Linux WU's = Invalid = No Credit?

Message boards : Unix/Linux : Linux WU's = Invalid = No Credit?

Author	Message
Evil-Dragon Volunteer tester Joined: Oct 26 06 Posts: 2 ID: 192 Credit: 11,462 RAC: 0	Message 1191 - Posted 30 Oct 2006 11:39:35 UTC
	I have noticed that nearly all the work units that my Linux machine have done are saying that they're all invalid yet all the workunits seem to complete successfully at my end without any error code. I only had one WU that i was actually granted credit for. I don't understand why they're saying invalid. Help!
	ID: 1191 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: /

Memo Forum moderator Project developer Project tester Joined: Sep 13 06 Posts: 88 ID: 14 Credit: 1,666,392 RAC: 0	Message 1196 - Posted 30 Oct 2006 18:26:47 UTC - in response to Message ID 1191 .
	I have noticed that nearly all the work units that my Linux machine have done are saying that they're all invalid yet all the workunits seem to complete successfully at my end without any error code. I only had one WU that i was actually granted credit for. I don't understand why they're saying invalid. Help! Sorry for the inconvenience, let me explain you what is going on... First is not a problem with your computer, the problem is that for some reason, that we are investigating on, P3 and P4 are giving different results. Obviously most of the time P4 turn back work before P3 and that is why you are getting no credit most of the time. We are modifying homogeneous redundancy to make P3s and P2s to validate in a group with no P4s while we discover what is wrong with the system. When? I am not sure, Andre is the one working on this issue I will ask him.
	ID: 1196 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: /

Andre Kerstens Forum moderator Project tester Volunteer tester Joined: Sep 11 06 Posts: 749 ID: 1 Credit: 15,199 RAC: 0	Message 1201 - Posted 31 Oct 2006 3:45:36 UTC - in response to Message ID 1196 .
	I hope to get a bit further with this issue tomorrow (tuesday). Today we had a paper deadline and I was working on this all day. We have submitted a Docking@Home paper to the PCGrid07 workshop in IPDPS. Let's all cross fingers that it gets accepted :-) Andre I have noticed that nearly all the work units that my Linux machine have done are saying that they're all invalid yet all the workunits seem to complete successfully at my end without any error code. I only had one WU that i was actually granted credit for. I don't understand why they're saying invalid. Help! Sorry for the inconvenience, let me explain you what is going on... First is not a problem with your computer, the problem is that for some reason, that we are investigating on, P3 and P4 are giving different results. Obviously most of the time P4 turn back work before P3 and that is why you are getting no credit most of the time. We are modifying homogeneous redundancy to make P3s and P2s to validate in a group with no P4s while we discover what is wrong with the system. When? I am not sure, Andre is the one working on this issue I will ask him. ____________ D@H the greatest project in the world... a while from now!
	ID: 1201 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: /

suguruhirahara Forum moderator Volunteer tester Joined: Sep 13 06 Posts: 282 ID: 15 Credit: 56,614 RAC: 0	Message 1208 - Posted 31 Oct 2006 12:49:10 UTC - in response to Message ID 1201 . Last modified: 31 Oct 2006 12:49:40 UTC
	Today we had a paper deadline and I was working on this all day. We have submitted a Docking@Home paper to the PCGrid07 workshop in IPDPS. oh, nice work!:) I wish this project will participate well in the workshop and get interested there.
	ID: 1208 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: /

daniele Volunteer tester Joined: Oct 23 06 Posts: 86 ID: 190 Credit: 6,702 RAC: 0	Message 1213 - Posted 31 Oct 2006 13:40:38 UTC - in response to Message ID 1201 .
	I hope to get a bit further with this issue tomorrow (tuesday). Today we had a paper deadline and I was working on this all day. We have submitted a Docking@Home paper to the PCGrid07 workshop in IPDPS. Let's all cross fingers that it gets accepted :-) Andre Crossed, the deadline for acceptance is on december 11th, isn't it?
	ID: 1213 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: /

