mersenneforum.org  

Go Back   mersenneforum.org > New To GIMPS? Start Here! > Information & Answers

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 2012-10-31, 15:29   #1
Unregistered
 

33×172 Posts
Default Is there an FAQ for Error and Warning messages?

I have been running P95 stress test on a new system and I have (1) of the (8) cores that stops during the test with the following message:

"0 errors, 100 warnings"

I can't find any reference to this warning in numerous searches and after reading many threads here with error messages. I did not know if there is an FAQ that lists all of the program error/warning messages and what they are likely to mean, but i could not find it if there is?

Since all of the other cores run just fine and no errors were recorded in 45 minutes of torture testing, I'm speculating that the one core may be running a little hotter than the others which are below the maximum, but approaching it????

Any information on an FAQ or likely reason for the above warning, not error message, is appreciated.
  Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-31, 18:42   #2
Dubslow
Basketry That Evening!
 
Dubslow's Avatar
 
"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 -89<O<-88

3×29×83 Posts
Default

Without seeing the actual warning, it's hard to say. Could you copy and paste all output from the torture test? (It should be one of the menu options. 45 minutes of testing shouldn't produce too much text.)

Alternately, if that doesn't help, there are utilities out there that can measure your CPU temperatures on a per core basis, so you can test your very reasonable hypothesis. In the past I've used HWMonitor, but others here may have their own recommendations.
Dubslow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-31, 18:55   #3
Unregistered
 

941 Posts
Default

Thanks for the reply.

I'm already monitoring the core temps and as I indicated and they are approaching the recommended limit but they are not there yet. Even though the specific core doesn't show to be excessively hot, if the error message is related to it, the temp may be close enough to the threshold to trigger the warning?
  Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-31, 21:32   #4
Dubslow
Basketry That Evening!
 
Dubslow's Avatar
 
"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 -89<O<-88

3×29×83 Posts
Default

Perhaps. Prime95 does not directly monitor the temperatures, only the math. Without more detail, I can't help much more.
Dubslow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-01-27, 00:25   #5
Unregistered
 

2·5·163 Posts
Default Here's a strange one...

I have been running P95 as a stress test on a new PC and it was running just fine, no errors, all was good. At 47 minutes of run time all of the cores finished test 9 and the message "Self-test complete 720K- PASSED" posted for ALL 8 cores. Then a few seconds later core #7 listed a strange message when the cores were all preparing to run the next test: "Torture test completed 32 tests in 47 minutes - 0 errors, 100 warnings". Then seconds later core #5 which had also stated "Passed", listed the almost exact same message: "Torture test completed 32 tests in 48 minutes - 0 errors, 100 warnings".

The test is still running on the other 6 cores without issue. Below is a copy of the test and as you can see, there are NO Errors listed until AFTER the 18:47 timeminute mark when the software indicated all tests passed and it prepared to start a new test.

Please advise as this looks like a software issue, not a hardware issue??? The errors occured after the test had completed and was preparing to run again, not while actually testing.

The PC is a Asrock mobo, with AMD Fx-8350 CPU. It runs flawlessly in the OCCT test for hours on end. The RAM has passed over 96 hours of memtest with no errors. The PC is 100% stable in all tests including P95 until the software attempts to start a new test after ~47 minutes.

Code:
[Jan 26 18:00] Worker starting
[Jan 26 18:00] Setting affinity to run worker on logical CPU #7
[Jan 26 18:00] Beginning a continuous self-test to check your computer.
[Jan 26 18:00] Please read stress.txt.  Choose Test/Stop to end this test.
[Jan 26 18:00] Test 1, 6500 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M12451841 using AMD K10 type-2 FFT length 640K, Pass1=640, Pass2=1K.
[Jan 26 18:02] Test 2, 6500 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M12451839 using AMD K10 FFT length 640K, Pass1=640, Pass2=1K.
[Jan 26 18:03] Test 3, 6500 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M12196481 using AMD K10 type-2 FFT length 640K, Pass1=640, Pass2=1K.
[Jan 26 18:05] Test 4, 6500 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M11796481 using AMD K10 FFT length 640K, Pass1=640, Pass2=1K.
[Jan 26 18:06] Test 5, 6500 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M11796479 using AMD K10 type-2 FFT length 640K, Pass1=640, Pass2=1K.
[Jan 26 18:08] Test 6, 6500 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M11596479 using AMD K10 FFT length 640K, Pass1=640, Pass2=1K.
[Jan 26 18:09] Test 7, 6500 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M11285761 using AMD K10 type-2 FFT length 640K, Pass1=640, Pass2=1K.
[Jan 26 18:11] Test 8, 6500 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M10885759 using AMD K10 FFT length 640K, Pass1=640, Pass2=1K.
[Jan 26 18:12] Test 9, 6500 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M10485761 using AMD K10 type-2 FFT length 640K, Pass1=640, Pass2=1K.
[Jan 26 18:14] Test 10, 6500 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M10485759 using AMD K10 FFT length 640K, Pass1=640, Pass2=1K.
[Jan 26 18:15] Self-test 640K passed!
[Jan 26 18:15] Test 1, 800000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M172031 using AMD K10 type-1 FFT length 8K, Pass1=32, Pass2=256.
[Jan 26 18:17] Test 2, 800000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M163839 using AMD K10 type-1 FFT length 8K, Pass1=32, Pass2=256.
[Jan 26 18:18] Test 3, 800000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M159745 using AMD K10 type-1 FFT length 8K, Pass1=32, Pass2=256.
[Jan 26 18:19] Test 4, 800000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M157695 using AMD K10 type-1 FFT length 8K, Pass1=32, Pass2=256.
[Jan 26 18:21] Test 5, 800000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M155649 using AMD K10 type-1 FFT length 8K, Pass1=32, Pass2=256.
[Jan 26 18:22] Test 6, 800000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M153599 using AMD K10 type-1 FFT length 8K, Pass1=32, Pass2=256.
[Jan 26 18:23] Test 7, 800000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M147455 using AMD K10 type-1 FFT length 8K, Pass1=32, Pass2=256.
[Jan 26 18:25] Test 8, 800000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M143361 using AMD K10 type-1 FFT length 8K, Pass1=32, Pass2=256.
[Jan 26 18:26] Test 9, 800000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M141311 using AMD K10 type-1 FFT length 8K, Pass1=32, Pass2=256.
[Jan 26 18:27] Test 10, 800000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M135169 using AMD K10 type-1 FFT length 8K, Pass1=32, Pass2=256.
[Jan 26 18:29] Test 11, 800000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M172031 using AMD K10 type-1 FFT length 8K, Pass1=32, Pass2=256.
[Jan 26 18:30] Test 12, 800000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M163839 using AMD K10 type-1 FFT length 8K, Pass1=32, Pass2=256.
[Jan 26 18:31] Self-test 8K passed!
[Jan 26 18:31] Test 1, 5300 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M14155777 using AMD K10 type-2 FFT length 720K, Pass1=320, Pass2=2304.
[Jan 26 18:33] Test 2, 5300 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M14155775 using AMD K10 FFT length 720K, Pass1=320, Pass2=2304.
[Jan 26 18:34] Test 3, 5300 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M13969343 using AMD K10 type-2 FFT length 720K, Pass1=320, Pass2=2304.
[Jan 26 18:36] Test 4, 5300 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M13669345 using AMD K10 FFT length 720K, Pass1=320, Pass2=2304.
[Jan 26 18:37] Test 5, 5300 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M13369345 using AMD K10 type-2 FFT length 720K, Pass1=320, Pass2=2304.
[Jan 26 18:39] Test 6, 5300 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M13369343 using AMD K10 FFT length 720K, Pass1=320, Pass2=2304.
[Jan 26 18:40] Test 7, 5300 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M13069345 using AMD K10 type-2 FFT length 720K, Pass1=320, Pass2=2304.
[Jan 26 18:42] Test 8, 5300 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M12969343 using AMD K10 FFT length 720K, Pass1=320, Pass2=2304.
[Jan 26 18:43] Test 9, 6500 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M12451841 using AMD K10 type-2 FFT length 720K, Pass1=320, Pass2=2304.
[Jan 26 18:45] Test 10, 6500 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M12451839 using AMD K10 FFT length 720K, Pass1=320, Pass2=2304.
[Jan 26 18:47] Self-test 720K passed!
[Jan 26 18:47] Test 1, 460000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M250519 using AMD K10 type-0 FFT length 12K, Pass1=48, Pass2=256.
[Jan 26 18:47] ERROR: ILLEGAL SUMOUT
[Jan 26 18:47] Possible hardware failure, consult readme.txt file, restarting test.
[Jan 26 18:47] ERROR: ILLEGAL SUMOUT
[Jan 26 18:47] Possible hardware failure, consult readme.txt file, restarting test.
[Jan 26 18:47] ERROR: ILLEGAL SUMOUT
[Jan 26 18:47] Possible hardware failure, consult readme.txt file, restarting test.
[Jan 26 18:47] ERROR: ILLEGAL SUMOUT
[Jan 26 18:47] Possible hardware failure, consult readme.txt file, restarting test.
[Jan 26 18:47] ERROR: ILLEGAL SUMOUT
[Jan 26 18:47] Possible hardware failure, consult readme.txt file, restarting test.
[Jan 26 18:47] ERROR: ILLEGAL SUMOUT
[Jan 26 18:47] Possible hardware failure, consult readme.txt file, restarting test.
[Jan 26 18:47] ERROR: ILLEGAL SUMOUT
[Jan 26 18:47] Possible hardware failure, consult readme.txt file, restarting test.
[Jan 26 18:47] ERROR: ILLEGAL SUMOUT
[Jan 26 18:47] Possible hardware failure, consult readme.txt file, restarting test.
snip duplicate error messages as forum won't allow over 10,000 words.

Code:
[Jan 26 18:47] Maximum number of warnings exceeded.
[Jan 26 18:47] Torture Test completed 32 tests in 47 minutes - 0 errors, 100 warnings.
[Jan 26 18:47] Worker stopped.
Core #5 test results are identical other than 1 minute later. Neither core would continue testing after the false error messages.
  Reply With Quote
Old 2013-01-27, 04:14   #6
Dubslow
Basketry That Evening!
 
Dubslow's Avatar
 
"Bunslow the Bold"
Jun 2011
40<A<43 -89<O<-88

160658 Posts
Default

It looks like it started the 12K test after 720K, which then failed.

Could you redo the test, except change your time stamp to include seconds (or ms)? See "undoc.txt" for details on how to do that.
Dubslow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-01-27, 04:24   #7
Jorge
 
Jan 2013

32 Posts
Default

I'll give it a try but I'm concerned that the test history clearly shows a problem with starting a new test which makes me think there is a scheduling issue in P95 with high core count CPUs as OCCT runs for hours without issue as does every other stress test that I can find.

Some folks have expressed concern that P95 does not in fact run without issue on AMD FX series CPUs. I don't want to be chasing a P95 issue when I have no means to know what the issue is or any means to resolve it if it is in fact a P95 issue.
Jorge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-01-27, 05:14   #8
Prime95
P90 years forever!
 
Prime95's Avatar
 
Aug 2002
Yeehaw, FL

740710 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
Code:
[Jan 26 18:47] Test 1, 460000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M250519 using AMD K10 type-0 FFT length 12K, Pass1=48, Pass2=256.
[Jan 26 18:47] ERROR: ILLEGAL SUMOUT
[Jan 26 18:47] Possible hardware failure, consult readme.txt file, restarting test.
Prime95 started the 12K FFT test and ran into a hardware problem. ILLEGAL SUMOUT is generally a floating point operation returning an invalid floating point value.

The 12K FFT (and 8K FFT) can put more stress on the FPU since the FFT data fits in the caches which reduces stress on main memory, but increasing stress on the FPU and caches.

Rerun the stress test, but choose small in-place FFT tests. You may be real close to 100% stable, but not quite.

It is possible you found a rare prime95 bug, but not real likely.
Prime95 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-01-27, 07:14   #9
Jorge
 
Jan 2013

32 Posts
Default

I find it implausible that the system runs every other stress test for hours and even runs P95 for ~47 minutes with zero errors and then all of a sudden has two cores that error out within seconds of each other. While it may be possible, it's highly unlikely. In the past I have used P95 on quad core CPUs and it's been flawless, but I'm wondering if it has an issue with 8-core CPUs?

I'll try running the test again with small in-place FFF. If I recall this causes more CPU temp. though that has not been an issue in the prior tests.
Jorge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-01-27, 12:35   #10
NBtarheel_33
 
NBtarheel_33's Avatar
 
"Nathan"
Jul 2008
Maryland, USA

5×223 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jorge View Post
I find it implausible that the system runs every other stress test for hours and even runs P95 for ~47 minutes with zero errors and then all of a sudden has two cores that error out within seconds of each other. While it may be possible, it's highly unlikely. In the past I have used P95 on quad core CPUs and it's been flawless, but I'm wondering if it has an issue with 8-core CPUs?
IIRC, Prime95 has been run on 32- (and possibly 48- ) core systems without any issues. Note that Prime95 is an incredibly rigorous standard for stress testing (hence its popularity); many systems only ever achieve 98-99% stability (i.e. there is some test that fails, or the test fails after a long period of time).

What if you tried running a small LL test that only requires the 8K or 12K FFTs? See if you get ILLEGAL SUMOUT there, as well.
NBtarheel_33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2013-01-27, 19:17   #11
Jorge
 
Jan 2013

32 Posts
Default

I've used P95 for years on many PCs along with OCCT and I understand that both of these test programs are very severe. That is precisely why I use them and make sure all of my PCs will run for 24 hours without any errors.

IME every PC that P95 would error on, would also error on OCCT. This PC does not error on any stress test but P95. I'm not convinced it's the PC, especially with quite a few people reporting the same situation with AMD FX processors - even at stock CPU settings. There may be some monitoring issue with AMD FX processors, I don't know. That's why I'm providing test logs to try and resolve the issue.

The run log below shows this system ran perfectly with small FFF for 9 hours and 50 minutes then suddenly halted based on "100 warnings", not based on an actual error. No errors are reported. That's 424 test and almost 10 solid hours of P95 with no errors and then all of a sudden it stops working based on (100) possible hardware "warnings".

Notice the BLUE highlighted message at the end... ZERO ERRORS, 100 Warnings. If there are zero errors, then the test should not have stopped. If there was an error it would be displayed. The test stopped based on "100 warnings". The hardware warnings might be an issue with the AMD FX processors since there are zero errors for the tests?

During the 9 hours and 50 minutes of testing, they system has already run the same string several times without fail. With the FX processors being a totally new X86 CPU design, there may be some monitoring issues that create "warnings" ? I don't know but I know that OCCT uses a very similar stress testing methodology and appears to be as severe, yet this PC runs OCCT for hours without errors. Even in this P95 test it never showed an error after almost 10 hours of testing, it showed "100 warnings", but no errors. The warnings only occur at the beginning of a new test string, just as in the previous P95 test, after ~47 minutes. P95 completed almost 10 hours of tests on this PC without a single error. The only time it shows an indicated issue is at the beginning of a test when launching a new string.

Whomever is responsible for the P95 stress testing program might want to take a look and/or conduct their own tests with an AMD FX processor to see if they can determine why there are (100) warnings, but no errors. If this is a signal ringing issue, maybe the warning threshold needs to be raised to (1000) or something to compensation for false warnings and improper stoppage of the test?

