Folding Forum

Have a Project: 1796 WU being worked on and no details on summary page. Anybody any info on these?

Project: 1796 work units are worth 412 points with a 14 day deadline. The project should still be in testing. You probably got one assigned to you prematurely due to the problems they had with the Assignment Server some 10 to 18 hours ago. (What time is it in the "The back of beyond, in the middle of nowhere" anyway?) There's no reason to expect any unusual problems, though, so I recommend you just let it fold.

Thanks for the info - I thought it might be something to do with the AS problems.

Ah, I got one of these too, on my c2duo machine, which is currently earning 300ppd on a 2494 project on its other core. It has taken 1 day 6 hours to get to 43% on the 1796 project.

Im not sure if this represents an accurate summary of your report or not. Please correct it.
Proj: 2494, Deadlines: 42, 93. Points: 905. FahCore: 78. AvgTime per 1%: ??
Proj: 1796, Deadlines: 14, ?? Points: 412. FahCore: a0. AvgTime per 1%: ??
Core2Duo xx GHz.

The C2D is not the benchmark machine, so we can't realistically expect that two different fahcores to be proportional, just because they were on the benchmark machine. Nevertheless, you can say that they should at least be in the same ballpark, and it doesn't look like that's true.

You're suggesting that p1794 is undervalued and the points should be increased. What do you plan to do if the Pande Group repeats the benchmarking on both of these Projects and concludes that p2494 is getting too many points and they need to reduce it? Unless you actually test them on a 2.8 GHz P4 with HT and SSE2 disabled, you'll have no recourse and you'll be making a lot of people angry.

codysluder wrote:Im not sure if this represents an accurate summary of your report or not. Please correct it.
Proj: 2494, Deadlines: 42, 93. Points: 905. FahCore: 78. AvgTime per 1%: ??
Proj: 1796, Deadlines: 14, ?? Points: 412. FahCore: a0. AvgTime per 1%: ??
Core2Duo xx GHz.

The C2D is not the benchmark machine, so we can't realistically expect that two different fahcores to be proportional, just because they were on the benchmark machine. Nevertheless, you can say that they should at least be in the same ballpark, and it doesn't look like that's true.

You're suggesting that p1794 is undervalued and the points should be increased. What do you plan to do if the Pande Group repeats the benchmarking on both of these Projects and concludes that p2494 is getting too many points and they need to reduce it? Unless you actually test them on a 2.8 GHz P4 with HT and SSE2 disabled, you'll have no recourse and you'll be making a lot of people angry.

Wow, are you being intentionally antagonistic?

I'm really not sure how you can read so much out of what is a two sentence post stating my experience with a work unit that may or may not be in the wild yet. My reference to another known work unit is to give a sense of the relative performance of my computer. Did you even notice that 300ppd of the 2494 project was a ballpark figure? If I was going to accuse Stanford of anything like what you're accusing me of doing then don't you think I would have posted things like calculated ppd for both projects, tpfs? But I didn't, because frankly, I couldn't give a damn about relative ppd on a computer that is different to the benchmark computer, between an established released work unit, and one that appears to not yet be released. Of course, that might explain why I didn't even bother calculating the ppd of the 1796 project. For what its worth, the computer it is folding on is a Core2Duo E6550 @ stock 2.33Ghz with 2GBs of RAM.

At no point do I suggest "that p1794 is undervalued and the points should be increased" or "that p2494 is getting too many points and they need to reduce it". So I find it inflammatory that you would infer this from my single lined post and then accuse me of making a lot of people angry. Hell, I'm not even sure who you're referring to by "a lot of people".

k1wi wrote:Ah, I got one of these too, on my c2duo machine, which is currently earning 300ppd on a 2494 project on its other core. It has taken 1 day 6 hours to get to 43% on the 1796 project.

The first sentence outlines that I ended up with one of them and the relative performance of my computer, based on a known work unit. The second sentence outlines how long I've had the project and how far it has gotten. If you want to infer anything else from that, that is on you.

Its posts like yours which discourages, or more accurately, frightens people from participating in these forums and writing posts about their experiences folding. That's bad for the forums and it's bad for folding@home.

I realise this is a bit late for your question, but following this thread and its links does at least explain what is going on, without any falling out.

viewtopic.php?f=47&t=14578

I came across this while trying to find out myself.

I received one of these units last night, just getting back to my computer and noticing no WU summery information about it.
Thanks for the info, here is my start/DL time and current status time: