Not getting credit for completed and successfully sent WU's

[bruce]

Gary480six is actively contributing to two different teams: 40098 (10 clients) and 11108 (30 clients in November).
Here are the last credits that you've received from each client. (CPUid = MachineID + UserID)

Last_returned_WU P R C G CPUid
11/3/2009 22:16 2677 2 64 55 2E75A4E80FXXXXXXB6 Lin 1920
11/4/2009 8:39 2653 16 145 125 7168659015XXXXXX99 Win 1760
11/15/2009 20:16 2669 9 47 147 2C47D4913CXXXXXXA6 Lin 1920
11/16/2009 9:05 2665 1 431 145 3C4753813BXXXXXX6A Win 1920
11/19/2009 10:25 2483 115 16 5 4C34B0EC19XXXXXX0B Win 905
11/20/2009 7:22 2483 272 16 10 24F50F9A75XXXXXX5B Win 905
11/20/2009 16:12 2671 0 1 135 6A0187A068XXXXXX37 gpu 1920
11/22/2009 4:05 2483 196 36 12 4FAAB0951BXXXXXX58 Win 905
11/22/2009 22:11 2665 3 461 143 0CA4F8C516XXXXXX7B Win 425.88
11/23/2009 16:08 2653 37 148 127 58F66C4452XXXXXX7F Win 1760
11/25/2009 10:26 2665 2 925 144 15600CA433XXXXXX43 Win 293.06
11/25/2009 12:24 2671 57 10 137 43C071D20CXXXXXX15 gpu 1920
11/25/2009 18:12 2665 0 457 151 58FC285EXXXXXX85 Win 1920
11/25/2009 22:13 2665 2 692 149 1CF2D5275EXXXXXX58 Win 1920
11/25/2009 22:13 2665 3 59 131 14C1BF2802XXXXXX95 Win 1920
11/26/2009 0:20 5772 8 88 1556 699984793CXXXXXX5C gpu 353
11/26/2009 2:21 2665 1 432 150 4285578C2BXXXXXX0B Win 1920
11/26/2009 9:04 5913 1 669 1 15600CA433XXXXXX44 gpu 1888
11/26/2009 9:07 2665 3 192 150 0835873D0FXXXXXX4B Win 1920
11/26/2009 9:07 2665 0 542 149 6E3048D143XXXXXX71 Win 1920
11/26/2009 9:09 5792 23 712 7 1AD513A02CXXXXXXE0 gpu 787
11/26/2009 9:10 5766 6 286 489 3A28D38A4AXXXXXX13 gpu 353
11/26/2009 9:10 5771 6 133 692 14C1BF2802XXXXXX93 gpu 353
11/26/2009 10:45 2671 26 85 138 3862F6A549XXXXXX19 gpu 1920
11/26/2009 10:45 2671 30 61 138 337F771828XXXXXXA8 gpu 1920
11/26/2009 10:46 2665 1 479 136 1AD513A02CXXXXXXDF Win 1920
11/26/2009 10:46 2653 5 74 128 7B45FF7509XXXXXXD5 Win 1760
11/26/2009 10:46 2665 3 50 138 5895EBDB16XXXXXXFF Win 1920
11/26/2009 10:46 5771 13 54 503 1F9401DA23XXXXXX38 Win 353
11/26/2009 10:46 5772 2 155 649 413761E845XXXXXX42 Win 353

[patonb]

whats a 1920 gpu unit? Is it an ATI?

[bruce]

whats a 1920 gpu unit? Is it an ATI?

It looks like I might have made a mistake when I combined the columns for OS and for x86/gpu. The project number is given toward the left and I think you'll find they're all SMP WUs. I didn't edit any of the other fields except Lin / Win / gpu.

[Gary480six]

Bruce,
Thanks for the quick reply. This research will take me a while but I'll start with this:
# Windows SMP Console Edition #################################################
###############################################################################

Folding@Home Client Version 6.24R3

http://folding.stanford.edu

###############################################################################
###############################################################################

Launch directory: C:\Program Files\Folding@Home Windows SMP Client V1.01
Executable: C:\Program Files\Folding@Home Windows SMP Client V1.01\Folding@home-Win32-x86.exe
Arguments: -local -advmethods -smp

[19:03:24] - Ask before connecting: No
[19:03:24] - User name: Gary480six (Team 11108)
[19:03:24] - User ID: 58FC285xxxxx84FD
[19:03:24] - Machine ID: 3
-------
[00:55:34] Folding@home Core Shutdown: FINISHED_UNIT
[00:55:34]
[00:55:34] Folding@home Core Shutdown: FINISHED_UNIT
[00:55:40] CoreStatus = 64 (100)
[00:55:40] Sending work to server
[00:55:40] Project: 2665 (Run 0, Clone 457, Gen 151)
--------
In your post you list this ID
11/25/2009 18:12 2665 0 457 151 58FC285EXXXXXX85 Win 1920

Is it just because my User ID ends in a letter that it does not match what you posted?
My ID 58FC2xxx
Yours 58FC2xxx

Other User IDs that I've checked so far do seem to match
My ID 43C07xxx
Yours 43C07xxx

[patonb]

It also looks like youre eue'ing.

