Re: [boinc_dev] boinc_init_parallel() has problems under Linux and Mac

2010-06-14 Thread Kamran Karimi
Thanks. -Kamran -Original Message- From: David Anderson [mailto:da...@ssl.berkeley.edu] Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 2:24 PM To: Kamran Karimi Cc: boinc_dev@ssl.berkeley.edu Subject: Re: [boinc_dev] boinc_init_parallel() has problems under Linux and Mac I checked in what should be a fix

Re: [boinc_dev] boinc_init_parallel() has problems under Linux and Mac

2010-06-14 Thread David Anderson
I checked in what should be a fix for this. -- David Kamran Karimi wrote: > Hi all, > > > > AQUA volunteers have reported the following problem with apps that use > boinc_init_parallel() under Linux and Mac: > > > > When the "Leave application in memory while suspended" option in the > pre

[boinc_dev] boinc_init_parallel() has problems under Linux and Mac

2010-06-14 Thread Kamran Karimi
Hi all, AQUA volunteers have reported the following problem with apps that use boinc_init_parallel() under Linux and Mac: When the "Leave application in memory while suspended" option in the preferences/disk and memory usage tab is not set, then stopping a workunit will cause a compute erro

Re: [boinc_dev] host punishment mechanism revisited

2010-06-14 Thread Richard Haselgrove
I've been monitoring this host at intervals over the last 10 days. Until today, 'Application Info' consistently showed the 273 jobs downloaded on 4 June as being 'today'. Since we last looked at the host, I've swapped out the Fermi card (now running - faster - in a Windows XP host), and replace

Re: [boinc_dev] host punishment mechanism revisited

2010-06-14 Thread David Anderson
That's how it works now. -- David john.mcl...@sybase.com wrote: > My apologies for the late post, I was on vacation for a couple of weeks. > > Adaptive replication should never completely trust a computer, there should > always be some chance that it will get a wingmate for any particular > result

Re: [boinc_dev] host punishment mechanism revisited

2010-06-14 Thread John . McLeod
My apologies for the late post, I was on vacation for a couple of weeks. Adaptive replication should never completely trust a computer, there should always be some chance that it will get a wingmate for any particular result, even if it is 1% or so. A single failure noted by random check should i