Andre Kerstens Forum moderator Project tester Volunteer tester Joined: Sep 11 06 Posts: 749 ID: 1 Credit: 15,199 RAC: 0	Message 1222 - Posted 31 Oct 2006 16:29:14 UTC - in response to Message ID 1213 .
	Yep, by Dec 11 we will know. Thanks for the crossing :-) Andre I hope to get a bit further with this issue tomorrow (tuesday). Today we had a paper deadline and I was working on this all day. We have submitted a Docking@Home paper to the PCGrid07 workshop in IPDPS. Let's all cross fingers that it gets accepted :-) Andre Crossed, the deadline for acceptance is on december 11th, isn't it? ____________ D@H the greatest project in the world... a while from now!
	ID: 1222 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: /

Trog Dog Volunteer tester Joined: Nov 14 06 Posts: 16 ID: 279 Credit: 145,805 RAC: 0	Message 1476 - Posted 18 Nov 2006 7:36:19 UTC - in response to Message ID 1196 .
	Sorry for the inconvenience, let me explain you what is going on... First is not a problem with your computer, the problem is that for some reason, that we are investigating on, P3 and P4 are giving different results. Obviously most of the time P4 turn back work before P3 and that is why you are getting no credit most of the time. We are modifying homogeneous redundancy to make P3s and P2s to validate in a group with no P4s while we discover what is wrong with the system. When? I am not sure, Andre is the one working on this issue I will ask him. Is there a timeframe for when the stricter homogenous redundancy will be implemented? ____________
	ID: 1476 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: /

Andre Kerstens Forum moderator Project tester Volunteer tester Joined: Sep 11 06 Posts: 749 ID: 1 Credit: 15,199 RAC: 0	Message 1486 - Posted 19 Nov 2006 0:25:56 UTC - in response to Message ID 1476 .
	I plan to start working on this HR solution this week. Don't know how hard or easy it will be to get this going, but hope easy... Andre Sorry for the inconvenience, let me explain you what is going on... First is not a problem with your computer, the problem is that for some reason, that we are investigating on, P3 and P4 are giving different results. Obviously most of the time P4 turn back work before P3 and that is why you are getting no credit most of the time. We are modifying homogeneous redundancy to make P3s and P2s to validate in a group with no P4s while we discover what is wrong with the system. When? I am not sure, Andre is the one working on this issue I will ask him. Is there a timeframe for when the stricter homogenous redundancy will be implemented? ____________ D@H the greatest project in the world... a while from now!
	ID: 1486 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: /

Trog Dog Volunteer tester Joined: Nov 14 06 Posts: 16 ID: 279 Credit: 145,805 RAC: 0	Message 1493 - Posted 19 Nov 2006 2:53:09 UTC - in response to Message ID 1486 . Last modified: 19 Nov 2006 2:53:47 UTC
	I plan to start working on this HR solution this week. Don't know how hard or easy it will be to get this going, but hope easy... Andre Cheers Andre I've kept all my boxes attached, although on a minimal resource share
	ID: 1493 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: /

[B^S] Doug Worrall Volunteer tester Joined: Sep 13 06 Posts: 127 ID: 74 Credit: 11,046 RAC: 0	Message 1533 - Posted 21 Nov 2006 2:00:41 UTC - in response to Message ID 1493 .
	I plan to start working on this HR solution this week. Don't know how hard or easy it will be to get this going, but hope easy... Andre Cheers Andre I've kept all my boxes attached, although on a minimal resource share Hello Stranger, Hey Trog Dog how goes the Minime O.S. that I sujested that you use, and, are the credits good {for Linux}, and, how did you get Ulimit to work with MiniMe? I may go back to Minime, I miss the little guy.Is MiniMe P.C. # 810, that looks like my old kernel? There is many reasons why I am asking these questions Trog Dog, if you are unconfortable to answer them at this Post, could we communicate via Email? "Andre" regarding this:"I hope to get a bit further with this issue tomorrow (tuesday). Today we had a paper deadline and I was working on this all day. We have submitted a Docking@Home paper to the PCGrid07 workshop in IPDPS. Let's all cross fingers that it gets accepted :-)" Want to wish you all the best luck and am sure we all are going to receive a great Christmas Gift from Docking, Like a new app. Thanks Doug ____________
	ID: 1533 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: /

