4437

[Pette Broad]

Yeah, I'm seeing 3.5 pph as well, compared with 7.2 on the other 225 pointers I've been doing lately. Obviously bencharked incorrectly, should have been spotted in Beta I guess.

It appears the server stats counts do not get updated for this server. Its been stuck at 10000/ 10000 since Jan-11

Could be related to the fact that one of the Mods reported multiple instances of the same completed WU being uploaded. Forget the number but it was in the high teens I think. I suppose that WU's aren't being flagged as downloaded so the same ones keep getting sent out but in any case it needs looking at urgently.

Pete

[RiceRemodeling]

anandhanju;

How do you (or anyone) know that "p4437" is worth 225 points?
Has any of the "p4437" been accepted back to the server when finished?

[toTOW]

If someone could provide me complete references of a recently returned p4437, I could check for it.

[Monterone]

I'm not sure, what you mean with complete reference, toTOW, so here are the qd-infos for the recently returned 4437 and the similar 4460.

4437:

Code: Select all

Index 5: finished 225.00 pts (4.060 pt/hr) 27.3 X min speed
   server: 171.67.108.20:8080; project: 4437
   Folding: run 63, clone 4, generation 7; benchmark 0; misc: 500, 0
   issue: Thu Jan 01 01:00:00 1970; begin: Wed Jan 14 15:07:39 2009
   end: Fri Jan 16 22:33:08 2009; due: Wed Mar 18 15:07:39 2009 (63 days)
   preferred: Thu Feb 26 15:07:39 2009 (43 days)
   core URL: http://www.stanford.edu/~pande/Win32/x86/Core_78.fah
   CPU: 1,687 Pentium II/III; OS: 1,0 Windows
   flops: 1064870890 (1064.870890 megaflops)
   memory: 2045 MB
   assignment info (be): Wed Jan 14 15:07:35 2009; BA5A85CC
   P limit: 524286976
   user: Monterone; team: 0; ID: XYZ; mach ID: XYZ
   work/wudata_05.dat file size: 239019; WU type: Folding@Home

4460:

Code: Select all

 Index 9: finished 225.00 pts (7.222 pt/hr) 48.5 X min speed
   server: 171.67.108.13:8080; project: 4460
   Folding: run 628, clone 1, generation 1; benchmark 0; misc: 500, 102
   issue: Sun Jan 11 13:14:16 2009; begin: Sun Jan 11 13:14:25 2009
   end: Mon Jan 12 20:23:41 2009; due: Sun Mar 15 13:14:25 2009 (63 days)
   preferred: Mon Feb 23 13:14:25 2009 (43 days)
   core URL: http://www.stanford.edu/~pande/Win32/x86/Core_78.fah
   CPU: 1,687 Pentium II/III; OS: 1,0 Windows
   tag: P4460R628C1G1
   flops: 1064829990 (1064.829990 megaflops)
   memory: 2045 MB
   assignment info (le): Sun Jan 11 13:14:14 2009; BBA6B4E4
   CS: 171.67.108.17; P limit: 524286976
   user: Monterone; team: 0; ID: XYZ; mach ID: XYZ
   work/wudata_09.dat file size: 238627; WU type: Folding@Home

As you can see, there is a significant difference of speed... And the issue date from 4437 doesn't seem to be correct. In 1970, I wasn't even born...

[toTOW]

Well the WU is worth 225 points : Your WU (P4437 R63 C4 G7) was added to the stats database on 2009-01-14 09:18:26 for 225 points of credit. There's no record under your username yet. There is still the multiple assignment issue with many successful reports for this WU

The next one is fine :
Hi Monterone (team 0),
Your WU (P4460 R628 C1 G1) was added to the stats database on 2009-01-12 12:50:00 for 225 points of credit.

[Monterone]

Thank you toTOW for looking at the problem!

I'm sure, that the 225 points for 4437 has been added to my stats. You can check that on http://kakaostats.com/usum.php?u=1302855 (2009-01-17). It was the only WU that returned for that day and for that client! My second CPU-client runs under "advanced methods" and folds on 2483/2484 (905 points) for the last weeks.

How do you explain the low speed and the curios date? It seems to me, that this project (server?) doesn't work correct...

So, what should we do, when we get one of the 4436/4437 WUs?

[toTOW]

I didn't notice the weird date, but that might be the cause of multiple assignment issue if the server date isn't set well. I'll forward this information to Pande Group.

If I'm correct, these projects are running on the new server code, which could explain these issues.

About the WU value, it sound more like a misconfiguration or a benchmark error ... I'll forward this information too.

I think the best thing to do is to keep folding them, as each data we get is useful to help with the bugs ... you should also keep watching them carefully to see if you can reproduce the weird date issue.

[Monterone]

Thanks for the information!

The date issue is also shown in anandhanju's post. There it is the year 1969...