Message boards :
Number crunching :
Linux new app version
Message board moderation
Author | Message |
---|---|
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 4 Feb 15 Posts: 846 Credit: 144,180,465 RAC: 0 ![]() |
New version (0.10) of BHSpin2 application for Linux is released. Please report any problems with it here. The version is prepared for new sets of input data. If it will be ok then I release other compilations. Krzysztof 'krzyszp' Piszczek Member of Radioactive@Home team My Patreon profile Universe@Home on YT |
Send message Joined: 22 Feb 15 Posts: 12 Credit: 46,880,289 RAC: 0 ![]() |
100% failure rate here. No problems with version 0.09. error while loading shared libraries: libmvec.so.1: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 4 Feb 15 Posts: 846 Credit: 144,180,465 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Can you tell me some more info about your system, please? App was compiled on Debian 9.4... The message suggests that I not include libs as statics... Krzysztof 'krzyszp' Piszczek Member of Radioactive@Home team My Patreon profile Universe@Home on YT |
Send message Joined: 28 Feb 15 Posts: 253 Credit: 200,562,581 RAC: 0 ![]() |
I don't know when that error occurs, but I have been running 0.10 for 15 minutes under Ubuntu 16.04.5 with no problems. EDIT: It has finished after 50 minutes and uploaded without error. https://universeathome.pl/universe/workunit.php?wuid=22990063 |
Send message Joined: 2 Jun 16 Posts: 169 Credit: 317,253,046 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Most are fine for me. One PC has all errors https://universeathome.pl/universe/results.php?hostid=39977 Ubuntu 14.04, 3570k Mint 17 and 2x Ubuntu 18.04 systems are ok. |
Send message Joined: 22 Feb 15 Posts: 12 Credit: 46,880,289 RAC: 0 ![]() |
My system is also Ubuntu 14.04. Affected tasks crash immediately after starting. |
Send message Joined: 2 Jun 16 Posts: 169 Credit: 317,253,046 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Correction, the Mint 17 2P 2670v1 system also has the issue. So many aborted that they never reported for me to see until I arrived home. |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 4 Feb 15 Posts: 846 Credit: 144,180,465 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Ok, I switch off the new version, will compile it again as fully static. Krzysztof 'krzyszp' Piszczek Member of Radioactive@Home team My Patreon profile Universe@Home on YT |
Send message Joined: 21 Feb 15 Posts: 46 Credit: 926,538,317 RAC: 0 ![]() |
On Debian 8 Jessie it fails, Debian 9 Strech it is ok on my systems. |
Send message Joined: 1 Feb 19 Posts: 1 Credit: 11,892,726 RAC: 0 ![]() |
100% failure on kernel 3.13 (Mint 17). 5 machines 100% success on kernel 4.15 (Mint 19). 2 machines |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 4 Feb 15 Posts: 846 Credit: 144,180,465 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Another version on server. Should work on kernels 3.2 and above. Krzysztof 'krzyszp' Piszczek Member of Radioactive@Home team My Patreon profile Universe@Home on YT |
Send message Joined: 2 Jun 16 Posts: 169 Credit: 317,253,046 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Another version on server. It works. For some reason the 0.10 version was much faster. Like 55min to 36min. 0.11 is back to the 0.09 crunch times if not slower. On a system where 0.10 did not work, v 0.11 is much slower than 0.09. From 70min to 110min. |
![]() ![]() Send message Joined: 4 Feb 15 Posts: 846 Credit: 144,180,465 RAC: 0 ![]() |
I hope to release Windows, ARM64 and ARM32 compilations today also. Edit: There will be no ARM32 application as my Odroid XU4 died :( (In next few days I will check memory card, maybe this is simple problem to sort). |
Send message Joined: 28 Feb 15 Posts: 253 Credit: 200,562,581 RAC: 0 ![]() |
It works. For some reason the 0.10 version was much faster. Like 55min to 36min. 0.11 is back to the 0.09 crunch times if not slower. I see the same thing. On my i7-3770 (Ubuntu 16.04.5), the 0.10 took 50 minutes, while the 0.11 takes 73 minutes. It would appear to me (though I know nothing about it) that they are linking to older libraries for compatibility purposes. I would always go with the new stuff; as the old rigs are replaced, that is the direction you want to go anyway. |
Send message Joined: 15 Oct 17 Posts: 11 Credit: 4,735,011 RAC: 0 ![]() |
