No appropriate work server was available [SMP]

Moderators: Site Moderators, FAHC Science Team

Gary480six
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:42 pm

Re: No appropriate work server was available

Post by Gary480six »

Bruce,

I have been seeing a pattern of systems not able to get work for about a month now. Both for myself and for people like the OP of this thread. I have no choice but to believe there is some anomalous bug in the Assignment Server.

My system that got stuck today is an Intel quad core running Client v6.34 on Windows 7 Ultimate 32-bit. The machine is not overclocked and has been Folding for months without issues.
I have a dozen other Folding machines at the same location that did not have the "No appropriate work server was available" issue today so I have to assume that it is not a network problem on my end.
I have the size of work units set to 'big', assigned 1800MB of memory to Folding, have set the -advmethods and -smp flags. This system is just using the Microsoft firewall along with AVG Free 2013. And if it helps diagnostically, I am located in NY.

The machine had just completed and sent back Project 6981 (using the a3 core) when it got 'stuck' for most of an hour with the "No appropriate work server was available" error. After running the Fix listed below, I restarted the client and got Project 6973 - also an a3 core work unit.


For anyone having this specific problem, the fix I found has worked for me 100% of the time.

First I make sure that I have shut down Folding - in my case CTRL+C to close the DOS window.

Find your FAH folder and Delete the unitinfo.txt, the queue.dat and the work folder.

Restart Folding.



Perhaps we can start to figure out if any one of the above listed specs match a majority of the people having the " No appropriate work server was available" issue?
7im
Posts: 10179
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:30 pm
Hardware configuration: Intel i7-4770K @ 4.5 GHz, 16 GB DDR3-2133 Corsair Vengence (black/red), EVGA GTX 760 @ 1200 MHz, on an Asus Maximus VI Hero MB (black/red), in a blacked out Antec P280 Tower, with a Xigmatek Night Hawk (black) HSF, Seasonic 760w Platinum (black case, sleeves, wires), 4 SilenX 120mm Case fans with silicon fan gaskets and silicon mounts (all black), a 512GB Samsung SSD (black), and a 2TB Black Western Digital HD (silver/black).
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: No appropriate work server was available

Post by 7im »

There is no need to configure a memory setting. Please remove it. It will only limit your WU assignments and provide no benefit.
How to provide enough information to get helpful support
Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.
Rattledagger
Posts: 128
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Norway

Re: No appropriate work server was available

Post by Rattledagger »

7im wrote:There is no need to configure a memory setting. Please remove it. It will only limit your WU assignments and provide no benefit.
Uhm, and how are you going to accomplish this, without deleting the config-file, or manually edit it with the possibility of screwing-up something?
artoar_11
Posts: 652
Joined: Sun Nov 22, 2009 8:42 pm
Hardware configuration: AMD R7 3700X @ 4.0 GHz; ASUS ROG STRIX X470-F GAMING; DDR4 2x8GB @ 3.0 GHz; GByte RTX 3060 Ti @ 1890 MHz; Fortron-550W 80+ bronze; Win10 Pro/64
Location: Bulgaria/Team #224497/artoar11_ALL_....

Re: No appropriate work server was available

Post by artoar_11 »

bruce wrote:
artoar_11 wrote:Can anyone give an explanation why this is happening?
The Assignment Server is searching for any Work Server that has WUs that fit your requirements.

From your end, the requirements include OS, Hardware, Client(slot)-type, Proxy/firewall settings, Parameters which express donor requests, etc. as well as all of the information shown on the serverstat page. Without ALL of that information, there's no obvious answer.

You can answer your own question if you can explain to me how your system is different from other similar systems which are getting assignments.

Do you see a work server that has assignments that match your request?
The problem is not in the network. Both computers are in the office. Two adjacent computers on a common switch. When the (1) PC already had this problem, the (2) PC receives/return WUs.
The first time I messed up in this situation. I thought that the problem is with the server - 128.143.199.96. A few days later the same problem came on the second computer.

As wrote Gary480six:
First I make sure that I have shut down Folding - in my case CTRL+C to close the DOS window.

Find your FAH folder and Delete the unitinfo.txt, the queue.dat and the work folder.

Restart Folding.
File client.cfg no need to change in this situation.

Only my assumption:
This happens immediately after the successful return of the WU. In some file I guess something changed (or deletes, removes in this moment), then the client fails to download a new WU.
7im
Posts: 10179
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:30 pm
Hardware configuration: Intel i7-4770K @ 4.5 GHz, 16 GB DDR3-2133 Corsair Vengence (black/red), EVGA GTX 760 @ 1200 MHz, on an Asus Maximus VI Hero MB (black/red), in a blacked out Antec P280 Tower, with a Xigmatek Night Hawk (black) HSF, Seasonic 760w Platinum (black case, sleeves, wires), 4 SilenX 120mm Case fans with silicon fan gaskets and silicon mounts (all black), a 512GB Samsung SSD (black), and a 2TB Black Western Digital HD (silver/black).
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Re: No appropriate work server was available

Post by 7im »

Rattledagger wrote:
7im wrote:There is no need to configure a memory setting. Please remove it. It will only limit your WU assignments and provide no benefit.
Uhm, and how are you going to accomplish this, without deleting the config-file, or manually edit it with the possibility of screwing-up something?
RTFah v6 install guide. The -config or -configonly switches work well for updating the client settings without manually editing the config file. ;)
How to provide enough information to get helpful support
Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.
Post Reply