Trog Dog Volunteer tester Joined: Nov 14 06 Posts: 16 ID: 279 Credit: 145,805 RAC: 0	Message 1583 - Posted 22 Nov 2006 13:49:00 UTC - in response to Message ID 1533 .
	Hello Stranger, Hey Trog Dog how goes the Minime O.S. that I sujested that you use, and, are the credits good {for Linux}, and, how did you get Ulimit to work with MiniMe? I may go back to Minime, I miss the little guy.Is MiniMe P.C. # 810, that looks like my old kernel? There is many reasons why I am asking these questions Trog Dog, if you are unconfortable to answer them at this Post, could we communicate via Email? G'day Doug I've got 3 Minime's ( Optima , Optiplex and Athlon ). I initially had problems until I used the ulimit fix, the main problem though was that ulimit -s still reports as 8192 so I initially thought that it hadn't taken, but it had. I like Minime, and I'm glad that you gave me the tip to check it out. ____________
	ID: 1583 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: /

[B^S] Doug Worrall Volunteer tester Joined: Sep 13 06 Posts: 127 ID: 74 Credit: 11,046 RAC: 0	Message 1584 - Posted 22 Nov 2006 13:59:05 UTC - in response to Message ID 1583 . Last modified: 22 Nov 2006 14:32:33 UTC
	Hello Stranger, Hey Trog Dog how goes the Minime O.S. that I sujested that you use, and, are the credits good {for Linux}, and, how did you get Ulimit to work with MiniMe? I may go back to Minime, I miss the little guy.Is MiniMe P.C. # 810, that looks like my old kernel? There is many reasons why I am asking these questions Trog Dog, if you are unconfortable to answer them at this Post, could we communicate via Email? G'day Doug I've got 3 Minime's ( Optima , Optiplex and Athlon ). I initially had problems until I used the ulimit fix, the main problem though was that ulimit -s still reports as 8192 so I initially thought that it hadn't taken, but it had. I like Minime, and I'm glad that you gave me the tip to check it out. Trog Dog, Great news that MiniMe works well for you.On 3 Machines WOW.I cannot get ulimit to work on same type Distro.The Ulimit takes just like you said with the 8192. How do you start your Boinc Client?{KDE menu, or comand line} if command line, could you post this for me, Thanks Trog Dog.I cannot get a w/u to be successful Have to start a different instance of Boinc. Take care Doug ____________
	ID: 1584 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: /

Trog Dog Volunteer tester Joined: Nov 14 06 Posts: 16 ID: 279 Credit: 145,805 RAC: 0	Message 1605 - Posted 24 Nov 2006 13:25:08 UTC - in response to Message ID 1584 .
	Trog Dog, Great news that MiniMe works well for you.On 3 Machines WOW.I cannot get ulimit to work on same type Distro.The Ulimit takes just like you said with the 8192. How do you start your Boinc Client?{KDE menu, or comand line} if command line, could you post this for me, Thanks Trog Dog.I cannot get a w/u to be successful Have to start a different instance of Boinc. Take care Doug G'day Doug I use KDE's startup script to autostart the BOINC manager as KDE starts (KDE is also set to autolog me in). The result is on a reboot KDE starts and logs in as user trogdog and starts the BOINC manager. To use the KDE autostart script create a text file containing the following #!/bin/sh /path/to/your/BOINC/run_manager &>/dev/null & In my case the line path/to/your/BOINC/run_manager is /home/trogdog/BOINC/run_manager save it as /path/to/your/.kde/Autostart/startup In my case the file is /home/trogdog/.kde/Autostart/startup Make this file executable. As far as the ulimit fix goes I have that as the first line in the run_manager file. If this isn't clear PM me in the PCLOS forum. ____________
	ID: 1605 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: /

