Things still wonky after Fah-web outage 2 weeks ago-Solved

[Rel25917]

My old xp machine running a gtx 770 has been unable to get any core 17/18 work ever since the fah-web outage 2 weeks ago. The assignment server just tries to give me core 15 work. Before the outage 2 weeks ago it was nothing but 17/18 work. Anyone else notice a lack of 17/18 work? I haven't checked every unit on my win 7 machines but all I've noticed is core 21 on them.

[DutchForce]

I have a XP (32-bit) machine running a GTX780 Ti and I'm getting only Core17/18 WUs, mostly P1046x (Core17) WUs.
I use the advanced flag/setting, but I don't know if that makes a difference.

My other Win7 system (GTX780/980 Ti's) is getting a mix of Core17/18/21 WUs, but mostly Core21 WUs.

[Rel25917]

I've tried all the flag combos, nothing but core 15... Also tried upgrading the client, I was still on 7.2.9 i think, no change from that either.

[7im]

Core21 requires a 64 bit OS. I don't know what changed, if anything, but I would guess there is a low supply of non core 21 work units.

[davidcoton]

Core21 requires a 64 bit OS. I don't know what changed, if anything, but I would guess there is a low supply of non core 21 work units.

Then why does it occasionally run on my 32-bit Windows Vista? It may need 64-bit hardware, but the OS can be 32-bit. (Recently mainly Core18, though.)

[7im]

I will rephrase and then you can draw whatever conclusion you want.

The assignment server constraints are set so that core 21 is not assigned to any operating system older than Windows Vista because Win XP (sp3) was 32 bit only. And the rare XP 64 bit version was sp2 only and missing some needed coding.

I also wonder when you last folded a core 21 on that 32 bit Vista box?

[Rel25917]

There is a 32 bit version of core 21, windows xp just doesn't support a certain software function that it uses. And as the work stopped exactly the same time as the stats outage I think something got screwed up and never fixed.

[davidcoton]

I also wonder when you last folded a core 21 on that 32 bit Vista box?

Good question. It was 23rd April (St George's Day, Patron Saint of England). WU was an 11401
Win Vista 32bit on a 64bit box

[7im]

Rel25917, does that April 23rd date coincide with the purported change?

[Rel25917]

After digging through the 15mb log file it appears to have changed on 13/04/16 02:48 log file time when it first changed, a change of the normal/advanced/beta flag got me a unit on the 14th that finished early the 16th, then no more 17/18 units.

[HayesK]

have not had any issues getting core_17 projects on a pair of GTX750Ti with windows XP32, client v7.44, driver 364.72, client-type=advanced, max-packet-size=big. mostly 1046x with occasional 9201.

[bruce]

Rel25917: Please post the information described in the signature for this post.

[Rel25917]

Well I figured out something interesting, max-packet-size=large forces my ALL of my machines to core 15 work. max-packet-size=large should be max-packet-size=big.
Large does not seem like it is supposed to be a valid setting but the client accepts it as one. I normally have big set on all my clients but it seems that I didn't have it on this one and tried to add it when I first noticed the trouble getting work during the server screw up(. Seems I forgot it should be big and tried large and as the client accepted it I didn't know I got it wrong as the client normally rejects invalid options. Not sure if this is a client bug or AS server bug or just an undocumented feature working as intended. It still doesn't explain the original trouble getting work only why it didn't go away.

[bruce]

The documented work-around method to opt-in to getting Core_15 assignments (for GPUs that can't run cores 16/17/18/21) is to set client-type=beta AND max-packet-size=small.

Since you have not posted the information I requested, I'll have to make a couple of assumptions:
1) You're probably running client-type=beta. If you remove that flag, does the problem go away?
2) max-packet-size can be set to a numeric value OR to small/normal/big. Apparently there's no check to see if you've entered one of the acceptable options. Also, apparently entering "large" provides the same setting as "small"

This is probably a bug, but I cannot document it based on my assumptions. You'll have to confirm or deny those assumptions first.

By not posting the information I asked for, you've made it very difficult to help you.

[Rel25917]

I tried all 3 normal client-type settings-normal advanced and beta,all of them went to core 15 when max packet was set to large. And as I said I figured something out that should imply I got things working and no longer need help so no point in posting the log. If anyone cares I just played with max-packet-size some more and it seems you can put whatever you want in there. Any numbers and it gets a core 17/18, any text other than the proper small/normal/big and it gets sent to core 15.