Folding Forum

PantherX wrote:

Bob8421 wrote:Adding fields to existing records in your tables:

I see that you have added these as new records rather than updating the existing records, so you should probably delete the old ones.

PantherX wrote:Please note the Suggestion that I have made towards the end of the first post. Please give me feedback of what you think about this.

Anything that helps to resolve the problems with project 6013 is fine with me. Personally, I'm just hoping that I don't receive any more work units for that project, so I won't have to worry about it anymore.

EDIT: Forgot to mention that DDRX should be DDR2 for Q6600 and DDR3 for i7-920.

Bob8421 wrote:

PantherX wrote:

Bob8421 wrote:Adding fields to existing records in your tables:

I see that you have added these as new records rather than updating the existing records, so you should probably delete the old ones.

PantherX wrote:Please note the Suggestion that I have made towards the end of the first post. Please give me feedback of what you think about this.

Anything that helps to resolve the problems with project 6013 is fine with me. Personally, I'm just hoping that I don't receive any more work units for that project, so I won't have to worry about it anymore.

EDIT: Forgot to mention that DDRX should be DDR2 for Q6600 and DDR3 for i7-920.

Done and thanks for catching it. Hopefully, I can avoid this mistake by using duplicate check in Excel or sorting from A -> Z. If I won't receive complains within the next few hours (6-12) or so, I will be upgrading the WU Listings.

@Grandpa_01:
U have come across these data points: (please check it)
Run 0, Clone 44, Gen 9---i7 920 @ 4.2---DDR2 4 GB @ 1066---WV6/W76---Core Version---0:02:45
Run 0, Clone 76, Gen 4---i7 920 @ 4.2---DDR2 4 GB @ 1066---WV6/W76---Core Version---0:02:48

I coppied and pasted from HFM completed units I did not realise there was any I7's in there. They were both on 920 @ 4.2Ghz DDR3 16000 @ 1600Mhz I am not sure about the other one you asked about my guess would be it was ran on the P II.

Grandpa_01 wrote:I coppied and pasted from HFM completed units I did not realise there was any I7's in there. They were both on 920 @ 4.2Ghz DDR3 16000 @ 1600Mhz I am not sure about the other one you asked about my guess would be it was ran on the P II.

Thanks for your response. Right now, I am working on a new layout that will be far easier to use for you guys to see any possible patterns and formulate theories which can be proved or disproved. Also it will make my work easier when it comes to updating the listings.

BTW I guessed that you did copy and paste from HFM.NET but apparently you were missing the Core Version which is a must. No need to worry though as I will make it much easier for WU Crunchers like you to be able to give me info in a fast and efficient manner. (Hint: got the idea from your picture of Chart of Frame Times on -bigadv Units, hope you wont mind it )

Also the final layout will be like the one that I have posted (you can download the Excel File and view it) but will be modifying the layout to make it simpler.

PS. I won't be accepting any new WUs for sometime as I am working on a more user friendlier layout. Hopefully, I will be done "soon" (Target is <24 Hours)

I have updated the layout, made some drastic changes to the data collection methods which (hopefully) will be easier for all of us (provided that I haven't violated any Forum Rules or anything).

I want to stress this point in particular:

1) By default I will be mentioning the User because: (Please tell me if you don't want your username to appear in the details)
A) User can verify if I have entered the data correctly. If not, they can tell me and I can make the appropriate corrections. (More details below)
B) If more information is required by PG/Admin/Mod, they can contact that user directly.
C) If a user wants to update his fields with more accurate information, they can do so. (More details below)

as these details are open to the public (read: anyone with internet connection can access the files. They can also view the files if they have the right software). Do note that I will be locking the worksheets from any modification but there are still risks involved, however, the pros outweigh the cons especially point A as accuracy is paramount in this data collection. (Note that some users may think otherwise and I will respect their decision if they don't want their username displayed.)

Also, you can now download the data files that I have posted. Do tell me if any bugs present or how I can improve this further or any other comments that you would like to share.

Note that you can start downloading the files if you want to submit WUs. However, I may not respond as I am taking a nap.

PantherX wrote:I have updated the layout, made some drastic changes to the data collection methods which (hopefully) will be easier for all of us

PantherX wrote:Project 6013 Run X, Clone X, Gen X - This will be sorted from A -> Z

Looking at your first post, and without seeing your Excel table (I've got Excel 2000), it's not possible for me to tell if you keep PRCG as 4 separate fields (and add the description as a constant) or as one long character string as displayed.

If they are separate, you have obviously defined the fields as alphabetic and sort them accordingly.
As the table gets bigger, it might be easier to read if they were redefined as numeric.
Or, as an alternative, add leading zeroes to the alphabetic fields.

Currently the numbers sort as:
1, 10, 100, 2, 20, 200, 3, 30, 300
rather than the expected
1, 2, 3, 10, 20, 30, 100, 200, 300
or
001, 002, 003, 010, 020, 030, 100, 200, 300

Just a suggestion

Bob8421 wrote:

PantherX wrote:I have updated the layout, made some drastic changes to the data collection methods which (hopefully) will be easier for all of us

PantherX wrote:Project 6013 Run X, Clone X, Gen X - This will be sorted from A -> Z

Looking at your first post, and without seeing your Excel table (I've got Excel 2000), it's not possible for me to tell if you keep PRCG as 4 separate fields (and add the description as a constant) or as one long character string as displayed.

