Reply With QuoteAssuming you are talking about the Windows client, no you don't have to leave it to complete all blocks at once. The number of blocks only indicate the number processed this session.
The "full test" bar is the one to watch.
Hi, I'm new here but there's something I don't understand:
When I ran SoB, it completed around 74 blocks or so. But when I exited it and started it again, it seems like I'm starting all over from stage 1.
Is that true? Do I need to let SoB run until it completes all 3143 blocks or so?
I am N00b
Assuming you are talking about the Windows client, no you don't have to leave it to complete all blocks at once. The number of blocks only indicate the number processed this session.
The "full test" bar is the one to watch.
I suppose you started the client for the first time. In fact it is a bug which will not happen again if you restart and close again. (It happens only once, in the beginning.)
If you want to get back the work of your 74 blocks, read the sticky; if not, don't bother, your lost test will be assigned again later to somebody else.
Welcome aboard!
H.
... and that bug should not happen again. I happens once, for everyone, at the first install. After that it should run smoothly.
Engage!
Ok, thanks.Originally posted by wirthi
... and that bug should not happen again. I happens once, for everyone, at the first install. After that it should run smoothly.
Then it just sucks that I let it run for 9 hours for no use... Thanks anyway
it isn't to hard to recover the workd just readthe thread labeled sticky at the top of the forum
I think this bug has something to do with the behaviour of the windowsregistry and is not due a bug in the client.Originally posted by wirthi
... and that bug should not happen again. I happens once, for everyone, at the first install. After that it should run smoothly.
Except when you install a new version, it happens again. Not ideal.Originally posted by wirthi
... and that bug should not happen again. I happens once, for everyone, at the first install. After that it should run smoothly.
A solution for this is to just stop the old client and NOT uninstall it.Originally posted by alpha
Except when you install a new version, it happens again. Not ideal.
Then install the new client over the old one. It worked for me
I suspect that you experienced this because you uninstalled the old client completely, and thus wiping out the registry entries as well.
While I cannot explain this odd behavior by the registry (or client?), I suspect that if the registry entries are in place before a client is installed, the new client will assume that there is a client installed and therefore not begin a new test while abandoning the old test after a reboot.
OK, How to remedy!
First, I think there should be a warning displayed by the client when installed that says you have to restart your computer before starting the client.
This would most likely be easy to implement into the client at present.
Second, there should be a notice in the signup area that informs the new user about the bug and an explanation of what to do.
This would also be wiki-material for sure (at least for version 2.x.x)
Well, back to my theoretical solution to this annoying situation!
If you're new to Seventeen or Bust and assuming the client is downloaded:
1: Sign up for an account and assign to a team (if you so choose).
2: Copy and paste this into notepad or similar (or download):
Make sure you substitute "username"="anonymous" with your username, mine would be "username"="Sceptic".Code:Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00 [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\LhDn] [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\LhDn\sob] [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\LhDn\sob\config] "dir"="C:\\Programfiles\\SB" "max_rep_retries"=dword:00000000 "max_retries"=dword:00000000 "retry_wait"=dword:000004b0 "special_handling"=dword:00000000 "username"="anonymous" "team"="" "serv_addr"="sb.pns.net" "serv_port"=dword:000006b5 "logfile"="sb.log" "max_log_size"=dword:00000000 "priority"=dword:00000004 "transmit"=dword:00000001
Also, fill in "dir"="C:\\Programfiles\\SB" with the right path to your client.
NOTE! 'C:\\Programfiles\\SB' is the default path.
Save this file as: SoB.reg to the desktop or wherever you like (The important thing is .reg, you can call it whatever you like).
3: Right-click SoB.reg and choose 'Merge', it would be the top-most entry in the pop-up menu poping up () if your locale (language setting) is not English.
4: Install the client and click start and you are all set. Next time you restart your computer, it resumes from the same test.
If you are installing a newer version of SoB.client:
1: Stop and exit the client. Do NOT uninstall the old client.
2: Install new client over the old one.
If you stopped the client in the middle of a test, the new client will resume that test.
I know this works becase I've done it six times and have had no fuzz whatsoever.
3: Start new client.
4: You're done.
NOTE! The first section is theoretical; I have not tested this yet.
At the time of writing, I've got 96 blocks to take care of, and I have a few hours to crunch before testing, so if anyone is interested in testing this right now, it would be nice to get some feedback, otherwise I'll test this in a few hours and let you know.
Does this sound sane?
NB! Because of the limitations of this forum, it isn't allowed to upload a .reg file.
I had to rename the file to SoB.txt to upload, so please give the file the .reg extension if you use it.
Sceptic
Last edited by Sceptic; 06-18-2005 at 05:36 PM.
Violently sceptical!
Thanks but I already followed the steps in the sticky thread to resume my test.
As promised in my last post, I tested my theory and it was a success
I first ran the SoB.reg file and then installed the client, ran it for a while and at last, restarted my computer.
When the system was up and running again, the client resumed from the test downloded before restart.
It seems that if there is a 'cache'-key in the registry, regardless of the 'k' and 'n' keys are there or not, the client assumes there is an ongoing test and will try to load and continue with that.
However, I got some error messages with this arrangement, so I deleted the 'cache'-entry and it worked like a charm.
I've updated the code example and the file attachment to reflect this.
I hope someone else would like to try this just to confirm that this is 100% correct.
Sceptic
Violently sceptical!
Posting Permissions