mersenneforum.org

mersenneforum.org (https://www.mersenneforum.org/index.php)
-   Prime Sierpinski Project (https://www.mersenneforum.org/forumdisplay.php?f=48)
-   -   LLR 3.7.1c error (https://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=10479)

Nekto 2008-07-13 19:52

LLR 3.7.1c error
 
If I get some errors like "Bit: 1427333/5049039, ERROR: SUM(INPUTS) != SUM(OUTPUTS), 0 != 3.999908273430412e+092", it means bad overclock? But earlier LLRnet worked fine with better overclock for a long time without any errors.

Joe O 2008-07-13 20:59

[QUOTE=Nekto;137753]If I get some errors like "Bit: 1427333/5049039, ERROR: SUM(INPUTS) != SUM(OUTPUTS), 0 != 3.999908273430412e+092", it means bad overclock? But earlier LLRnet worked fine with better overclock for a long time without any errors.[/QUOTE]

1) The new program is ~10% faster, so it stresses the system ~10% more.
2) The old program may not have been checking the GWNUM error messages.
3) It's warmer now
4) Your machine is older
5) There may be more dust on the heatsink or in the case vents
6) You might have new drivers installed. Either for new hardware or new versions of drivers. I have seen this message with a badly written sound card driver that did not properly save and restore the FP state.
7) All of the above!

Nekto 2008-07-13 21:15

it's not cause of temperature... 70 degrees max Q6600 (9x332)... Earlier it was working 9x375 stable during several weeks... If i have such errors, result can be wrong and I shouldn't help in PRP-ing?

Joe O 2008-07-13 22:00

[QUOTE=Nekto;137759]it's not cause of temperature... 70 degrees max Q6600 (9x332)... Earlier it was working 9x375 stable during several weeks... If i have such errors, result can be wrong and I shouldn't help in PRP-ing?[/QUOTE]

Define stable.
According to one Xtremely good overclocking site, there is boot stable, windows stable, prime stable, etc. You get the point.
As to whether your results are usable, you could finish a test and then send me the k n values so that I can run it and see if my result matches yours. Essentially an early double check. Do not post the 64 bit residual here. That would allow anyone to send in a double check result that would match even though they had not run the test. LTD will let us know if our residuals match.
My experience with this particular error is mixed. I had quite a few results that were correct in spite of this error. The software restarted from the previous checkpoint and recalculated correctly. I also had one result that was bad, so YMMV.

Nekto 2008-07-14 19:24

i get this error when I launch any game with llr running in background

VJS 2008-07-14 23:01

Welcome to the q6600 club.

I went through this with Lars quite a bit with my q6600 part of the reason why we have progressed as far as we have in the double check portion.

My advise for what it's worth.

Also you stated 70C but not what temperature your running at. I found that by mid 60's I was producing errors. Have to keep temperatures below 64C on all four cores not just the mother board utility temperature.

First download the following program, coretemp.exe it actually report the temperature of each core.

For a heatsink I found the best one to be a thermal u-120 extreme with 2 1x120mm fans one push one pull. I grabbed some cheap ones from Fry's combined they were quite and performed better than one of any name brand fan out there.

For settings try the following.

[B]Multiplier at 8x
fsb at 400mhz
memory multiplier at 2x.[/B]

This will give you a 3.2Ghz clock even multipliers all around and a 800 mhz memory. For me that was stable, rock solid stable (produced less than a 1% error rate in about 500 tests), temperatures were in the high 50's 54-58 with variance between the cores. Voltage was around 1.38V, memory at 2.2 or 2.1 what ever the patriots suggested.

I'd suggest 7x400 first which will yeild 2.8Ghz if your "stable" then try 3.2Ghz.

BTW I though I was "stable" at 3.8Ghz crashed windows once a week maybe never crashed in games. Would overheat and crash with prime95, had to move things back to 3.4Ghz before prp stopped showing errors although they still existed (according to double checks).

It's also important to note that llr seems less likely to produce errors than prp... but that's just a hunch, maybe the new version is different...

When I was comparing the two temps were also 2C lower with llr vs prp.

em99010pepe 2008-07-19 10:15

Which motherboard are you using?
What's your FSB speed? Memory timings?

Nekto 2008-07-19 14:49

[quote=em99010pepe;137999]Which motherboard are you using?
What's your FSB speed? Memory timings?[/quote]
[url]http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=391232[/url]

VJS 2008-07-19 18:55

DUDE!!!

You are way way over on RAM (memory) ... I'm sure any overclocking buddy that likes high frequency might be suggesting what you have but in all seriousness try the following...

multiplier [SIZE="7"]8[/SIZE]

fsb [SIZE="7"]422[/SIZE]

memory multiplier [B][SIZE="7"]2x or (1:1)[/SIZE][/B]

That would give you the exact same total MHZ with a 844 memory and a 422 fsb.

Those settings will be much much much better and you will probably be able to run better timings 6-6-6-15 <--- (suxs!!!)


Also you didn't comment on what coretemp.exe is saying, really I'm trying to help you make a stable fast machine lets give it a try. Also run the DC server Lars will let you know if your stable.

Nekto 2008-07-20 06:46

[quote=VJS;138026]Also you didn't comment on what coretemp.exe is saying[/quote]
it's hot last days :) so during the day i make smaller MHz and voltage :) trying to keep temperature under 71 (70-71 on 2 cores and 68-69 on other two). Did like you said [url]http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=391516[/url]

Nekto 2008-07-20 10:02

[url]http://img525.imageshack.us/my.php?image=cachememxi5.jpg[/url]
Everest test


All times are UTC. The time now is 17:00.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.