 Protomol-Units (yesterday and the day before yesterday) and they have not been credited yet. I also get a strange behavior in HFM.NET. The points that are shown there for the Protomol-Units are extremely high, if I "toggle" the Bonus PPD. I'm not sure, but the...
- Wed Oct 07, 2009 1:41 pm
- Forum: Discussions of General-FAH topics
- Topic: one WU too much?
- Replies: 0
- Views: 441
one WU too much?
Hello, as I checked my stats, I noticed, that I should have returned 3 WUs (905 + 2*336 points) yesterday (Tuesday, October 06), but I'm sure, that there should be only one time 336 and one time 905. Here's a little snippet from the queue with the last three finished and returned WUs Slot 08 Empty/D...
- Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:42 am
- Forum: Issues with a specific WU
- Topic: 2499 (Run 243, Clone 0, Gen 3)
- Replies: 1
- Views: 349
2499 (Run 243, Clone 0, Gen 3)
Hi, I've completed and uploaded the WU 2499 (Run 243, Clone 0, Gen 3) successfully - the points are updated and the counter increased on the stats page. But it doesn't show up in the overview for my completed projects ( http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=userpagedet&username=Monte...
- Sat Apr 11, 2009 7:34 am
- Forum: Issues with a specific WU
- Topic: 2484 (Run 180, Clone 29, Gen 9)
- Replies: 1
- Views: 364
2484 (Run 180, Clone 29, Gen 9)
I have completed the WU without any problems, but there were problems uploading the results. Later I tried it some times manually with the option "-send all". On one attempt it seemed to be successfull: # Windows CPU Console Edition ################################################# #######...
- Fri Mar 20, 2009 10:52 pm
- Forum: Issues with a specific WU
- Topic: 2620 (Run 35, Clone 11, Gen 39)
- Replies: 14
- Views: 1878
Re: 2620 (Run 35, Clone 11, Gen 39)
I got the same WU, with the same problems...
- Sat Feb 21, 2009 8:38 am
- Forum: Issues with a specific WU
- Topic: 2484 (Run 207, Clone 7, Gen 12) - lost results
- Replies: 1
- Views: 320
2484 (Run 207, Clone 7, Gen 12) - lost results
I have obviously lost results for 2484 (Run 207, Clone 7, Gen 12). Yesterday, when I came back in the evening, I shut down my CPU-Clients (not Services) with Ctrl-C and the computer. Then I restarted the computer, because I forgot to check something, which started my CPU-Clients automatically (scrip...
- Tue Jan 20, 2009 1:54 pm
- Forum: Issues with a specific WU
- Topic: 4437
- Replies: 22
- Views: 3649
Re: 4437
Thanks for the information!
The date issue is also shown in anandhanju's post. There it is the year 1969...
The date issue is also shown in anandhanju's post. There it is the year 1969...