climateprediction.net (CPDN) home page
Thread 'Workunit error - check skipped'

Thread 'Workunit error - check skipped'

Message boards : Number crunching : Workunit error - check skipped
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
ProfileDave Jackson
Volunteer moderator

Send message
Joined: 15 May 09
Posts: 4540
Credit: 19,009,815
RAC: 21,293
Message 46272 - Posted: 23 May 2013, 10:06:53 UTC

Task 15475090 finally completed for me - a lot of time on dual core atom netbook which will not be getting any more full resolution ocean models! got Workunit error - check skipped against validate state. All the other units I have noticed that completed successfully had initial against validate state. Just wondered if this means anything significant or not? I suspect the latter but wish to indulge my idle curiosity.
ID: 46272 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ProfileMikeMarsUK
Volunteer moderator
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 13 Jan 06
Posts: 1498
Credit: 15,613,038
RAC: 0
Message 46273 - Posted: 23 May 2013, 11:47:44 UTC

Congratulations :-)


The 'validate' stuff is not used at CPDN because it is done later statistically by the researchers.

I'm a volunteer and my views are my own.
News and Announcements and FAQ
ID: 46273 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ProfileGreg van Paassen

Send message
Joined: 17 Nov 07
Posts: 142
Credit: 4,271,370
RAC: 0
Message 46277 - Posted: 23 May 2013, 21:29:07 UTC

Technically, what it means to BOINC is that your task is the only good one in that work unit (all the earlier tasks failed), so its result cannot be compared to the others.

(BOINC was designed on the assumption that two different computers processing a task would produce results that are identical, bit for bit. If this were true a simple comparison of results would be a useful check for correct data transmission. But climate models break that assumption.)

Since CPDN never runs the BOINC cross-checking ("validation") code, tasks keep whatever "validate state" BOINC's end-of-task code assigns: for failed tasks, "Invalid"; for most good results, "Initial"; and for the last result and only good one of a bad bunch, "Workunit error - check skipped".
ID: 46277 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
ProfileDave Jackson
Volunteer moderator

Send message
Joined: 15 May 09
Posts: 4540
Credit: 19,009,815
RAC: 21,293
Message 46285 - Posted: 24 May 2013, 7:09:06 UTC - in response to Message 46277.  

Thanks Greg and Mike, I knew that cpdn didn't use the BOINC validation but not that it still told me something about the work unit. Probably be a long time till I notice that particular message again.
ID: 46285 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Ingleside

Send message
Joined: 5 Aug 04
Posts: 126
Credit: 24,437,617
RAC: 23,687
Message 46286 - Posted: 24 May 2013, 16:40:05 UTC - in response to Message 46277.  

(BOINC was designed on the assumption that two different computers processing a task would produce results that are identical, bit for bit. If this were true a simple comparison of results would be a useful check for correct data transmission. But climate models break that assumption.)

Not exactly, BOINC was designed on the assumption the projects would write their own validator, but did include two generic validators, one is the bit-by-bit comparison and the other is "everything validates". Example, the SETI-validator allows 1% variation between most signal-strengths, but at the same time demands the signals is at the same frequency.

Since the validator is project-specific, a CPDN-validator could example check if all trickle-files was reported, all files is uploaded and can also do some other checks on the results. A CPDN-validator doesn't need to compare to other results for wu, meaning no problem with different results.

By running validator & Assimilator, CPDN could also run db_purger, meaning wu's finished would be archieved and removed from database. One obvious advantage here is, finished wu's wouldn't spawn a re-send doomed to fail with download-error 1.5x after the deadline. Another advantage is the database would be kept smaller, and don't need to do the ocassional manual archieving often leading to problems as CPDN has been doing...
ID: 46286 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote

Message boards : Number crunching : Workunit error - check skipped

©2024 cpdn.org