[B^S] Doug Worrall Volunteer tester Joined: Sep 13 06 Posts: 127 ID: 74 Credit: 11,046 RAC: 0	Message 1622 - Posted 26 Nov 2006 14:28:52 UTC - in response to Message ID 1605 .
	Trog Dog, Great news that MiniMe works well for you.On 3 Machines WOW.I cannot get ulimit to work on same type Distro.The Ulimit takes just like you said with the 8192. How do you start your Boinc Client?{KDE menu, or comand line} if command line, could you post this for me, Thanks Trog Dog.I cannot get a w/u to be successful Have to start a different instance of Boinc. Take care Doug G'day Doug I use KDE's startup script to autostart the BOINC manager as KDE starts (KDE is also set to autolog me in). The result is on a reboot KDE starts and logs in as user trogdog and starts the BOINC manager. To use the KDE autostart script create a text file containing the following #!/bin/sh /path/to/your/BOINC/run_manager &>/dev/null & In my case the line path/to/your/BOINC/run_manager is /home/trogdog/BOINC/run_manager save it as /path/to/your/.kde/Autostart/startup In my case the file is /home/trogdog/.kde/Autostart/startup Make this file executable. As far as the ulimit fix goes I have that as the first line in the run_manager file. If this isn't clear PM me in the PCLOS forum. G,day Trog Dog, I will be using PClinuxOs P.M. to communicate with you.Just got the special repos with Bandwidth the size of Grand Canyon, and about 2000 extra packages. One small donation and, ehaa, have not crunched for Docking for a few weeks due to not knowing why my work isnot being "validated". As soon as I know that the 3 w/u that still need validation, are not one of those 30 some odd weird w/u. See You At PClinuxOS Be Well Trog Dog Doug ____________
	ID: 1622 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: /

Trog Dog Volunteer tester Joined: Nov 14 06 Posts: 16 ID: 279 Credit: 145,805 RAC: 0	Message 1629 - Posted 27 Nov 2006 13:24:38 UTC - in response to Message ID 1622 .
	have not crunched for Docking for a few weeks due to not knowing why my work isnot being "validated". As soon as I know that the 3 w/u that still need validation, are not one of those 30 some odd weird w/u. See You At PClinuxOS Be Well Trog Dog Doug G'day Doug Just had a quick look at one of your invalid wu's and it looks like the PIII bug. PIII's and PIII Celerons produce different results to PIV's and PIV Celerons. If you have a PIV Celeron (looks like you do) and you come up against two PIII's yours get marked invalid, likewise if you come up against one PIV and one PIII the PIV's render the PIII result invalid. Clear as mud? Bottomline is the project is working on it. Catch you over at PCLOS. ____________
	ID: 1629 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: /

[B^S] Doug Worrall Volunteer tester Joined: Sep 13 06 Posts: 127 ID: 74 Credit: 11,046 RAC: 0	Message 1630 - Posted 27 Nov 2006 13:35:54 UTC - in response to Message ID 1629 .
	have not crunched for Docking for a few weeks due to not knowing why my work isnot being "validated". As soon as I know that the 3 w/u that still need validation, are not one of those 30 some odd weird w/u. See You At PClinuxOS Be Well Trog Dog Doug G'day Doug Just had a quick look at one of your invalid wu's and it looks like the PIII bug. PIII's and PIII Celerons produce different results to PIV's and PIV Celerons. If you have a PIV Celeron (looks like you do) and you come up against two PIII's yours get marked invalid, likewise if you come up against one PIV and one PIII the PIV's render the PIII result invalid. Clear as mud? Bottomline is the project is working on it. Catch you over at PCLOS. Thanks Trog Dog, Yup Celeron probs, will need an upgrade soon.See you at the forums Trog Dog. Sincerely Doug* ____________
	ID: 1630 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: /

suguruhirahara Forum moderator Volunteer tester Joined: Sep 13 06 Posts: 282 ID: 15 Credit: 56,614 RAC: 0	Message 1750 - Posted 10 Dec 2006 12:49:10 UTC Last modified: 10 Dec 2006 12:49:33 UTC
	What's wrong with this result ? Although it's not crunched actually (CPU time is 0), the outcome shows success. <core_client_version>5.6.4</core_client_version> <![CDATA[ <stderr_txt> Calling BOINC init. set_worker_timer(): pthread_create(): 11Starting charmm run... SUCCESS - Charmm exited with code 0. Resolving file charmm.out... Calling BOINC finish. </stderr_txt> ]]> The host 1034 , to which the above result was distributed, has other results which failed to be completed like 54323 and 54226 . These have unique error so it's worth to check both of them. thanks, suguruhirahara ____________ I'm a volunteer participant; my views are not necessarily those of Docking@Home or its participating institutions.
	ID: 1750 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: /

David Ball Forum moderator Volunteer tester Joined: Sep 18 06 Posts: 274 ID: 115 Credit: 1,634,401 RAC: 0	Message 1751 - Posted 10 Dec 2006 16:21:32 UTC - in response to Message ID 1750 .
	What's wrong with this result ? Although it's not crunched actually (CPU time is 0), the outcome shows success. I've looked through the source on the BOINC website (not the charmm fortran stuff) and I think I found a path through the code which would result in CPU time being reported as zero rather than the actual time taken. It's likely a valid result. I'll have to email Andre about it tomorrow (Monday). I don't want to bother him on his weekend. -- David
	ID: 1751 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: /

