climateprediction.net home page
since upgrade, new PC id and no merge

since upgrade, new PC id and no merge

Questions and Answers : Windows : since upgrade, new PC id and no merge
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

AuthorMessage
old_user102086

Send message
Joined: 12 Oct 05
Posts: 1
Credit: 3,248,866
RAC: 0
Message 26771 - Posted: 13 Feb 2007, 15:06:29 UTC

since upgrading to 5.8.8 one of my machines recieved a new ID, (I notice the software id\'s processors better now) and is not mergeable/ it does not show as a pc to merge with (a feature I have used before when I\'ve made network changes)

version 1
539421 D1SZ13B1.server.ocean7motel.net 180.11 2,073.60 GenuineIntel
Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 2.80GHz [x86 Family 15 Model 4 Stepping 8] [fpu tsc pae nx sse sse2 mmx] Microsoft Windows Server 2003 \"R2\"
Standard Server Edition, Service Pack 1, (05.02.3790.00)

version 2
456014 D1SZ13B1.server.ocean7motel.net 927.48 270,863.99 GenuineIntel
Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 2.80GHz Microsoft Windows 2003
Standard Server Edition, Service Pack 1, (05.02.3790.00)

how to fix this?
ID: 26771 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Les Bayliss
Volunteer moderator

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 04
Posts: 7629
Credit: 24,240,330
RAC: 0
Message 26772 - Posted: 13 Feb 2007, 16:27:11 UTC

One of the things that the merge process uses to determine if computers are physically the same, is the BOINC description of the cpu.
Your \"two\" computers have a different description, so they can\'t be merged.

ID: 26772 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
old_user18252

Send message
Joined: 15 Sep 04
Posts: 3
Credit: 14,812,875
RAC: 0
Message 27267 - Posted: 10 Mar 2007, 15:45:54 UTC - in response to Message 26772.  
Last modified: 10 Mar 2007, 15:46:56 UTC

So what happens when you say would upgrade your CPU? Would it give you a new ID for that computer? Even though its just the CPU that is changing?
ID: 27267 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile mo.v
Volunteer moderator
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 04
Posts: 2363
Credit: 14,611,758
RAC: 0
Message 27285 - Posted: 12 Mar 2007, 0:57:52 UTC

The CPU type is one of boinc\'s major descriptors of each computer, so unless you replaced the old CPU with an identical one, boinc would consider it to be a different computer and you wouldn\'t be able to merge them.

On the other hand, the graphics card details (for example) aren\'t part of the description, so you could change that and the computer would keep the same ID.
Cpdn news
ID: 27285 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile WNj

Send message
Joined: 5 Dec 05
Posts: 16
Credit: 1,598,857
RAC: 0
Message 30124 - Posted: 23 Aug 2007, 1:14:16 UTC - in response to Message 27285.  

The CPU type is one of boinc\'s major descriptors of each computer, so unless you replaced the old CPU with an identical one, boinc would consider it to be a different computer and you wouldn\'t be able to merge them.
Boinc itself introduced different names for processors, depending on the version of the manager


ID: 30124 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Les Bayliss
Volunteer moderator

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 04
Posts: 7629
Credit: 24,240,330
RAC: 0
Message 30129 - Posted: 23 Aug 2007, 1:38:52 UTC
Last modified: 23 Aug 2007, 1:41:08 UTC


It\'s well known that BOINC is now extracting more info from the cpu to use as a descriptor, but it doesn\'t change the problem of automatically identifying an identical computer.


Backups: Here
ID: 30129 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile WNj

Send message
Joined: 5 Dec 05
Posts: 16
Credit: 1,598,857
RAC: 0
Message 30137 - Posted: 23 Aug 2007, 3:23:13 UTC - in response to Message 30129.  
Last modified: 23 Aug 2007, 3:23:44 UTC

It\'s well known that BOINC is now extracting more info from the cpu to use as a descriptor, but it doesn\'t change the problem of automatically identifying an identical computer.
True, but it´s not boinc´s problem, but cpdn´s - or more correct: mine. And some more users have the same, as I´ve seen in the last houres checking the forums

ID: 30137 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile astroWX
Volunteer moderator

Send message
Joined: 5 Aug 04
Posts: 1496
Credit: 95,522,203
RAC: 0
Message 30140 - Posted: 23 Aug 2007, 4:07:35 UTC


How do you parse that? That it\'s your problem? Or CPDN\'s problem? When boinc makes an operational change that negatively affects participants?

