Some Fermi projects not yet re-benchmarked

[folding_hoomer]

Thanks for your reply, 7im.

I know this page and use it when i got trouble in up-/downloading WU´s, but - maybe i´m blind - i have never seen any priority level set at any WU??
Or is it an internal flag, unvisible for "normal users" like me??

And - another question - is it possible for me to get e. g. only WU 8054 to help gettimg more data about it?

PS:
I´m folding one ATM, but i think it´s pure coincidence

[PantherX]

OS_Weight_Program_Port

The Weight value tells us the priority of a Project. A higher value means more priority while a lower valuer means less.

If you want additional details for the Server Status, you may want to look at this -> viewtopic.php?p=161540#p161540

You can't chose a single Project to fold WUs from. I have heard something about blacklisting/whitelisting Servers but am unsure of how exactly that is done. Normally, this method is used in cherry picking to get the high PPD WUs.

[7im]

Thanks for the link to the legend info PX. The previous version of that Server page contained a legend at the bottom.

Edit: I found the legend on the new page. Each column has a little "info" icon under it, looks like this: Hover over each one for an explanation.

[folding_hoomer]

Thanks once more for your replies.

I think there might be a little mistake in your detailed Server-Info or in the info of the Server Stats Page, PantherX:

If you look at the column Others on http://fah-web.stanford.edu/pybeta/serverstat.html, you will find for Server 92 (171.67.108.143, the work-server for Project 8054) the Gp Type set to 2.

But you wrote in your post:

39) gp type -> Indicates the WUs available for a particular GPU Type. It is broken into:
A) 1 -> WUs for ATI/AMD GPUs
B) 2 -> WUs for Nvidia Non-Fermi GPU
C) 3 -> WUs for Nvidia Fermi GPUs
Note: Kepler draws the same assignments as Fermi

I think Project 8054 is for Fermi GPU und a G80-GPU is impossible to "fold it" - so which info is wrong, which is right

[PantherX]

Good catch folding_hoomer. I checked all the GPU Servers and it seems that they have eliminated 3 and stuck with 1 (AMD) and 2 (Nvidia). I have updated my post and added you to the list of thanks.

[folding_hoomer]

Thanks for the honor, PantherX
I´ll do my best to help further on . . .

[artoar_11]

Today I received 2 WUs from p8018. Very bad PPD (11,000). I can not remember whether this project was re-benchmarked.

GTX 460 @ 775 MHz; v 7.29.

p8054 - 17,500 PPD
p7623/6 - 21,600 PPD

Thanks

[ArVee]

I'll say it's poor! I'm on my third of this terrible yielder, about 1/2 the ppd of normal. Started about 12 hours ago.

[HaloJones]

I've got these across all my GPU despite them all being set for gpu-type=advanced. Compared to Core 17, my cards are delivering 25% of the previous points.

[Joe_H]

Check the server status page, both servers with Core_17 assignments are in Accept status. That means they are accepting returns but not assigning work currently. Check back later as it is early in the morning at Stanford. In the meantime you will get assigned what is available.

[bollix47]

I've got these across all my GPU despite them all being set for gpu-type=advanced. Compared to Core 17, my cards are delivering 25% of the previous points.

Did you really mean "gpu-type=advanced"? The option to get core 17 projects is client-type=advanced. All my GPUs are currently running core 17 projects and have been for months.

[HaloJones]

My bad, "client-type=advanced". That is how they have always been. But it has already been pointed out that the issue is the servers not me; so all I can do is wait.

[bruce]

The projects which are considered "advanced" can change at any time, and that has nothing to do with re-benchmarking. Advanced projects can be moved to full-FAH if they've been shown to be trouble free. Projects that are in full-FAH which turn up unexpected problems can be moved back to advanced or even to beta. Moreover, we don't always know if a particular project is having problems or not. A review of the recently uploaded results can show things we don't know about.

Client-type is simply a statement about your willingness to accept various degrees of risk, not a method to select specific projects.

[Napoleon]

P8018 PPD seems to be (too) low compared to other Core_15 projects, IMO. I reported my experiences in Re: 8018 (1111,0,83) only using FahCore 0x15.

[7im]

Today I received 2 WUs from p8018. Very bad PPD (11,000). I can not remember whether this project was re-benchmarked.

GTX 460 @ 775 MHz; v 7.29.

p8054 - 17,500 PPD
p7623/6 - 21,600 PPD

Thanks

The number of atoms, days to deadline, and baseline points on P8018 are very similar to p762x, specifically P7620.

And all the projects in this group have points values way above the orginal 2700 points value mentioned in the opening thread. So I doubt this one was missed for rebenchmarking. Yes, the PPD looks low, but it's likely for some other reason.