425.88 is a failed unit. 905 doesn't seem right either.

You might want to check youre setups for EUEs

[bruce]

[19:03:24] - User ID: 58FC285xxxxx84FD
[19:03:24] - Machine ID: 3
--------
In your post you list this ID
11/25/2009 18:12 2665 0 457 151 58FC285EXXXXXX85 Win 1920

Is it just because my User ID ends in a letter that it does not match what you posted?
My ID 58FC2xxx
Yours 58FC2xxx

Other User IDs that I've checked so far do seem to match
My ID 43C07xxx
Yours 43C07xxx

I can't claim credit for that error. According to my arithmetic, UserID + MachineID = 58FC285xxxxx84FD + 3 = 58FC285xxxxx8500 but the transaction displays 58FC285xxxxx85. Somewhere in the byte reversal code, a pair of zeros got suppressed. I've reported it as a bug.

[pluto7777]

171.67.108.25:80 ate approximately 18 SMP units from 11/28 to 12/07
12/09 shows 4 units were sent

I haven't touched my computer in a while so I'm just now noticing this.
I couldn't care less about points, but if this doesn't get a real fix soon I'll have to stop crunching units.

[7im]

They can't even begin to check on things if you won't post the PRCG numbers for at least 1 missing WU, AND your fah user name...

[noorman]

whats a 1920 gpu unit? Is it an ATI?

It looks like I might have made a mistake when I combined the columns for OS and for x86/gpu. The project number is given toward the left and I think you'll find they're all SMP WUs. I didn't edit any of the other fields except Lin / Win / gpu.

.


Has the capability to check specific WU's been restored yet ?


.

[Magic Michael]

Hi gang, I didn't find a thread to claim missing Nov11/12-WUs, so I'll try it here. I don't care about my GPU- und SMP-WUs of that day, but I wanna have my bigadv WU counted

Code: Select all

[18:47:05] Working on queue slot 07 [November 8 18:47:05 UTC]
[18:47:05] + Working ...
[18:47:06] 
[18:47:06] *------------------------------*
[18:47:06] Folding@Home Gromacs SMP Core
[18:47:06] Version 2.10 (Sun Aug 30 03:43:28 CEST 2009)
[18:47:06] 
[18:47:06] Preparing to commence simulation
[18:47:06] - Ensuring status. Please wait.
[18:47:10] 10, Clone 15, Gen 8)
[18:47:11] 
[18:47:11] Assembly optimizations on if available.
[18:47:11] Entering M.D.
[18:47:11] ing M.D.
[18:47:23] Clone 15, Gen 8)
[18:47:23] 




[19:44:07] Folding@home Core Shutdown: FINISHED_UNIT
[19:46:58] CoreStatus = 64 (100)
[19:46:58] Sending work to server
[19:46:58] Project: 2683 (Run 10, Clone 15, Gen 8)


[19:46:58] + Attempting to send results [November 11 19:46:58 UTC]
[19:57:01] + Results successfully sent
[19:57:01] Thank you for your contribution to Folding@Home.
[19:57:01] + Number of Units Completed: 16

User "Magic-Michael", Team 11298: GLUE - Gentoo Linux Users Everywhere

Could anyone please have look ?

[7im]

Has the capability to check specific WU's been restored yet ?

No. They can check the last WU returned from each client. If that happens to be the same WU you want checked, then they can tell you something about it. If not, then no.

[bruce]

We hope that capability will be restored soon after they install new hardware for the stats server. I don't know when that might be, though.

[noorman]

We hope that capability will be restored soon after they install new hardware for the stats server. I don't know when that might be, though.

.

That 's my hope too, because otherwise we are pedaling backwards; it used to be possible to do that.
It should still be, if only for the search/resolving of problems with F@H's I/O


.

[bruce]

Considering the fact that the stats processing has grown at such a rate that you almost couldn't get query the stats between the updates before that capability was removed, and by removing that capability, we've been given time for a lot more growth before we've gotten back to that same point again, I think that streamlining the stats was a good thing. The workload that was removed was only used by the Mods and although it was important, it wasn't as vital as just maintaining the basic records of what points everyone has earned.

[noorman]

.

How then is anyone going to be able to trace problems with Stats ?
I 've seen Folders being asked to publish data on WU results for which they might not have been credited; even then, the Mods can't do anything with that info because of the lack of query possibility ...
That makes things difficult and it will perpetuate the kind of problems like the one following the Stats server crash after which many people told you that they might have lost a lot of credits in the process of re-crediting.
I 'd like to know what (kind of / level of) redundancy there will be after the hardware upgrade of the Stats server at Stanford ...


.