SB v1 out

**jjjjL** · 11-18-2002, 12:44 AM

All the info is on the homepage.

We're finally going to be using a v1 client now.

-Louie

**Frodo42** · 11-18-2002, 01:18 AM

WOW, that went smooth.
Its cool (and sligthly bad for the morale) to be able to see how long it will take before before you complete a full test, 131 hours to next one's done (just completed my first).

**prokaryote** · 11-18-2002, 03:12 AM

**Frodo42** · 11-18-2002, 01:13 PM

I just encountered another little thing with the program that annoys me a little in the windows version
It's once again about the "Transmit intermediate blocks" option. It seems that the program when it gets restarted automaticly tics that option on. That is a little inconvinient since I installed the client on my mothers computer, and then thought that I could just tick it of and she would'nt be bothered by all to request to connect to the internet, but when she restarts her computer and the client therefore also restarts "Transmit intermediate blocks" is again turned on and she will once again be bothered.
The computer has a lot of time just standing around in doze mode that just as well could be used for this project ...

**igor** · 11-18-2002, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by jjjjL
All the info is on the homepage.

We're finally going to be using a v1 client now.

-Louie

SEGV still occurs with Linux client, usually if I ^C the process.
Looks like it hasn't been fixed yet in v1

Igor

**ColinT** · 11-18-2002, 02:30 PM

On Windows. THe cems/thingies remain stable even near the end of a test. That looks fixed.

**MAD-ness** · 11-18-2002, 03:46 PM

Two clients on WindowsXP upgraded without any problems.

**Firebirth** · 11-18-2002, 04:34 PM

I had a block refused by the server, even though I had submitted work from it two days ago, right after I intslled the v 1.0.0... It did not happen on my other clients though!

**jjjjL** · 11-18-2002, 05:43 PM

Frodo - no, i fixed that in v1. it did not work in v099... that was a bug. if you set it while in v1, it will save it and you won't have that problem.

igor - i don't care if it seg faults when a user ^C's the program. that's not an issue at all. i cared about it crashing when the user didn't want it to die... which it did. now it doesn't.

-Louie

**Frodo42** · 11-19-2002, 06:50 AM

Oops, sorry, I didn't update it on my mothers computer

**smh** · 11-19-2002, 08:56 AM

There is still a bug with the time left. I have a client which is near the end of a test (98%) which gives me a blocktime left which is about correct, but when i uncheck 'transfer intermediate blocks' then the time left goes to 00s

Last night on my home pc i had a different situation. After checking and unchecking the TIB setting the time to complete a block was 6 hours, while the whole test showed up 2 hours to complete.

Also, the TAB stops in the config screen still don't work.

Of course, these are all minor problems, first update the stats with the new K.

Also, might it be an idea to make a NEWS section on the homepage instead of putting all the news on the main page?

For new people it's hard to find out what this project is about coz they have to scroll down all the way till the end. Maybe just the latest news (NEW CLIENT OUT!!) on the home page and the rest on a news page?

**res0r9lm** · 11-20-2002, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by jjjjL
Frodo - no, i fixed that in v1. it did not work in v099... that was a bug. if you set it while in v1, it will save it and you won't have that problem.

igor - i don't care if it seg faults when a user ^C's the program. that's not an issue at all. i cared about it crashing when the user didn't want it to die... which it did. now it doesn't.

-Louie

while running the linux client yesterday I noticed my stats were dropping and I checked one of my machines and the client had gotten a sig fault and then late lastnight checked again and both machine had sig faults.

**Alien88** · 11-20-2002, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by res0r9lm

while running the linux client yesterday I noticed my stats were dropping and I checked one of my machines and the client had gotten a sig fault and then late lastnight checked again and both machine had sig faults.

if it left a core around, run gdb sb core and then type bt and paste it here.

**res0r9lm** · 11-20-2002, 10:12 AM

no neithier one left a core

**res0r9lm** · 11-20-2002, 02:04 PM

it just got a fault on both systems once again but no sb core. I have checked the time stamp from each machine and both systems are getting sig faults at the same time.

