Hello, just discovered this thread while searching for an answer.

Have sent back 3 WUs of this kind, but all 3 mention "completed, can't validate" for both my wingman and me.
Here are the WUs:
27982: http://albert.phys.uwm.edu/workunit.php?wuid=27982
27981: http://albert.phys.uwm.edu/workunit.php?wuid=27981
27936: http://albert.phys.uwm.edu/workunit.php?wuid=27936

May it be, as Neil Polson already mentioned, that you have a problem with the validation?

On "errors" of the WUs you listed you'll see that these WUs have been cancelled, that's why the results say "can't validate".

For the latest App version we needed to change the workunits (command-line), too, so we cancelled the old ones as the new app couldn't run these properly.

The validation problems of S6LV1 appear to be the result of the previous checkpoint problem having been fixed incompletely. We're working on this.

BM

The validation problems of S6LV1 appear to be the result of the previous checkpoint problem having been fixed incompletely. We're working on this.

App versions 1.07 released yesterday are meant to fix this.

BM

Hi,

I dont't now if a cross validation problem from 1.03 to 1.07 is of interest.
My first CPU invalid here: http://albert.phys.uwm.edu/result.php?resultid=115586

Christoph

---

Christoph

I dont't now if a cross validation problem from 1.03 to 1.07 is of interest.
My first CPU invalid here: http://albert.phys.uwm.edu/result.php?resultid=115586

If you look at the whole quorum rather than just your result, it doesn't appear to be just a cross version validation problem since it was initially a disagreement between two 1.03 tasks. Eventually, just one of the 1.03 tasks did validate with a 1.07 task.

---

Cheers,
Gary.

We have identified a few problems with validation in the S6LV1 App, but so far none of these concern cross-validation between App versions.

App versions 1.03 (and earlier) have a problem with checkpointing that only shows up in validation. If a task of such an App was interrupted and restarted from a checkpoint the result will ultimately be found invalid.

There is a numerical instability in one of the functions used in the new App code that needs to be fixed there, and there are a few oddities in the behavior of the current validator. Both issues are actively being worked on.

BM

Ok, than it was that what hit me. I'm running other projects too.

---

Christoph

very nice reading that