"We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo
Greetings from coastal Washington state, the scenic US Pacific Northwest.
ID: 30140 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile WNj

Send message
Joined: 5 Dec 05
Posts: 16
Credit: 1,598,857
RAC: 0
Message 30144 - Posted: 23 Aug 2007, 7:39:04 UTC - in response to Message 30140.  

How do you parse that? That it\'s your problem? Or CPDN\'s problem? When boinc makes an operational change that negatively affects participants?
Well, it´s my problem, because the (boinc-)statistics show many boxes, that do not exist. I can not delete them - the reason for that is scientific, so nothing to do about it. I can not merge them - the reason for that is technical (development did not cope up with boinc), so that is something, that can be done on project side. And that is the reason, why it´s a problem of CPDN and its spring-offs. Surely one with low priority - but checking the forums it turns up quite often under different key-words and some of them quite old. So I hoped, meanwhile the problem has been solved and I have done a mistake, trying to merge mine.

ID: 30144 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Iain Inglis

Send message
Joined: 9 Jan 07
Posts: 467
Credit: 14,549,176
RAC: 317
Message 30150 - Posted: 23 Aug 2007, 10:08:12 UTC
Last modified: 23 Aug 2007, 10:10:20 UTC

WNj,

Which boxes are you trying to merge?

575539 and 539919 have the same descriptions, but both appear to have been operating over the same period (i.e. they look like separate machines)

Similarly, 357513, 370822, 374038, 374326 and 443067 have overlapping model downloads and the last four all managed to communicate with the server within four minutes on 13 August 2006. Are they really the same machine? If not, then you shouldn\'t expect the merge to work - it\'s not a tidying up tool, it\'s just to remove duplicates for the same machine that come from restoring a backup, or upgrades.

Iain
ID: 30150 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile WNj

Send message
Joined: 5 Dec 05
Posts: 16
Credit: 1,598,857
RAC: 0
Message 30158 - Posted: 23 Aug 2007, 19:28:36 UTC - in response to Message 30150.  
Last modified: 23 Aug 2007, 19:32:42 UTC

WNj, Which boxes are you trying to merge? 575539 and 539919 have the same descriptions, but both appear to have been operating over the same period (i.e. they look like separate machines)
Similarly, 357513, 370822, 374038, 374326 and 443067 have overlapping model downloads and the last four all managed to communicate with the server within four minutes on 13 August 2006. Are they really the same machine? If not, then you shouldn\'t expect the merge to work - it\'s not a tidying up tool, it\'s just to remove duplicates for the same machine that come from restoring a backup, or upgrades. Iain
Hi Iain, for cpdn your noted ones are correct, three more on beta and seven more on BBC, attribution is clean.
I tried cleaning up about a good year ago with the method mentioned by Les - must have been the 13 August last year. (It did not work then and I have been told to wait, as the doublettes had active WUs due to installing, reinstalling, ruined backups and so on. As I could not kill the vanished WUs I´ve been told I have to wait, until they get the outcome \"no reply\".) Well, meanwhile most of the WUs are finished or on \"no reply\" if not killed so I tried again.
It were about two dozens more PC-doublettes - all the ones without WUs I was able to delete, others did merge very well to 575539. What is left in cpdn are the ones you said. That are the ones I am trying to get rid of. I could use the mentioned method again, but as it seemd not work, I checked forum - and found many similar questions - the most interesting ones 4463, 4947, 5119, 5275, 5293, 5338 and 5442 I asked for their outcome. Finding no slution I created a post in the with list 1282 on beta. Too many, as it seemd, as it made forum-users unhappy - sorry for that - I guess, these posts must have popped up on some \"lately changed\" list - I did not mean to make people angry. I just opened about fifty or so search-results in different tabs and worked through them. Sorry again - @MO.V - War bestimmt keine Absicht - und praktischer ist es mit einem Task sicherlich - anscheinend war ich zu müde, um sowas einfaches zu übersehen.

Nevertheless the problem exists.

I got a PM just to hide my PCs on CPDN and spring-offs. So they won´t show up on boinc-statistics. Thats what he has done. Well, thats a way to get rid of disturbing questions, but it does not solve the problem. And solving the problem was, what I was looking for.
ID: 30158 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Les Bayliss
Volunteer moderator

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 04
Posts: 7629
Credit: 24,240,330
RAC: 0
Message 30159 - Posted: 23 Aug 2007, 20:27:14 UTC
Last modified: 23 Aug 2007, 20:28:08 UTC

WNj
Most of the people who crunch models here never look at these boards until they have a problem, and then they post for a while, and then disappear again.
So posting a question to them at a latter date usually doesn\'t get a reply from them.

