Server 171.67.108.20 is not reacchable

Moderators: Site Moderators, FAHC Science Team

new08
Posts: 188
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 11:02 pm
Hardware configuration: Hewlett-Packard 1494 Win10 Build 1836
GeForce [MSI] GTX 950
Runs F@H Ver7.6.21
[As of Jan 2021]
Location: England

Re: Server 171.67.108.20 is not reacchable

Post by new08 »

Is this server up to old tricks?
It is shown as Accepting but not connecting as a page load to me or taking WU up.
I have less than 24 hours to upload this 450 pt WU to this server- having lost quite few already going out of date.
Image
susato
Site Moderator
Posts: 511
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:57 am
Location: Team MacOSX
Contact:

Re: Server 171.67.108.20 is not reacchable

Post by susato »

New08, please post some of your FAHlog.txt so we can see the details of the problem. Thanks!
new08
Posts: 188
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 11:02 pm
Hardware configuration: Hewlett-Packard 1494 Win10 Build 1836
GeForce [MSI] GTX 950
Runs F@H Ver7.6.21
[As of Jan 2021]
Location: England

Re: Server 171.67.108.20 is not reacchable

Post by new08 »

Here's the log. Note deadline now passed!
I've removed the client now.
This upload problem has occurred over some weeks as this slow machine makes for long waits! I'll consider retiring it if problems persist.
I could connect to net ok as the new download was running.(see log)
I did find a problem finally with Packet Scheduler Miniport 3 -which reloaded finally.
This may have affected connectability in the interim as powering up USB modem froze pc a few times prior to repair.
I'll continue using 5.03 and see if that is more successful.
I'm posting on machine concerned right now.

-

Code: Select all

-- Opening Log file [February 23 11:35:37 UTC] 


# Windows CPU Systray Edition #################################################
###############################################################################

                       Folding@Home Client Version 6.23

                          http://folding.stanford.edu

###############################################################################
###############################################################################

Launch directory: D:\Program Files\Folding@home\Folding@home-x86


[11:35:37] - Ask before connecting: No
[11:35:37] - User name: new08 (Team 39340)
[11:35:37] - User ID: 1B61FAF6603D2F23
[11:35:37] - Machine ID: 2
[11:35:37] 
[11:35:37] Loaded queue successfully.
[11:35:37] Initialization complete
[11:35:37] 
[11:35:37] + Processing work unit
[11:35:37] Core required: FahCore_7c.exe
[11:35:37] Core found.
[11:35:37] Project: 4437 (Run 78, Clone 4, Gen 1)


[11:35:37] + Attempting to send results [February 23 11:35:37 UTC]
[11:35:37] Working on queue slot 07 [February 23 11:35:37 UTC]
[11:35:37] + Working ...
[11:35:37] - Couldn't send HTTP request to server
[11:35:37] + Could not connect to Work Server (results)
[11:35:37]     (171.67.108.20:8080)
[11:35:37] + Retrying using alternative port
[11:35:37] 
[11:35:37] *------------------------------*
[11:35:37] Folding@Home Double Gromacs Core C
[11:35:37] Version 1.00 (Thu Apr 24 19:12:09 PDT 2008)
[11:35:37] 
[11:35:37] Preparing to commence simulation
[11:35:37] - Files status OK
[11:35:37] - Couldn't send HTTP request to server
[11:35:37] + Could not connect to Work Server (results)
[11:35:37]     (171.67.108.20:80)
[11:35:37] - Error: Could not transmit unit 06 (completed February 22) to work server.
[11:35:37]   Keeping unit 06 in queue.
[11:35:40] - Expanded 1198716 -> 3341129 (decompressed 278.7 percent)
[11:35:40] 
[11:35:40] Project: 3858 (Run 2240, Clone 0, Gen 43)
[11:35:40] 
[11:35:41] Assembly optimizations on if available.
[11:35:41] Entering M.D.
[11:35:47] Will resume from checkpoint file
[11:36:02] Working on p3851_fkbprelative_complex
[11:36:02] Completed 0 out of 200000 steps  (0%)
[11:36:18] Resuming from checkpoint
[11:36:18] Verified work/wudata_07.log
[11:36:18] Verified work/wudata_07.edr
[11:36:18] Verified work/wudata_07.xvg
[11:36:18] Verified work/wudata_07.trr
[11:36:18] Verified work/wudata_07.xtc
[11:36:18] Completed 5035 out of 200000 steps  (2%)
[12:06:29] Timer requesting checkpoint
[12:36:31] Timer requesting checkpoint

