Thanks for letting me know.
On my side, my first guess is for some reason memory is not being allocated correctly by the the script I use (this mostly uses standard sun grid engine flags) I am trying to verify this with sysadmins.
Just fyi. I am using the cluster on www.teragrid.org and one of the sysadmins there looked at the error and he thinks the "MCSRCH routine" is the cause of this error. I don't know what that is; but he suggested the following action:
"I found this reply from the developer of the routine that fails (MCSRCH) regarding this very same error:
http://code.google.com/p/mitlm/issues/detail?id=10
Can you try that and see if it works?"
I will let you know if we find a solution.
Thanks
Mehul
Hi Mehul,
we don't sorry. We are trying to replicate it here. The fact that it's in an MNI tool and not one of our's makes it harder to track down.
The delay between jobs for us is driven by how robust and rapid your storage is. Certainly a minute or two should be enough I would think, altough we launch much more rapidly than that typically
Bruce
On Thu, 26 May 2011, Mehul Sampat wrote:
Hi Bruce and others,
My question is related to the staggering of FS jobs (see thread below).
Could you tell me by how much time you stagger the freesurfer on a cluster ?
I am using FS 5.1 on a cluster which uses sun grid engine and I have the
following error when I try to submit a large number of jobs
..I do not see it for small job batches and I think it might be related to
staggering FS jobs but I am not sure.
the error message from recon-all.log:
*nu_estimate_np_and_em: crashed while running spline_smooth (termination
status=11)
nu_correct: crashed while running nu_estimate_np_and_em (termination
status=65280)
*
the message in recon-all.error
*PWD /work/01523/msampat/**freesurfer-5.1/subjects/**ms0880_01/mri
CMD mri_nu_correct.mni --i orig.mgz --o nu.mgz --uchar
transforms/talairach.xfm --proto-iters 1000 --distance 50 --n 1
*
First i thought, it was a memory issue but the sun grid engine is supposed
to assign 4gb per core, so i thought it was enough memory to run each case.
I am investigating if the memory is not allocated correctly..
If anyone knows what this error is related to, could you please let me know
?
Thanks
Mehul
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Bruce Fischl <fischl@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu>wrote:
Hi David,
I'm surprised you didn't have to do this in the past. We always space our
jobs out. Glad there's an easy workaround
cheers
Bruce
On Fri, 3 Sep 2010, David Mischel wrote:
We took the suggestion of staggering the launch of Freesurfer 5.0recon-all
jobs. The attached Word doc (I don't know how to contribute thisinformation
other than attaching the image and text using Word) shows a load graph onusing
our file server. When 20 FS jobs began at once (all processing servers
a single file server) the load on the file server bulged up. When wespaced
out the launch of each job by 15 seconds the load hardly budged.Freesurfer
We have not had to do this in the past with earlier versions of
but this is an obvious work around to the problem we encountered._______________________________________________
< david
David Mischel
Manager of IT
Center for Imaging of Neurodegenerative Diseases (CIND)
<http://www.cind.research.va.gov/> http://www.cind.research.va.gov/
VA Medical Center
4150 Clement Street, 114M
San Francisco, CA 94121
voice: 415-221-4810 x3864
fax: 415-668-2864
Freesurfer mailing list
Freesurfer@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
https://mail.nmr.mgh.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/freesurfer
The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it
is
addressed. If you believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the
contains patient information, please contact the Partners Compliance
HelpLine at
http://www.partners.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you in
error
but does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and
properly
dispose of the e-mail.