**shifted** · 11-20-2002, 05:56 PM

I just got a seg fault too.... first one.. the 0.9.9 client never did...

Hmm... it orrured just before 6 am EST... When did yours seg fault?

No core file though... could be the settings in mandrake, however, to not leave a core.

**gbusler** · 11-20-2002, 06:08 PM

Alien88,

Here is a dump of the linux v1.0 segfault

(gdb) bt
#0 0x080601f5 in chunk_free (ar_ptr=0x80c91e0, p=0x824b468) at malloc.c:3242
#1 0x08062999 in __libc_free (mem=0x824b480) at malloc.c:3154
#2 0x08056fd4 in _sob_free ()
#3 0x08058529 in free_command ()
#4 0x08057251 in open_connection ()
#5 0x08055d78 in isProthPRP ()
#6 0x08056b7b in block_loop ()
#7 0x080568fe in main ()
#8 0x0805a1d2 in __libc_start_main (main=0x8056760 <main>, argc=2, ubp_av=0xbffff974,
init=0x80480b4 <_init>, fini=0x80a9a20 <_fini>, rtld_fini=0, stack_end=0xbffff96c)
at ../sysdeps/generic/libc-start.c:129
(gdb)

Hope it helps some.

Grant

**res0r9lm** · 11-20-2002, 06:09 PM

yea mine was at around 5:30am. I also got them at about 1:30 today. I have been getting them little more than 7 hr apart everytime. if it follow the on schedule I should get more a little after 8:30pm.

**igor** · 11-21-2002, 04:17 AM

Originally posted by jjjjL
Frodo - no, i fixed that in v1. it did not work in v099... that was a bug. if you set it while in v1, it will save it and you won't have that problem.

igor - i don't care if it seg faults when a user ^C's the program. that's not an issue at all. i cared about it crashing when the user didn't want it to die... which it did. now it doesn't.

-Louie

Well, I just got a SEGV without ^C on Linux

[Wed Nov 20 08:45:35 2002] iteration: 250000/944080 (26.48%) k = 33661 n = 944064
[Wed Nov 20 08:49:57 2002] iteration: 260000/944080 (27.54%) k = 33661 n = 944064
[Wed Nov 20 08:54:19 2002] iteration: 270000/944080 (28.60%) k = 33661 n = 944064
[Wed Nov 20 08:58:41 2002] iteration: 280000/944080 (29.66%) k = 33661 n = 944064
Segmentation fault

I restarted

Igor

**Hawk** · 11-21-2002, 07:53 AM

I did aswell, on two separate machines:

[Thu Nov 21 10:45:54 2002] iteration: 240000/969952 (24.74%) k = 33661 n = 969936
[Thu Nov 21 10:47:58 2002] iteration: 250000/969952 (25.77%) k = 33661 n = 969936
[Thu Nov 21 10:50:02 2002] iteration: 260000/969952 (26.81%) k = 33661 n = 969936
Segmentation fault

[Thu Nov 21 05:19:59 2002] iteration: 260000/931624 (27.91%) k = 33661 n = 931608
[Thu Nov 21 05:21:59 2002] iteration: 270000/931624 (28.98%) k = 33661 n = 931608
[Thu Nov 21 05:23:58 2002] iteration: 280000/931624 (30.06%) k = 33661 n = 931608
Segmentation fault

Hawk.

**Mystwalker** · 11-21-2002, 09:12 AM

Hm, the higher the n, the earlier the segmentation fault occurs - at least when considering only those 3 examples.
I don't know Linux that good, but maybe it's something that's increasing with higher n and is responsible for the segmentation fault ince it reaches a certain limit.

Just a wild guess...

**Hawk** · 11-21-2002, 11:32 AM

It appears to be when the client is about to contact the server for the first time for that exponent. It doesn't happen every time though.

**res0r9lm** · 11-21-2002, 06:28 PM

just got home both systems had gotten a seg fault at 8:40AM.

Thread: SB v1 out

Thread Tools

Rate This Thread

Display

SB v1 out

Re: SB v1 out

segfault core output

Posting Permissions