Work Units not in BOINC que?
16 Mar 2005 19:25:30 UTC
Topic 188563
(moderation:
I was just checking out my account page and viewing past results and I noticed that it lists 8 work units waiting to be processed, yet when I look at BOINC, I only have 6 in the que. I narrowed it down to these two work units (no other computers have returned results on them, either, but they might just be slower).
http://einsteinathome.org/workunit/529846
http://einsteinathome.org/workunit/529844
I only have one computer assigned to this account, so I know it isn't in another computer's que. Any ideas on what the heck happened? I'm curious to see if any other results are returned on them.
Work Units not in BOINC que?
)
Occasionaly this happens. This is what the FAQ has to say...
"Your account" shows WorkUnit XXXXX being sent to me, but I don't have it on my computer - where did it go?
This problem occurs when your machine contacts the Einstein@Home scheduler to request work, and the Einstein@Home scheduler sends work to your machine, but the work never arrives. This can happen if the networking connection fails during the data transfer. It might also happen if your machine never gets its original assigned hostid and later gets given a different one. It might also happen because of (known and perhaps unknown) bugs in the BOINC core client.
We hope that this problem is largely fixed. If your machine is behind a proxy server or part of a Windows network that uses proxy-like translation features, then bugs in the BOINC 4.19 client may cause this problem. If you see this happending repeatedly on your machine(s) please file a report in the message boards, and perhaps try one of the later BOINC versions.
Provided that your machine is successfully completing work, uploading the results, and downloading work, the occaisional lost Workunit is nothing to worry about. When it times out after the deadline, the work will simply be sent to another host machine.
> Occasionaly this happens.
)
> Occasionaly this happens. This is what the FAQ has to say...
>
Ah. I should have checked there first. Read the whole thing the other day and didn't remember seeing anything about that, though. Anyway, thanks for your response.