Bug in validation procedure ?
7 Sep 2005 16:21:16 UTC
Topic 189851
(moderation:
For WU 1906702, 4 results are listed, namely
. ID 8040829 invalid (app 4.82)
. ID 8040830 invalid (app 4.82, my computer)
. ID 8040831 valid (app 4.79)
. ID 8040832 valid (app 4.79)
and credit has been granted for the 2 computers with valid results.
The rule, as I understand it, states that a minimum of 3 valid results is required before the result is used for further calculations and credit is granted. What worries me is not the issue of credit, but the fact that what I have noticed may reflect a bug in the validation procedure. By the way, I have not seen the same problem for any other WU that I was curious enough to examine (at least 50 of them).
BA or BM, please confirm that you have seen this post. Thank you.
On August 30 and September 2, I have posted the same observation in "Cruncher's corner", this triggered discussions about topics not related to my question, but no comment about a possible (rare) bug in the validation procedure.
Bug in validation procedure ?
)
A quorum requires at least three "valid" results in the sense that the results must be successful (i.e. not terminated with a client error) and syntactically correct (e.g. must consist of finite numbers). The results are then compared to find an "agreement" about a "canonical result". The results that are "close enough" to this canonical result are considered to be "valid" and the median of the claimed credits for the valid results is assigned to all of them.
I can't see a bug in the validation from the WU you are pointing to here. However there might be some further adjustment needed to what is considered to be "close enough" with the new AltiVec Mac App, whose results sometimes seem to be a bit futher away from the Windows mainstream.
BM
BM
RE: A quorum requires at
)
Thank you, Bernd, for this clear explanation which suppresses my worries about the validation procedure. JJ