That's a good question, but out of the scope of the Nov 12 server crash. Moreover, the PPD summary gives us no information about what clients are folding nor does it identify why some clients may have stopped folding.djchandler wrote:The other thing I speculated about was lack of competence on the part of those responsible for re-crediting. Look at this donor's daily chart on Extreme Overclocking's stats. Now look at this one. Doesn't that seem odd? I'm just asking questions here.
If I look at Plazzman's statistics, he has 6 clients which have returned WUs since Nov 12. He has 13 clients which returned WUs since Oct 29 which have NOT returned any results since Nov 12. Why? We can speculate that he shut down some clients or we can speculate that there's something else wrong, but we simply do not have enough information to identify why he went from either 19 clients to 6 clients or from 13 clients to 6. (I can't tell which one.)
Plazzman
Active clients (within 50 days) 10
Active clients (within 7 days) 1
As far as I can tell, he has not asked for help on this forum. In any case, we can't even tell if there's a problem to be solved or just that he took some hardware off-line. [Someone with a heat-related problem shutting down for the Summer in the Southern Hemisphere???]
Wolf
Active clients (within 50 days) 9
Active clients (within 7 days) 5
I see the same sort of issue with Wolf . . . and he's here . . . but he hasn't given us any information that will help fix the problem. Since 9/9 he has had 14 clients return a WU. Since Nov12, he has had six. I have no way of knowing if some of those clients are re-installs and represent the same hardware or if some of them have been shut down or if some of them are unable to return results unless he explains it to us.
I don't understand what's happening with FAHReQ, but it's probably somebody who has re-enqueue WUs but they're not being credited to his name. Like the other examples, if you can offer an explanation of what clients he is SUPPOSED to be running it would be very helpful. Maybe these are the WUs which were re-credited by Stanford for situations where they had a team number but the user-name was undecipherable.
(There is a reason why Stanford says: "You may choose any name you like, as long as it contains only letters or numbers (to insert a space, you may use the underscore "_" character)." I suppose there are reasons why people intentionally use obscure characters in their name -- but if the re-credited script fails to retrieve their name from the backup, they cannot expect to receive credit for lost WUs.)
Wolf and/or Plazzman: If you're reading this, start a new thread describing your problem, if you have one, and we'll work with you to get all of your clients folding again. If you know what happened to your other clients, let us know that, too. (The same applies to the rest of you.)