Result was reported too late to validate

McSummation
McSummation
Joined: 24 Feb 05
Posts: 18
Credit: 820944
RAC: 0
Topic 192124

The last 2 results I've returned, 55308015 and 55308012, were reported successfully and within the allotted time, however, I got the above error on both of them. It appears that both WUs were sent to 3 users instead of 2, so mine didn't count.

Erik
Erik
Joined: 14 Feb 06
Posts: 2815
Credit: 2645600
RAC: 0

Result was reported too late to validate

Quote:
The last 2 results I've returned, 55308015 and 55308012, were reported successfully and within the allotted time, however, I got the above error on both of them. It appears that both WUs were sent to 3 users instead of 2, so mine didn't count.

And the two results before those two had 3 crunchers also yet all three received credit. Hopefully one of the Einstein folks will read your post and grant you the credit earned.

Bernd Machenschalk
Bernd Machenschalk
Moderator
Administrator
Joined: 15 Oct 04
Posts: 4312
Credit: 250620213
RAC: 34650

Thanks for the report. For

Thanks for the report. For the moment I think this is just a timimg problem related to the downtime, but it may also be a more serious issue. We'll check that.

BM

BM

Bruce Allen
Bruce Allen
Moderator
Joined: 15 Oct 04
Posts: 1119
Credit: 172127663
RAC: 0

RE: The last 2 results I've

Quote:
The last 2 results I've returned, 55308015 and 55308012, were reported successfully and within the allotted time, however, I got the above error on both of them. It appears that both WUs were sent to 3 users instead of 2, so mine didn't count.

Thanks for your report. I'm having a look at this.

Cheers,
Bruce

Director, Einstein@Home

Bruce Allen
Bruce Allen
Moderator
Joined: 15 Oct 04
Posts: 1119
Credit: 172127663
RAC: 0

RE: The last 2 results I've

Quote:
The last 2 results I've returned, 55308015 and 55308012, were reported successfully and within the allotted time, however, I got the above error on both of them. It appears that both WUs were sent to 3 users instead of 2, so mine didn't count.

What happened is that you must have detached and then reattached the host machine on 25 November. When this happens we cancel any workunits in progress, because this might be the reason that the host machine was detached.

I did make some modifications to the transitioner so that it would allow these to be validated and given credit nevertheless, but it looks as if David Anderson might have reverted those changes. I'll take a look.

Does this make sense? Did you detach then reattach the host? (I have removed identifying info from the log snippet below.)

2006-11-25 21:58:24.8053 [PID=27301] [normal ]
2006-11-25 21:58:24.8240 [PID=27301] [CRITICAL] [] [] User has another host with same CPID.
2006-11-25 21:58:24.8262 [PID=27301] [CRITICAL] [] [RESULT#55308012] [WU#19831632] changed CPID: marking in-progress result h1_0324.0_S5R1__15639_S5R1a_0 as client error!
2006-11-25 21:58:24.8269 [PID=27301] [CRITICAL] [] [RESULT#55308015] [WU#19831633] changed CPID: marking in-progress result h1_0324.0_S5R1__15638_S5R1a_0 as client error!

Director, Einstein@Home

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.