setique ?

I've recently noticed that I've got a warning on each of my clients. I thought atfirst it was a problem with a machine, but I can't have a problem on every machine. Here's the message.

WARNING: Platform i386-winnt-cmdline not found; continuing in test mode

Click to expand...

and HERES LINK TO QUE click on each individual client and see what I mean. Is there a problem that I'm missing or is the end growing very near.

ANy ideas.

Have you tried shutting down the SetiQueue service and restart it a few seconds later?

If that won't work, then I'm stumped

it happen to me in my work place's setiq too! no idea why? as the machine is not o/c.

Yeah, I too am having a problem right now as well. I can't get any units. I can get one if I delete the .sah files and re-setup the client with my e-mail address. It then grabs one from the server. As soon as that one is done though, I can't get another. Very odd! For now, I stopped using it. I have to check on my queue at home now!

I'm having the same problem with some of my machines !!
They don't get any WU's. tries to stop and start the service
which usually help but no WU !! 3 of my machines are having
these problems now ?? this feels weird !! Haven't had any
problems with my "Q" before.

Anyone else experiencing the same symptoms ??


The Wizard

i had trouble with my queue last night due to this problem:

http://forum.oc-forums.com/vb/showthread.php?threadid=241862

maybe that is related to yours as well?

if your issue is the same, its not a setiqueue problem, something in the clc or some corrupted wu data or something. follow the link in TC's message for a solution.

after fixing, my queue seems ok.

Sounds like something with the CLC or WU to me as well since I'm seeing a similar problem with squeuer.

SetiQueue stopped downing WU's for me as well. i double checked my
settings and found my queue was set to disabled instead of normal.

settings/queue settings/double click Q000*/user fill priority=normal

i switched from CLC3.08 to 3.03 and deleted the queue for 3.08, so
i don't know if my problem is related or not.

hope you guys are up and running soon .

c_h

Stranger and Stranger

I like alot of other experienced a great deal of problems with the "Error 100" stuff yesterday, and didn't really feel I had gotten a handle on it with all of my machines until late last night. Then this morning I log on here and read this so I go check my SETIQueue. I didn't observe the aforementioned situation, however I did come across something equally troubling in my opinion.

On Sunday I had taken inventory of how many WUs I had squirreled away for each of my machines in order to gauge how long I could continue if Berkeley were to discontinue giving out WUs soon. I wanted to see if between all my machines I had enough WUs to be able to get to the 25000 WU Certificate. Anyway because of that inventory I knew very accurately what machines had how many in reserve, now today as I was looking over the queues I discovered that the one for my primary machine which on Sunday had 167 WUs today only had 30, and another one that had something like 127 WUs had lost somewhere around 80. The other five machines' reserves appeared about as they should, but in those two machines 200+ WUs simply disappeared.

To address some of the simple replys, these were all longstanding and well established installations. The amount of WUs observed on Sunday were not exceptionally large and had been at those levels for many months. No WUs had been in my systems for more than 7-10 days. I have NEVER had reason to question or have problems of any kind with my queues in the almost 2 yrs. I have been using this program. Lastly these are all strictly private queues, absolutely no outside access.

I'm not an alarmist, but my question is, could Berkeley have sent out some kind of "assassin" WU, targeted at these potentially flawed WUs and I just happened to have accumulated quite a few of them? If not that then where did over 200+ WUs suddenly disappear to in the aftermath of the earlier troubles? I know I'm sounding a bit sinister or paranoid but I don't like even the thought that people outside of me have the ability to in anyway determine what goes on within my machines. If in fact they have problem WUs, give me names, or dates recorded or dates downloaded, and I'll take care of correcting the problem here on my end.

Sorry for the RANT! Just had to get this out in the open and see how other viewed this incident.

Respectfully,
SkyHook