stephenbrooks.orgForumMuon1Bug ReportsStrange Behavior v4.41?
Username: Password:
Search site:
Subscribe to thread via RSS
2004-05-28 08:28:15
Stephen, I just noticed some odd results while running a TEST queue with v4.41 this morning.
The client was shut down in the middle of the second run in this queue.  When it was restarted, the first result produced a negative value which ,by appearance, should have been a positive value. 

The result after four runs:
0.250348,-0.275105,0.286971,0.288988 (1657.4 Mpts) [v4.41] {DBC5EDBF79C46B4C60C216AE} <ChicaneLinacB>

All four were run in the command-line client and appeared to be nearly identical except for the result.

This is the continuation of run #2 and the entire run #3:
Muon1 started
Loading bending magnet fields... Done
Loading genomes... 76, done.
Searching for auto-saved file...
Building proximity grid 6x2x50 (600 cells)... Done
Restored simulation at 23.2ns
- Starting -
t = 42.63ns (24073/82545 particles) 83.8 Mpts
t = 60.95ns (25253/85471 particles) 129.1 Mpts
t = 78.58ns (25696/87132 particles) 174.1 Mpts
t = 95.73ns (25857/88252 particles) 218.4 Mpts
t = 112.88ns (25453/88993 particles) 262.7 Mpts
t = 134.51ns (11148/89269 particles) 299.9 Mpts
t = 183.48ns (5417/89334 particles) 340.1 Mpts
t = 325.94ns (2191/89338 particles) 383.2 Mpts
t = 500.00ns (783/89334 particles) 412.7 Mpts
Quarantined result has now been run 2 of 5 times
New simulation
Rechecking quarantined result
Interpreting lattice file 'ChicaneLinacB'... Done
Beamline consists of 408 units
Adding components to simulation space
Tantalum rod source data loaded.
Building proximity grid 6x2x50 (600 cells)... Done
Tracking central particle to synchronise RF phases... Done
Done adding components
Determining nearby components... Done
- Starting -
t = 22.61ns (21498/76826 particles) 38.0 Mpts
t = 41.55ns (23878/82295 particles) 81.2 Mpts
t = 59.27ns (25031/85255 particles) 124.7 Mpts
t = 76.26ns (25602/87059 particles) 167.8 Mpts
t = 93.04ns (25870/88203 particles) 211.0 Mpts
t = 110.01ns (25850/88983 particles) 254.9 Mpts
t = 128.30ns (13495/89361 particles) 292.0 Mpts
t = 169.69ns (7153/89431 particles) 331.3 Mpts
t = 277.52ns (2582/89437 particles) 372.5 Mpts
t = 497.40ns (796/89431 particles) 412.6 Mpts
t = 500.00ns (788/89431 particles) 412.8 Mpts
Quarantined result has now been run 3 of 5 times

The stats results of this run are not important.  I have already far surpassed 0.28 in the chicane.  The only point in running this queue was to introduce a new and radically different breed to the sample file.  Hopefully, this is not a bug, but it did seem extremely odd.
Stephen Brooks
2004-05-28 11:19:23
Looks like something is not being saved properly... but what?  I will look into this further - v4.41a is out already and fixes some other stuff.  I'll try to do some checking of the autosaves at work next week.
2004-05-28 12:55:22
some weirdness here too... I noticed a queue.txt that contained two different sets of parameters and that this second set in the queue.txt is being ignored

-1.#IND00 (10.8 Mpts) [v4.41] {F3BA3FE0DCC9FED5A778AC98} <ChicaneLinacB>

a fresh launch of the client yields:
[WARNING] Result version (0.000000)<MINVER(4.300000)
Continue (Y/N/These/All)?

I've noticed a significant drop in production today, so I believe this is happening to quite a few of my clients... Just haven't had the time to check them yet.  More later...
Stephen Brooks
2004-05-28 12:58:19
The '-1.#IND' error was fixed in v4.41a (which appeared on the website about 6 hours ago).  The only known-but-unresolved bug is now the autosave, and so long as you don't restart much, it shouldn't affect you a lot.
2004-05-28 16:32:28
Update: The final result of the simulation above seems to have read the negative run as a positive.
0.274375 (2070.0 Mpts) [v4.41] {3517F2322C29C1EA46330386} <ChicaneLinacB>

It looks like the negative score was just a glitch.  Several other TEST queue runs have been stopped and restarted with no sign of a problem.  Apparently this was just a false alarm.
2004-05-28 17:37:28
I was just going ask about the divison by 0 error since it was not mentioned in the version history but seems that its fixed now.
: contact : - - -
E-mail: sbstrudel characterstephenbrooks.orgTwitter: stephenjbrooksMastodon: strudel charactersjbstrudel RSS feed

Site has had 21439944 accesses.