![]() |
![]() |
#199 | |
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA
187716 Posts |
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#200 |
Mar 2006
Germany
2×3×5×101 Posts |
![]()
the simplify.bat is only for persons running a server, not for 'normal' users doing work for NPLB.
so how it works now? if a pair is cancelled by a user, will the server instantly submit it to the next user requesting new pairs? could you determine this, please. all submitted results in the result-file of the server (nothing lost), all not-done pairs are still in the knpairs.txt of the server (nothing lost, too) and the CANCEL-pairs in the joblist should be eliminated when jobMaxTime is over. or not? i'll try this by setting the jobMaxTime to a small value and try to connect with another user, do work and submit pairs. Last fiddled with by kar_bon on 2010-03-05 at 06:22 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#201 | |
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA
6,263 Posts |
![]() Quote:
-A pair is reserved and a notation of such is made in joblist.txt -The same pair is canceled, and an additional notation is made in joblist.txt recording that. Note that both the reservation and cancellation joblist entries coexist, but the cancellation takes precedence since it has a newer timestamp. -The pair is now considered immediately available for assignment just as if it was brand new. -When the server does its next prune, it will remove both the reservation and cancellation records from joblist, since the latter negates the former and the pair is "good as new". |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#202 |
Mar 2006
Germany
303010 Posts |
![]()
i've tested more with that new version:
- all pairs done without stopping the script with CTRL-C - script stopped and continued later - script stopped, some pairs cancelled and continued - script stopped, some pairs cancelled and continued with other user all is ok as i can say now. the only thing, that should be done on the server-side when dried is, calling 2 times "llrserver -s" to clear knpairs and joblist files! so this is it! (only speak for WIN) without processing a workfile (which pairs done and which to cancel) and without any 'empty' line! i've uploaded the latest V7-Version to the former link (small change in do.bat) |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#203 | |
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA
11000011101112 Posts |
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#204 |
Mar 2006
Germany
1011110101102 Posts |
![]()
see post #198!
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#205 |
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA
6,263 Posts |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#206 |
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA
6,263 Posts |
![]()
Okay, I tried testing the latest do.bat to cancel pairs, and it seems to have messed up somewhat. I tried it with 4 completed results and one incomplete test in queue, and it produced this output:
Code:
+-------------------------------------+ | LLRnet client V0.9b7 with cLLR V3.8 | | K.Bonath, 2010-02-10, Version 0.7 | +-------------------------------------+ Current configuration: server = "nplb-gb1.no-ip.org" port = 1764 username = "mdettweiler" WUCacheSize = 5 [2010-03-05 12:58:24] The server refused your new result : either someone else computed it already, either the server is now configured to work on other numbers. The server refused your new result : either someone else computed it already, either the server is now configured to work on other numbers. The server refused your new result : either someone else computed it already, either the server is now configured to work on other numbers. The server refused your new result : either someone else computed it already, either the server is now configured to work on other numbers. The server refused your new result : either someone else computed it already, either the server is now configured to work on other numbers. The server refused your new result : either someone else computed it already, either the server is now configured to work on other numbers. The server refused your new result : either someone else computed it already, either the server is now configured to work on other numbers. The server refused your new result : either someone else computed it already, either the server is now configured to work on other numbers. Cancelling : 197/118072 (600000000000:M:1:2:258) Could Not Find C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Documents\prime\NPLB-llrnetnew\workfile .res [2010-03-05 12:58:26] Fetching WU #5/5: 197 118072 Cancelling : 197/118094 (600000000000:M:1:2:258) [2010-03-05 12:58:28] Cancelling : 197/118102 (600000000000:M:1:2:258) [2010-03-05 12:58:28] Cancelling : 197/118142 (600000000000:M:1:2:258) [2010-03-05 12:58:28] Cancelling : 197/118154 (600000000000:M:1:2:258) [2010-03-05 12:58:29] Cancelling : 197/118072 (600000000000:M:1:2:258) [2010-03-05 12:58:29] No more job to cancel ! All jobs canceled! So it seems the cancellation part itself is working all right; the only problem is in sending the completed results before canceling the rest. Any idea why this isn't working? I looked in do.bat but couldn't find anything that could be a culprit, since it appeared that it was doing it in a pretty straightforward way: convert the results, add them to lresults_hist.txt, then run LLRnet to send them. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#207 |
Mar 2006
Germany
2·3·5·101 Posts |
![]()
ok, forgot to copy/create the workfile.bak in the cancel-routine!
update do.bat with one line: Code:
:jobcancel if not exist lresults.txt goto jobcancel1 copy workfile.txt workfile.bak gawk -f do_tosend.awk lresults.txt don't forget to call twice 'llrserver -s' after cancelling with 'do -c'! Last fiddled with by kar_bon on 2010-03-05 at 18:43 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#208 | |
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA
626310 Posts |
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#209 |
A Sunny Moo
Aug 2007
USA
6,263 Posts |
![]()
Okay, I tried it in the exact same situation as before (4 pairs done, 1 pair in progress) and it seems to have worked correctly:
Code:
+-------------------------------------+ | LLRnet client V0.9b7 with cLLR V3.8 | | K.Bonath, 2010-02-10, Version 0.7 | +-------------------------------------+ Current configuration: server = "nplb-gb1.no-ip.org" port = 1764 username = "mdettweiler" WUCacheSize = 5 1 file(s) copied. [2010-03-05 13:53:57] Cancelling : 197/121718 (600000000000:M:1:2:258) [2010-03-05 13:53:58] Cancelling : 197/121768 (600000000000:M:1:2:258) [2010-03-05 13:53:58] Cancelling : 197/121772 (600000000000:M:1:2:258) [2010-03-05 13:53:59] Cancelling : 197/121784 (600000000000:M:1:2:258) [2010-03-05 13:53:59] Cancelling : 197/121846 (600000000000:M:1:2:258) [2010-03-05 13:53:59] No more job to cancel ! All jobs canceled! The tricky part is how to have the batch file "know" how many WUs were completed and sent in. In do.pl that's done by incrementing a $numResults variable as each result is processed, but that would be impossible for do.bat since it doesn't actually do the processing but rather has gawk do it. Oh, I know! What if you had do.bat count the number of lines in tosend.txt before that's sent? If you take that number minus one (the newline at the end) it should give you the number of completed results done, and from there you can have it remove those from workfile.txt before beginning the actual cancellation process. Edit: scratch that, looks like it didn't work. I just started up the client again and it grabbed exactly the same 5 pairs that it did before--including the ones that were already done. It seems the server didn't ignore the cancellation requests on the completed ones as I thought; somehow they were thrown back into the pool to be reassigned. The fix would be the same as the one I presented above: the only difference being that it's no longer just a cosmetic issue but a real one. Last fiddled with by mdettweiler on 2010-03-05 at 19:04 |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Anti-poverty drug testing vs "high" tax deduction testing | kladner | Soap Box | 3 | 2016-10-14 18:43 |
What am I testing? | GARYP166 | Information & Answers | 9 | 2009-02-18 22:41 |
k=243 testing ?? | gd_barnes | Riesel Prime Search | 20 | 2007-11-08 21:13 |
Testing | grobie | Marin's Mersenne-aries | 1 | 2006-05-15 12:26 |
Speed of P-1 testing vs. Trial Factoring testing | eepiccolo | Math | 6 | 2006-03-28 20:53 |