Code:
[Jan 27 02:44] Worker starting
[Jan 27 02:44] Setting affinity to run worker on logical CPU #7
[Jan 27 02:44] Beginning a continuous self-test to check your computer.
[Jan 27 02:44] Please read stress.txt. Choose Test/Stop to end this test.
[Jan 27 02:44] Test 1, 180000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M580673 using AMD K10 type-1 FFT length 28K, Pass1=112, Pass2=256.
[Jan 27 02:45] Test 2, 180000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M573441 using AMD K10 type-1 FFT length 28K, Pass1=112, Pass2=256.
[Jan 27 02:46] Test 3, 180000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M565247 using AMD K10 type-1 FFT length 28K, Pass1=112, Pass2=256.
 
SNIP
 
[Jan 27 03:00] Self-test 28K passed!
[Jan 27 03:00] Test 1, 800000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M172031 using AMD K10 type-1 FFT length 8K, Pass1=32, Pass2=256.
[Jan 27 03:01] Test 2, 800000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M163839 using AMD K10 type-1 FFT length 8K, Pass1=32, Pass2=256.
[Jan 27 03:02] Test 3, 800000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M159745 using AMD K10 type-1 FFT length 8K, Pass1=32, Pass2=256.
[Jan 27 03:03] Test 4, 800000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M157695 using AMD K10 type-1 FFT length 8K, Pass1=32, Pass2=256.
[Jan 27 03:15] Self-test 8K passed!
 
SNIP
 
[Jan 27 07:41] Test 1, 800000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M159745 using AMD K10 type-0 FFT length 10K, Pass1=40, Pass2=256.
[Jan 27 07:43] Test 2, 800000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M157695 using AMD K10 type-0 FFT length 10K, Pass1=40, Pass2=256.
[Jan 27 07:45] Test 3, 800000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M155649 using AMD K10 type-0 FFT length 10K, Pass1=40, Pass2=256.
[Jan 27 07:47] Test 4, 800000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M153599 using [Jan 27 07:56] Test 9, 560000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M212991 using AMD K10 type-0 FFT length 10K, Pass1=40, Pass2=256.
[Jan 27 07:57] Self-test 10K passed!
 
SNIP
 
[Jan 27 09:48] Test 1, 800000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M159745 using AMD K10 type-0 FFT length 12K, Pass1=48, Pass2=256.
[Jan 27 09:50] Test 2, 800000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M157695 using AMD K10 type-0 FFT length 12K, Pass1=48, Pass2=256.
[Jan 27 09:52] Test 3, 800000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M155649 using AMD K10 type-0 FFT length 12K, Pass1=48, Pass2=256.
[Jan 27 09:55] Test 4, 800000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M153599 using [Jan 27 10:03] Test 8, 800000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M135169 using AMD K10 type-0 FFT length 12K, Pass1=48, Pass2=256.
[Jan 27 10:05] Self-test 12K passed!
 
SNIP
 
[Jan 27 10:05] Test 1, 120000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M778241 using AMD K10 type-1 FFT length 56K, Pass1=224, Pass2=256.
[Jan 27 10:07] Test 2, 120000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M753663 using AMD K10 type-1 FFT length 56K, Pass1=224, Pass2=256.
[Jan 27 10:08] Test 3, 120000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M745473 using AMD K10 type-1 FFT length 56K, Pass1=224, Pass2=256.
[Jan 27 10:10] Test 4, 120000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M737279 using [Jan 27 10:19] Test 9, 160000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M644399 using AMD K10 type-1 FFT length 56K, Pass1=224, Pass2=256.
[Jan 27 10:21] Self-test 56K passed!
 
SNIP
 
[Jan 27 10:21] Test 1, 380000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M278527 using AMD K10 type-1 FFT length 20K, Pass1=80, Pass2=256.
[Jan 27 10:23] Test 2, 380000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M274335 using AMD K10 type-1 FFT length 20K, Pass1=80, Pass2=256.
[Jan 27 10:24] Test 3, 380000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M270335 using AMD K10 type-1 FFT length 20K, Pass1=80, Pass2=256.
[Jan 27 10:26] Test 4, 380000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M266241 using [Jan 27 10:34] Test 9, 460000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M245281 using AMD K10 type-1 FFT length 20K, Pass1=80, Pass2=256.
[Jan 27 10:36] Self-test 20K passed!
 