Questions are mostly answered by a few regular posters, who keep an eye on the boards to see if someone needs help.
When someone posts a mostly identical question on lots of threads, these few people have to keep answering the same person over and over, without knowing if they ever look at all of the answers.

John Keck has posted a reply on one of the other threads that you\'ve used, here.
It seems that there is a second reason for not being able to merge computers.

You can reply to him there if you wish.


Backups: Here
ID: 30159 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile Iain Inglis

Send message
Joined: 9 Jan 07
Posts: 467
Credit: 14,549,176
RAC: 317
Message 30160 - Posted: 23 Aug 2007, 22:07:04 UTC

OK, if those two groups of machines really are only two physical machines, then it looks as if you will have to live with them. You are to be congratulated for making backups, but perhaps (from the Keck Komputers post and my one eariler) it may be that the multiple interleaved restores have made the server think the duplicate computers are different computers.

In the meantime, the real problem is that the multiple restores suggest there is some difficulty running models on your PCs. It would be well worth checking the README posts on how to avoid crashes, particularly the \'107 errors\', of which you have had quite a number. I see you finished a sulphur model - I\'m sure you would like to finish one of the current types of model too.

Sorry not to have been more help.
ID: 30160 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile mo.v
Volunteer moderator
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Sep 04
Posts: 2363
Credit: 14,611,758
RAC: 0
Message 30161 - Posted: 24 Aug 2007, 1:31:39 UTC

Hi again WNj

If you had backups that did not restore correctly, it would be a good idea to look at the README collection specially about backups. I just use the first easy manual method in the list in the post by Les Bayliss.

The post Iain referred to about avoiding 107 errors is item #5 in the README about avoiding model crashes. It\'s by MikeMars. You may also need to look at #6 in the same collection, where Thyme Lawn explains how to update graphics card drivers (which is a free internet update).

Hiding one\'s computers usually isn\'t a good idea. If you need advice on the forum and your computers are hidden, we can\'t see your model details etc, so it\'s difficult to help.

When computers are hidden I don\'t think this makes any difference to the project statistics. The server can still see hidden computers - it\'s only the readers on the forums who can\'t see them.

One of the moderators, Peter Verstappen, has (I think) a duplicate computer record in his list that he cannot merge.

The way the \'merge computers\' tool works is designed and implemented by the boinc software from Berkeley in California. I think you will find that it works in exactly the same way on every boinc project. The cpdn programmers can modify or select some elements of the boinc programs, but I don\'t think they can modify how the \'merge computers\' tool functions.


Cpdn news
ID: 30161 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile MikeMarsUK
Volunteer moderator
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 13 Jan 06
Posts: 1498
Credit: 15,613,038
RAC: 0
Message 30167 - Posted: 24 Aug 2007, 7:59:41 UTC


The only time I can think of when statistics are affected by visible/invisible hosts records are the third party stats sites - the invisible hosts are exported as \'anonymous\' in the XML files which the stats sites upload.

To avoid extra host IDs being generated when you restore backed-up models you can run with \'network activity disabled\' most of the time. This prevents the sequence number on the server being out of step with the sequence number on the PC.
I'm a volunteer and my views are my own.
News and Announcements and FAQ
ID: 30167 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote
Profile WNj

Send message
Joined: 5 Dec 05
Posts: 16
Credit: 1,598,857
RAC: 0
Message 30178 - Posted: 24 Aug 2007, 23:05:26 UTC - in response to Message 30161.  

When computers are hidden I don\'t think this makes any difference to the project statistics. The server can still see hidden computers - it\'s only the readers on the forums who can\'t see them.
As MikeMarsUK correctly guessed, it´s the \"thirdParty\" statistics, where hiding the PCs is \"helping\"
The way the \'merge computers\' tool works is designed and implemented by the boinc software from Berkeley in California. I think you will find that it works in exactly the same way on every boinc project. The cpdn programmers can modify or select some elements of the boinc programs, but I don\'t think they can modify how the \'merge computers\' tool functions.
As boinc is open source, anyone could change the code, but surly it´s better to stick to the one original. Please check Message 6577 where I had exactly the same problem.
@Iain Inglis - testing the new boinc-manager-releases sometimes ruins an installation, the same is happening to me, when I´m tinkering on my PCs, especially, when trying to get two hard-disks working together - in fact I havn´t even recodnized error 107. Hopefully that doesn´t ruin my BBC WU - it´s on 85%....


ID: 30178 · Report as offensive     Reply Quote

Questions and Answers : Windows : since upgrade, new PC id and no merge

©2024 climateprediction.net