Folding@Home Client Shutdown.
Launch directory: D:\Program Files\Folding@home\Folding@home-x86


[18:56:48] - Ask before connecting: No
[18:56:48] - User name: new08 (Team 39340)
[18:56:48] - User ID: 1B61FAF6603D2F23
[18:56:48] - Machine ID: 2
[18:56:48] 
[18:56:48] Loaded queue successfully.
[18:56:48] Initialization complete

*****     [18:56:48] Unit 6's deadline (February 23 17:56) has passed.

[18:56:53] 
[18:56:53] + Processing work unit
[18:56:53] Core required: FahCore_7c.exe
[18:56:53] Core found.
[18:56:53] Working on queue slot 07 [February 23 18:56:53 UTC]
[18:56:53] + Working ...
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: Server 171.67.108.20 is not reacchable

Post by 7im »

Please do not edit out quite so much from the fahlog. I can't tell if the client only tried uploading to the work server, or also tried uploading to the Collection Server.
How to provide enough information to get helpful support
Tell me and I forget. Teach me and I remember. Involve me and I learn.
new08
Posts: 188
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 11:02 pm
Hardware configuration: Hewlett-Packard 1494 Win10 Build 1836
GeForce [MSI] GTX 950
Runs F@H Ver7.6.21
[As of Jan 2021]
Location: England

Re: Server 171.67.108.20 is not reacchable

Post by new08 »

Sorry 7im...not trying to obscure the issue!! I thought it a bit academic now [no pun] the unit has gone.
The results only ever tried to send to that one work server on Ports 80 and 8080 as shown.
It only tried to send on restart so I did that a few times and thus the log was not continuous through the day anyway.
I'm not on that machine now but that is the picture and it has repeated a lot for this server range-as discussed earlier.
I have removed the work files and just kept the log for reference. If you really want to have it- I can send later on.
If it's any help I can reload to test the client & tie up later on if you really want ;(
-as there does seem to be a funny on here somewhere- but I suspect there will plenty out there who could prove that purpose.
Image
bruce
Posts: 20824
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:13 pm
Location: So. Cal.

Re: Server 171.67.108.20 is not reacchable

Post by bruce »

new08 wrote:I have removed the work files and just kept the log for reference. If you really want to have it- I can send later on.
If it's any help I can reload to test the client & tie up later on if you really want ;(
-as there does seem to be a funny on here somewhere- but I suspect there will plenty out there who could prove that purpose.
The only purpose that looking at more of the log would be to convince you that it did really try four times: the work server on ports 8080 and 80 followed by the collection server on ports 8080 and 80 and that it's working the same for you as it does for everyone else.

We do know that lots of servers were bordering on being overloaded before the outage mentioned in the announcements and the loss of those servers has made things a lot worse. Once they fix those servers, the Pande Group will get back to rolling out the new server code and then things should finally go back to normal.
new08
Posts: 188
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 11:02 pm
Hardware configuration: Hewlett-Packard 1494 Win10 Build 1836
GeForce [MSI] GTX 950
Runs F@H Ver7.6.21
[As of Jan 2021]
Location: England

Re: Server 171.67.108.20 is not reacchable

Post by new08 »

I think it tried more than 4 times, as I restarted the client to beat the deadline (and failed).
Maybe the servers getting the overload were concerned with later clients- so going back to V4.00 was not a bad idea really.
Generally my WUs go up quite readily after a few tries and downloads similar.
Sending a thrice reworked unit at the current time and close to deadline was not a good idea :(
- so lets hope all the hard work at base pays off soon !
Image
Post Reply