SNIP
 
[Jan 27 10:36] Test 1, 210000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M442369 using AMD K10 type-2 FFT length 32K, Pass1=128, Pass2=256.
[Jan 27 10:38] Test 2, 210000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M441041 using AMD K10 FFT length 32K, Pass1=128, Pass2=256.
[Jan 27 10:39] Test 3, 210000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M436943 using AMD K10 type-2 FFT length 32K, Pass1=128, Pass2=256.
[Jan 27 10:40] Test 4, 270000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M420217 using [Jan 27 10:51] Test 10, 270000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M376833 using AMD K10 FFT length 32K, Pass1=128, Pass2=256.
[Jan 27 10:52] Self-test 32K passed!
 
SNIP
 
[Jan 27 10:52] Test 1, 560000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M210415 using AMD K10 type-0 FFT length 10K, Pass1=40, Pass2=256.
[Jan 27 10:54] Test 2, 560000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M208897 using AMD K10 type-0 FFT length 10K, Pass1=40, Pass2=256.
[Jan 27 10:55] Test 3, 560000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M204799 using AMD K10 type-0 FFT length 10K, Pass1=40, Pass2=256.
[Jan 27 10:56] Test 4, 560000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M200705 using [Jan 27 11:07] Test 12, 800000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M159745 using AMD K10 type-0 FFT length 10K, Pass1=40, Pass2=256.
[Jan 27 11:09] Self-test 10K passed!
 
SNIP
 
[Jan 27 12:30] Test 1, 800000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M135169 using AMD K10 type-1 FFT length 8K, Pass1=32, Pass2=256.
[Jan 27 12:31] Test 2, 800000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M172031 using AMD K10 type-1 FFT length 8K, Pass1=32, Pass2=256.
[Jan 27 12:32] Test 3, 800000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M163839 using AMD K10 type-1 FFT length 8K, Pass1=32, Pass2=256.
[Jan 27 12:33] Test 4, 800000 Lucas-Lehmer iterations of M159745 using AMD K10 type-1 FFT length 8K, Pass1=32, Pass2=256.
[Jan 27 12:34] ERROR: ILLEGAL SUMOUT
[Jan 27 12:34] Possible hardware failure, consult readme.txt file, restarting test.
[Jan 27 12:34] ERROR: ILLEGAL SUMOUT
[Jan 27 12:34] Possible hardware failure, consult readme.txt file, restarting test.
 
*SNIP*
 
[Jan 27 12:34] Possible hardware failure, consult readme.txt file, restarting test.
[Jan 27 12:34] ERROR: ILLEGAL SUMOUT
[Jan 27 12:34] Maximum number of warnings exceeded.
[Jan 27 12:34] Torture Test completed 424 tests in 9 hours, 50 minutes - 0 errors, 100 warnings.
[Jan 27 12:34] Worker stopped.

Last fiddled with by Batalov on 2013-01-27 at 21:23 Reason: wrapped in a [code] block
Jorge is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
confusing server error messages ramgeis PrimeNet 2 2013-06-09 23:53
Error Messages from GGNFS EdH Factoring 4 2010-01-01 19:52
warning: zero character fivemack Msieve 1 2009-03-21 14:26
HHCTRL error messages in XP Pro edron1011 Software 0 2008-11-21 15:46
Firefox 2.0 warning Prime95 Lounge 7 2006-10-31 05:40

All times are UTC. The time now is 11:38.

Thu Apr 15 11:38:10 UTC 2021 up 7 days, 6:19, 0 users, load averages: 1.61, 1.69, 1.63

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum has received and complied with 0 (zero) government requests for information.

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
A copy of the license is included in the FAQ.