View Full Version : seti off-line

13th July 2000, 00:46
Is seti off-line, none of my units from last night have been sent, and I can't get any more?

13th July 2000, 01:27
I cannot send nor retrieve WUs, and it seems like Setiathome's homepage is down as well http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/frown.gif

13th July 2000, 01:43
From the Technical News Reports page:

July 12th, 2000

We are fixing some bugs with the Informix database today, so the data server will be down until these are fixed.

I hope y'all have some spare WUs stored for a rainy day... I have http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

BTW: the Matrox Users' stats on seti.matroxusers.com aren't updated either: same reason.


13th July 2000, 02:19
Dam, no spare units

Its now the 13th July, are they having problems.

13th July 2000, 15:57
I got a new P3-800 at work and finaly talked them into letting me bypass the proxy and firewall so I could run Seti.
Oops, no server, can't even register my work account. http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/frown.gif

13th July 2000, 16:00
Hehe yesterday i cleaned my WU storage http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif. I can survive 2 Weeks without the Seti Server!


13th July 2000, 16:30
It's back online, although slow !!


13th July 2000, 16:51
I have 17 machines with partially completed units, though these will be all done tonight.

I temporarily have use of 25 pcs and cant do anything with them.

13th July 2000, 17:30
cool, it's back up!

13th July 2000, 18:21
Damnit, as soon as I start crunching again servers f*ck me up. Still no seti crumching at home, no phone line still. Got an iPAQ at work, 500 MHz coppermine running win2kpro. Does a WU in about 8.25 hrs. Using another similar machine that I'm testing, but just for a short time

13th July 2000, 19:59
Server problems my butt! All of our friends from Berkeley were across the Bay in Golden Gate Park, trying out for "Survivor."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/hotnews/stories/13/survivor.d tl (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/hotnews/stories/13/survivor.dtl)

That guy tearing off his shirt is a UC-Berkeley police officer, by the way. God, this is a classy place. http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif


[This message has been edited by paulcs (edited 14 July 2000).]

Sir Hitech
14th July 2000, 09:26
Here's explanation from Eric J. Korpela @ Berkeley for those who wants to know:

"Because of the limitations of informix (2 GB chunks) and the limitations
of Solaris (on partitions per disk) we had been limited to using 9 Gb
drives for the science database, and were rapidly approaching the number
of disks our controllers could handle. As a work around we were investigating
using Veritas to get by these limitations (which would allow us to use
18 Gb drives, in effect doubling our disk space).

Before setting out to migrate the drives over to the new system we decided
performing tests to make sure it would work. The information and advice
we had was to create a separate database space on the new drives, so a
failure wouldn't affect the existing database. Well, it turns out one of
the tests did fail several days ago, but the database continued to operate
just fine, as was predicted. Due to the failure the root chunk of the
new database space was corrupted. This wasn't a problem until we restarted
the database machine to bring a new tape drive on-line. After the reboot,
informix complained that it couldn't access the corrupted chunk and wouldn't
allow inserts into any database, including those unrelated to the missing
chunk. We couldn't remove the bad chunk because it was corrupted,
Informix couldn't fix the bad chuck because it was too corrupted. We couldn't
restore the bad chunk from a backup because no backup of the bad chunk
existed. So we were stuck with a database that was readable, but not

We eventually came to the concusion that the only way to get back up in
any reasonable amount of time was to restore the database to the new 18 Gb
disks using the last full backup (which took a bit more than 12 hours, we
should thank Matt and Jeff for getting up in the middle of the night to
change tapes). That's done, and we're getting to the point where we'll
have enough usable work units to restart in a few minutes.

User stats shouldn't be affected, but science that are more recent than
the last full backup won't be in the new database. It'll look like we've
gone backwards on the graphs page. We've still got the missing science
on the old 9 Gb drives, but it'll take time and lots of informix tech support
to get it into the new database.

We've also got the problem that results will be coming back that don't
match workunits in the database. I'm going to be stashing these until
I figure out what to do with them. They'll probably have to sit on disk
until we get the database merged again.

Well, I'm off to start the server now.

Eric Korpela korpela@ssl.berkeley.edu

14th July 2000, 10:45
User stats shouldn't be affected

Oh, but they are. All I see when I look for my latest 10 WU's are entries till the 24th of June, and the 2 I sent since the 14th http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/frown.gif

Sir Hitech
14th July 2000, 11:30
Besides the "last ten results returned" is messed up, the server didn't count three of ten wu's I sent last night toward my total. Eric and the Berkeley crew have some more work to be done...

14th July 2000, 20:02
I got my work account logged in!
Look, I'm in LAST place http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

15th July 2000, 09:59
Some of you guys really should use SETIQ for storing WU's ,tut tut http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif

I guess I won't recruit for my team here ;) TA

15th July 2000, 10:12
Oy Assim, do you have stocks in SETIQ, or what? http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif

(Keeps telling us to use it at every moment he can... tsk tsk)


17th July 2000, 11:29
shh ,don't tell everyone! http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif

I just keep seeing instances where you lose WU's for 1 reason or another ,where SETIQ would of helped ,that's all :P

I guess I won't recruit for my team here ;) TA

17th July 2000, 15:49
Well Assimilator1, the first setiq did for me, was losing two work-units... It was non-processed units, but non the less two units lost.

18th July 2000, 15:15
How the hell did you mange that!? http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif

I guess I won't recruit for my team here ;) TA