If they are separate, you have obviously defined the fields as alphabetic and sort them accordingly.
As the table gets bigger, it might be easier to read if they were redefined as numeric.
Or, as an alternative, add leading zeroes to the alphabetic fields.

Currently the numbers sort as:
1, 10, 100, 2, 20, 200, 3, 30, 300
rather than the expected
1, 2, 3, 10, 20, 30, 100, 200, 300
or
001, 002, 003, 010, 020, 030, 100, 200, 300

Just a suggestion

Okay no problem, I uploaded the (.xls) format too so that you guys don't have to jump through hoops to figure how to get it to work. (Sorry for not including it in the first attempt as I didn't expect anyone to still have 2000 ) Please tell me if there are any bugs in it as I did manage to open the file without any problems but that might change with 2000/2003

The PRCG is one field only, if you want, I can add vertical lines but I thought that might get disruptive when viewing the data so I choose only horizontal lines only.

I too was wondering of this problem and thought that Excel might have an issue so I tried with Word and that too gave me the same results However your workaround is plausible but I am not sure if PG will allow me to change it or not. If they allow me, I can do it (it may take some time though, but it will happen). I did mention your suggestion along with your name in under User Suggestions.

PantherX wrote:Okay no problem, I uploaded the (.xls) format too so that you guys don't have to jump through hoops to figure how to get it to work. (Sorry for not including it in the first attempt as I didn't expect anyone to still have 2000 ) Please tell me if there are any bugs in it as I did manage to open the file without any problems but that might change with 2000/2003

It opens just fine in Excel 2000, the only "issue" being that the TPF column displays as ###### for every row.

I've got Excel 2000 for the same reason that I've still got Windows XP. I bought Office 2000 Premium when it first came out for something in the $400 range. It's the only year they offered Premium, and that package does absolutely everything that I need and more. Unfortunately Office 2000 will not install on Windows Vista or Windows 7. So, to move from XP to 7, I would not only have to buy Windows 7 licenses but also throw away an extra $500 for Office 2010 Pro, and I'm just not willing to do that for absolutely no benefit to me.

EDIT:
I just noticed Sheet 2 in your file. That sheet displays the TPF properly. By the way, the TPF of 1:15:00 for one of my work units also applies to the other one, and my Q6600 machines are dedicated folders. The i7-920 is not dedicated, but very close to it.

Bob8421 wrote:It opens just fine in Excel 2000, the only "issue" being that the TPF column displays as ###### for every row.

I just noticed Sheet 2 in your file. That sheet displays the TPF properly. By the way, the TPF of 1:15:00 for one of my work units also applies to the other one, and my Q6600 machines are dedicated folders. The i7-920 is not dedicated, but very close to it.

I have increased the Column Width so hopefully, it will display the actual values instead of #####.

I have updated your records. Also what value of -SMP X are you using? or are you using -smp?

I have added Versions to the end of files so that it would be easy to track changes.

PantherX wrote:Also what value of -SMP X are you using? or are you using -smp?

Just plain -smp, giving me 4 cores running at 100%.

Bob8421 wrote:

PantherX wrote:Also what value of -SMP X are you using? or are you using -smp?

Just plain -smp, giving me 4 cores running at 100%.

Okay, but what about i7-920? are you using -smp 7?

PantherX wrote:Okay, but what about i7-920? are you using -smp 7?

No, still just plain -smp with all 8 running at 100%.

Hi PantherX.
I saw my report is included in the table with bad WUs. Add the following data:
RAM DDR2 - 2x1GB (bruce started here some doubts, but I worked two months with this memory and VMware / Ubuntu / core A2, without problems)
RAM speed - 1066MHz
Win XP / 32bit
TPF ~ 1:20:00
-smp (4 by default, empty field)
Other Clients - no
Dedicated - (not sure about the translation of the word. If the question is whether the PC is used for things other than FAH, the answer is - YES, only FAH)
Sorry for bad English.

artoar_11 wrote:Hi PantherX.
I saw my report is included in the table with bad WUs. Add the following data:
RAM DDR2 - 2x1GB (bruce started here some doubts, but I worked two months with this memory and VMware / Ubuntu / core A2, without problems)
RAM speed - 1066MHz
Win XP / 32bit
TPF ~ 1:20:00
-smp (4 by default, empty field)
Other Clients - no
Dedicated - (not sure about the translation of the word. If the question is whether the PC is used for things other than FAH, the answer is - YES, only FAH)
Sorry for bad English.

Thanks for you report artoar_11, I have updated the file with me but as I am working on some new angels, I won't be uploading the files till its done. Sorry for the delay in response

EDIT by Mod: David Chamberlain's post has been split into another topic in accordance with this recommendation.
@David Chamberlain: I believe that you will have to make a new thread here:http://foldingforum.org/viewforum.php?f=19, with the PRCG (Project Run Clone Gen) as the subject. This is because, This is only a listing of the WUs that have already been dealt with or pending a result. However, once you make the new thread, I will be including your WU under the Reported WU.

Updated the Listing to include artoar_11 details and dchamberlain's WU. Files have also been updated with new worksheets and are available to download.