Andre Kerstens Forum moderator Project tester Volunteer tester Joined: Sep 11 06 Posts: 749 ID: 1 Credit: 15,199 RAC: 0	Message 1754 - Posted 10 Dec 2006 20:14:10 UTC - in response to Message ID 1751 .
	Don't worry about bothering me in the weekend; I read email and the forums 24x7 :-) Since this result shows: Charmm exited with code 0. Resolving file charmm.out... Calling BOINC finish. it must mean that Charmm ran successfully, else there would be some sort of error code in there. I also checked the output files of that result and it contains the correct answer: this is a 100% not possible in cpu time 0... I think the calculation of this result when fine, but somehow the cpu time returned by the boinc client or the cpu time field in the database was 0. How that can happen? I don't know, but it must be one of the intricacies of boinc :-) By the way, we do not use the boinc supplied wrapper; we've build our own wrapper which calls the charmm function, so that can theoretically not be one of the threads you see. Cheers Andre What's wrong with this result ? Although it's not crunched actually (CPU time is 0), the outcome shows success. I've looked through the source on the BOINC website (not the charmm fortran stuff) and I think I found a path through the code which would result in CPU time being reported as zero rather than the actual time taken. It's likely a valid result. I'll have to email Andre about it tomorrow (Monday). I don't want to bother him on his weekend. -- David ____________ D@H the greatest project in the world... a while from now!
	ID: 1754 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: /

suguruhirahara Forum moderator Volunteer tester Joined: Sep 13 06 Posts: 282 ID: 15 Credit: 56,614 RAC: 0	Message 1756 - Posted 12 Dec 2006 3:48:01 UTC
	This result: http://docking.utep.edu/show_host_detail.php?hostid=1058 This result crunched with Celeron failed to be validated though one of the copy was crunched with Pentium D and the other was with Core 2 Duo. suguruhirahara ____________ I'm a volunteer participant; my views are not necessarily those of Docking@Home or its participating institutions.
	ID: 1756 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: /

David Ball Forum moderator Volunteer tester Joined: Sep 18 06 Posts: 274 ID: 115 Credit: 1,634,401 RAC: 0	Message 1757 - Posted 12 Dec 2006 12:43:46 UTC - in response to Message ID 1756 .
	This result: http://docking.utep.edu/show_host_detail.php?hostid=1058 This result crunched with Celeron failed to be validated though one of the copy was crunched with Pentium D and the other was with Core 2 Duo. suguruhirahara Hi Suguru, It looks like that's the HR problem again. The CPU type for that machine is "GenuineIntel Intel(R) Celeron(TM) CPU 1200MHz". For Celerons, if it's 1.4 GHz or below, It's P-II/P-III based. If it's 1.7 GHz or higher, it's P4 based. Since the first P4 core added 10 stages to the pipelining in the CPU, it was up to 20% slower than a P-III at the same clock speed. That's probably why they didn't produce a P4 Celeron until the clock speed reached 1.7 GHz. IIRC, they skipped the socket 423 and went straight to socket 478 for the P4 Celeron. Regards, -- David
	ID: 1757 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: /

Andre Kerstens Forum moderator Project tester Volunteer tester Joined: Sep 11 06 Posts: 749 ID: 1 Credit: 15,199 RAC: 0	Message 1759 - Posted 12 Dec 2006 21:55:48 UTC - in response to Message ID 1757 .
	Memo is classifying Celerons as we speak. We'll have a patch for this out soon. Thanks! Andre This result: http://docking.utep.edu/show_host_detail.php?hostid=1058 This result crunched with Celeron failed to be validated though one of the copy was crunched with Pentium D and the other was with Core 2 Duo. suguruhirahara Hi Suguru, It looks like that's the HR problem again. The CPU type for that machine is "GenuineIntel Intel(R) Celeron(TM) CPU 1200MHz". For Celerons, if it's 1.4 GHz or below, It's P-II/P-III based. If it's 1.7 GHz or higher, it's P4 based. Since the first P4 core added 10 stages to the pipelining in the CPU, it was up to 20% slower than a P-III at the same clock speed. That's probably why they didn't produce a P4 Celeron until the clock speed reached 1.7 GHz. IIRC, they skipped the socket 423 and went straight to socket 478 for the P4 Celeron. Regards, -- David ____________ D@H the greatest project in the world... a while from now!
	ID: 1759 \| Rating: 0 \| rate: /

Message boards : Unix/Linux : Linux WU's = Invalid = No Credit?

