Folding Forum

This should be fixed now for WUs assigned today and onwards. A setting was changed a couple days ago as part of the project being moved to a new server and has been corrected. Got another one 5 hours ago. Currently running at estimated 2805 PPD, about one-third of what I normally earn. Problem is n...

I just came to the forum to check on this very issue. Am running on a 10-year old PC, where I usually earn about 8000-9000 PPD on my WUs. This WU (project:16927 run:7 clone:956 gen:3) earned about 2500 PPD, and took over a day to complete (total points: 2793).

Thanks bruce. That may be the answer. Apparently, a Windows update was started overnight (despite my having temporarily suspended any updates) that caused my PC to shut down and do an initial reboot. Once I discovered this, I rebooted again (for a total of three), which apparently completed the upda...

Thanks gs60. I checked and I only have one instance of the three F@H processes running that are referred to in the link you shared.

First, some background. About 17 hours ago, I noticed I had four completed WU that were sitting in queue waiting to be successfully uploaded, and a fifth that was actively folding. [I only fold one CPU WU at a time.] I wound up rebooting and while the four completed work units no longer appear in my...

Thanks bruce!

Been over a week since the last post on this topic. I am having the same issue. Any diagnosis of the problem and/or estimate for when bonus points will be assigned again? Not critical, but will bonus points be assigned to completed WU retroactively?

bruce, thanks for the clarification. Based on your explanation, until there is a pressing reason to upgrade my old F@H installations (or get a new device), I'll leave well enough alone.

I saw JimboPalmer's list of version changes at https://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=106&t=30831#p301620 , but it is not clear to me what advantage there is in my upgrading from v.7.4.2 to v.7.5.1. Perhaps the information was in JimboPalmer's post but I simply lack the technical expertise to ...

bruce, the collaboration I was referring to was for a blog post, nothing more. I assume the scientists and systems people already collaborate effectively or we wouldn't have F@H!

Yup. And while a lot of folders are more tech savvy than average, many are not. And someone at the Lab must be a liaison with the tech people who develop/maintain the distributive software system. Assuming bruce's explanation is accurate, the techies and scientists could collaborate and adapt it for...

bruce, if I understand correctly, your explanation sounds like it may be most similar to my #1: "Not all 'Active Projects' are really active at any given moment" [and that—currently, anyway—almost all SMPs may be receiving just a subset of the "active projects," that just happens...

Another option may be in play, in the past 'undesirable' work units have been dumped by folders in the hope of gaining more desirable ones, thus leading to them having to be redone and distorting the allocation. The quick return bonus penalty for failing to maintain an 80% completion rate has addre...

Perhaps part of the discontent among some of us folders is that we really don't understand how WUs are assigned. For example, according to the Project Summary link at the top of the page, 45 WUs use the GRO_a4 core (about 55%), while 36 use the GRO_a7 core (about 45%). Yet, in the past week I have r...

bruce-- I'm convinced. Seems like the "normal course of business." One way Stanford could confirm your hypothesis—not saying Stanford should allocate resources to do this, but it could —would be to take all CPUs folding SMP/CPU WUs over, say, the past three months, and see if the distribut...