[QUOTE=swl551;325500]Set the check frequency to 5 mins and the number of failed tests to at least 3. 5 is better.. if any ckp file is detected during that window the ckp aging is reset and therefore less prone to false alarms.[/QUOTE]

My apologies if I'm telling you how to chew gum... But please don't forget that the last modified date of the directory might also be useful to you.

I'm imagining a temporal harmonic where (for short work) the time between MISFIT checking for a .ckp file aligns with just after mfaktX has completed its current assignment.

[QUOTE=flashjh;325501]K, I'll let you know.[/QUOTE]
Jerry are you factoring low bit levels?

[QUOTE=swl551;325503]Jerry are you factoring low bit levels?[/QUOTE]

No, I'm doing what makes sense from G72, so 61*M range up to 73.

[QUOTE=chalsall;325502]My apologies if I'm telling you how to chew gum... But please don't forget that the last modified date of the directory might also be useful to you.

I'm imagining a temporal harmonic where (for short work) the time between MISFIT checking for a .ckp file aligns with just after mfaktX has completed its current assignment.[/QUOTE]

in a gpu farm like flash has seeing into remote processes across pcs is complicated. So generic .ckp file testing seemed best case to evaluate.

[QUOTE=swl551;325505]So generic .ckp file testing seemed best case to evaluate.[/QUOTE]

Has it turned out that way? Now that you have empirical data?

There is an old saying in the software development industry which few heed: "Plan to throw the first one away. You will anyway."

We appreciate what you're doing.

Keep doing it.

[QUOTE=flashjh;325504]No, I'm doing what makes sense from G72, so 61*M range up to 73.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=flashjh]I'm processing 61*M range up to 73. It takes [B]about an hour[/B] per exponent, so it should be writing ckp files. 2.3.1 just did it too, so it's likely something on my end.[/QUOTE]

The bug is obvious.

[QUOTE=chalsall;325506]Has it turned out that way? Now that you have empirical data?

There is an old saying in the software development industry which few heed: "Plan to throw the first one away. You will anyway."

We appreciate what you're doing.

Keep doing it.[/QUOTE]

You are boxing me into incriminating myself:no:. Damn you'd be a good lawyer.
......
I feel that the existing method works and since the parameters are user adjustable the condition is solved without redesign. Sure it could have been done another and I often do rewrite code as requirements change. I don't see this area needing rewrite yet.

If the need arises to rewrite or modify stall detection I will take your suggestion of including monitoring of the workToDo(s). So do feel like you didn't help out!

[QUOTE=chalsall;325509]The bug is obvious.[/QUOTE]

Do tell as it is not obvious to me!

[QUOTE=swl551;325510]You are boxing me into incriminating myself:no:. Damn you'd be a good lawyer. [/QUOTE]

I advise lawyers...

[QUOTE=swl551;325511]Do tell as it is not obvious to me![/QUOTE]

If your program only checks for the existence of .ckp files immediately after mfaktX completed its assignment then it might get confused.

[QUOTE=chalsall;325512]I advise lawyers...[/QUOTE]

Are you the devil? LOL