Database Error
: The MySQL server is running with the --read-only option so it cannot execute this statement

array(3) {
  [0]=>
  array(7) {
    ["file"]=>
    string(47) "/boinc/projects/docking/html_v2/inc/db_conn.inc"
    ["line"]=>
    int(97)
    ["function"]=>
    string(8) "do_query"
    ["class"]=>
    string(6) "DbConn"
    ["object"]=>
    object(DbConn)#27 (2) {
      ["db_conn"]=>
      resource(96) of type (mysql link persistent)
      ["db_name"]=>
      string(7) "docking"
    }
    ["type"]=>
    string(2) "->"
    ["args"]=>
    array(1) {
      [0]=>
      &string(50) "update DBNAME.thread set views=views+1 where id=88"
    }
  }
  [1]=>
  array(7) {
    ["file"]=>
    string(48) "/boinc/projects/docking/html_v2/inc/forum_db.inc"
    ["line"]=>
    int(60)
    ["function"]=>
    string(6) "update"
    ["class"]=>
    string(6) "DbConn"
    ["object"]=>
    object(DbConn)#27 (2) {
      ["db_conn"]=>
      resource(96) of type (mysql link persistent)
      ["db_name"]=>
      string(7) "docking"
    }
    ["type"]=>
    string(2) "->"
    ["args"]=>
    array(3) {
      [0]=>
      object(BoincThread)#3 (16) {
        ["id"]=>
        string(2) "88"
        ["forum"]=>
        string(1) "6"
        ["owner"]=>
        string(3) "192"
        ["status"]=>
        string(1) "0"
        ["title"]=>
        string(33) "Linux WU's = Invalid = No Credit?"
        ["timestamp"]=>
        string(10) "1165960548"
        ["views"]=>
        string(4) "1565"
        ["replies"]=>
        string(2) "21"
        ["activity"]=>
        string(20) "6.4134211408704e-127"
        ["sufferers"]=>
        string(1) "0"
        ["score"]=>
        string(1) "0"
        ["votes"]=>
        string(1) "0"
        ["create_time"]=>
        string(10) "1162208375"
        ["hidden"]=>
        string(1) "0"
        ["sticky"]=>
        string(1) "0"
        ["locked"]=>
        string(1) "0"
      }
      [1]=>
      &string(6) "thread"
      [2]=>
      &string(13) "views=views+1"
    }
  }
  [2]=>
  array(7) {
    ["file"]=>
    string(63) "/boinc/projects/docking/html_v2/user/community/forum/thread.php"
    ["line"]=>
    int(184)
    ["function"]=>
    string(6) "update"
    ["class"]=>
    string(11) "BoincThread"
    ["object"]=>
    object(BoincThread)#3 (16) {
      ["id"]=>
      string(2) "88"
      ["forum"]=>
      string(1) "6"
      ["owner"]=>
      string(3) "192"
      ["status"]=>
      string(1) "0"
      ["title"]=>
      string(33) "Linux WU's = Invalid = No Credit?"
      ["timestamp"]=>
      string(10) "1165960548"
      ["views"]=>
      string(4) "1565"
      ["replies"]=>
      string(2) "21"
      ["activity"]=>
      string(20) "6.4134211408704e-127"
      ["sufferers"]=>
      string(1) "0"
      ["score"]=>
      string(1) "0"
      ["votes"]=>
      string(1) "0"
      ["create_time"]=>
      string(10) "1162208375"
      ["hidden"]=>
      string(1) "0"
      ["sticky"]=>
      string(1) "0"
      ["locked"]=>
      string(1) "0"
    }
    ["type"]=>
    string(2) "->"
    ["args"]=>
    array(1) {
      [0]=>
      &string(13) "views=views+1"
    }
  }
}

query: update docking.thread set views=views+1 where id=88