I hope to release Windows, ARM64 and ARM32 compilations today also. The version 0.11 app has failed to start 33 tasks on my Windows 10 i7 system (which had had 468 consecutive valid tasks with the version 0.6 app). BOINC event log messages for universe_bh2_180328_253_6832283168_20000_1-999999_290400_2 were: 02-Feb-2019 16:09:49 [Universe@Home] Process creation failed: (unknown error) - error code 216 (0xd8) 02-Feb-2019 16:09:49 [Universe@Home] Process creation failed: (unknown error) - error code 216 (0xd8) 02-Feb-2019 16:09:50 [Universe@Home] Process creation failed: (unknown error) - error code 216 (0xd8) 02-Feb-2019 16:09:50 [Universe@Home] Process creation failed: (unknown error) - error code 216 (0xd8) 02-Feb-2019 16:09:51 [Universe@Home] Process creation failed: (unknown error) - error code 216 (0xd8) 02-Feb-2019 16:09:51 [Universe@Home] [task] result state=COMPUTE_ERROR for universe_bh2_180328_253_6832283168_20000_1-999999_290400_2 from CS::report_result_error 02-Feb-2019 16:09:51 [Universe@Home] [task] couldn't start app: CreateProcess() failed - (unknown error) 02-Feb-2019 16:09:51 [Universe@Home] [task] task_state=COULDNT_START for universe_bh2_180328_253_6832283168_20000_1-999999_290400_2 from start 02-Feb-2019 16:09:51 [Universe@Home] [task] task_state=COULDNT_START for universe_bh2_180328_253_6832283168_20000_1-999999_290400_2 from resume_or_start1 02-Feb-2019 16:09:51 [Universe@Home] Computation for task universe_bh2_180328_253_6832283168_20000_1-999999_290400_2 finished 02-Feb-2019 16:09:51 [Universe@Home] Output file universe_bh2_180328_253_6832283168_20000_1-999999_290400_2_r662103412_0 for task universe_bh2_180328_253_6832283168_20000_1-999999_290400_2 absent 02-Feb-2019 16:09:51 [Universe@Home] Output file universe_bh2_180328_253_6832283168_20000_1-999999_290400_2_r662103412_1 for task universe_bh2_180328_253_6832283168_20000_1-999999_290400_2 absent 02-Feb-2019 16:09:51 [Universe@Home] Output file universe_bh2_180328_253_6832283168_20000_1-999999_290400_2_r662103412_2 for task universe_bh2_180328_253_6832283168_20000_1-999999_290400_2 absent 02-Feb-2019 16:09:51 [Universe@Home] Output file universe_bh2_180328_253_6832283168_20000_1-999999_290400_2_r662103412_3 for task universe_bh2_180328_253_6832283168_20000_1-999999_290400_2 absent 02-Feb-2019 16:09:51 [Universe@Home] Output file universe_bh2_180328_253_6832283168_20000_1-999999_290400_2_r662103412_4 for task universe_bh2_180328_253_6832283168_20000_1-999999_290400_2 absent 02-Feb-2019 16:09:51 [Universe@Home] Output file universe_bh2_180328_253_6832283168_20000_1-999999_290400_2_r662103412_5 for task universe_bh2_180328_253_6832283168_20000_1-999999_290400_2 absent 02-Feb-2019 16:09:51 [Universe@Home] [task] result state=COMPUTE_ERROR for universe_bh2_180328_253_6832283168_20000_1-999999_290400_2 from CS::app_finished |
Send message Joined: 2 Jun 16 Posts: 169 Credit: 317,253,046 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Looks like windows is already on v0.12 |
Send message Joined: 28 Feb 15 Posts: 253 Credit: 200,562,581 RAC: 0 ![]() |
I see the same thing. On my i7-3770 (Ubuntu 16.04.5), the 0.10 took 50 minutes, while the 0.11 takes 73 minutes. I now see some 0.11 work units completing in 45 minutes or less. So it was probably just the normal variation in the work unit length that I was seeing, not any significant difference between 0.11 and 0.10 (or 0.09 either). It would take a much longer average to detect any real differences, if there are any. |
![]() Send message Joined: 19 May 16 Posts: 9 Credit: 215,352,825 RAC: 0 ![]() |
Looks like windows is already on v0.12 The Windows version jumped from v0.06 to v0.11 and then quickly to v0.12. All v0.11 WUs failed immediately but v0.12 seems to be running normally. While it's hard to say for sure because of WU variation, so far it seems that v0.12 is a little slower than v0.06. |
Send message Joined: 2 Jun 16 Posts: 169 Credit: 317,253,046 RAC: 0 ![]() |
I see the same thing. On my i7-3770 (Ubuntu 16.04.5), the 0.10 took 50 minutes, while the 0.11 takes 73 minutes. One other thing is that on my Zen systems some tasks take 2-3x processing time on 0.09 and 0.11 but I didn't see that on 0.10. BOINCTask ETA is 50min for 0.11, much slower than the 36min average on 0.10. |
Send message Joined: 22 Feb 15 Posts: 12 Credit: 46,880,289 RAC: 0 ![]() |
0.11 is working fine here as well. There is a mix of WUs, some taking around an hour and some taking 2.5 hours. System is an older 4-core Haswell. Team USA forum | Team USA page Always crunching / Always recruiting |