Page 1 of 3

WU Listings For Project 6013 [Good & Bad]-PROJECT SUSPENDED

Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 3:21 pm
by PantherX
Project 6013 has been suspended till further notice. Thanks to everyone who contributed to this. Hope PG finds this useful and can fix this problem.

Purpose Of This Listing:
There are a lot of reports of Project 6013 WUs giving problems, the most common is that some WUs can't be completed within the deadline. To deal with these BAD WUs, PG recommends: (Only for this Project)
kasson wrote:It's hard to say what's making the WU slow (bad WU vs. unusual interesting WU). But if it won't make the deadline on a machine that usually finishes that project with time to spare, delete and move on.
If you are doing this, please report it in this thread (more details below). In order to see a larger picture of this Project, which would help us all. The commonly used method for "delete and move on" is:
Step 1: Stop the Client using Crtl+C.
Step 2: Locate the folder where the SMP2 Client is installed.
Step 3: Select the Work Folder, Queue.dat File and delete them both.
Step 4: Start the Client and hopefully, you will be assigned a new WU.

I have made this listing which will be split in four parts:
1) Good WUs - WUs finished before the deadline and donor received (Bonus) credits.
2) Bad WUs - WUs that can't be processed before the deadline hence the donor dumped it.
3) Inconsistent WUs - WUs in this list have been reported to behave in different manner on different systems. (Note that the name is a misnomer as the problem may be with the system rather than the WU. If you can think of a more appropriate name, please tell me and I will change it.)
4) Reported WUs - WUs reported here have too little data available to be classified yet. (An Admin/Mod can tell me if they are marked as bad or have been completed)


IMPORTANT: You should NOT just delete any P 6013 WUs. That would be classified as cherry-picking and would only harm the project and will cause problems for you. You can ONLY delete WUs that meet Dr.Kasson's criteria as stated above.


Good WUs:
Below is the list of WUs (RCG only) belonging to Project 6013. (More details below)

Code: Select all

Run 0 Clone 000 Gen 154
Run 0 Clone 000 Gen 182
Run 0 Clone 001 Gen 154
Run 0 Clone 004 Gen 161
Run 0 Clone 007 Gen 142
Run 0 Clone 009 Gen 108
Run 0 Clone 009 Gen 109
Run 0 Clone 010 Gen 086
Run 0 Clone 010 Gen 108
Run 0 Clone 011 Gen 167
Run 0 Clone 011 Gen 231
Run 0 Clone 012 Gen 076
Run 0 Clone 015 Gen 070
Run 0 Clone 016 Gen 074
Run 0 Clone 017 Gen 068
Run 0 Clone 018 Gen 063
Run 0 Clone 019 Gen 260
Run 0 Clone 020 Gen 033
Run 0 Clone 020 Gen 041
Run 0 Clone 020,Gen 037
Run 0 Clone 021 Gen 030
Run 0 Clone 021 Gen 050
Run 0 Clone 022 Gen 038
Run 0 Clone 023 Gen 028
Run 0 Clone 025 Gen 022
Run 0 Clone 026 Gen 011
Run 0 Clone 026 Gen 019
Run 0 Clone 028 Gen 008
Run 0 Clone 030 Gen 005
Run 0 Clone 032 Gen 140
Run 0 Clone 034 Gen 002
Run 0 Clone 035 Gen 187
Run 0 Clone 036 Gen 018
Run 0 Clone 038 Gen 136
Run 0 Clone 044 Gen 009
Run 0 Clone 056 Gen 114
Run 0 Clone 067 Gen 159
Run 0 Clone 076 Gen 004
Run 0 Clone 084 Gen 184
Run 0 Clone 102 Gen 181
Run 0 Clone 109 Gen 016
Run 0 Clone 111 Gen 045
Run 0 Clone 111 Gen 124
Run 0 Clone 114 Gen 035
Run 0 Clone 118 Gen 105
Run 0 Clone 121 Gen 075
Run 0 Clone 123 Gen 036
Run 0 Clone 130 Gen 045
Run 0 Clone 131 Gen 099
Run 0 Clone 140 Gen 145
Run 0 Clone 142 Gen 087
Run 0 Clone 160 Gen 020
Run 0 Clone 163 Gen 095
Run 0 Clone 169 Gen 112
Run 0 Clone 186 Gen 006
Run 0 Clone 193 Gen 007


BAD WUs:
Below is the list of WUs (RCG only) belonging to Project 6013. There may be duplicate entries which would indicate that more than one donor tried to complete it but failed. (More details below) They meet Dr.Kasson's criteria as stated above.

Code: Select all

Run 0 Clone 027 Gen 136
Run 0 Clone 053 Gen 157
Run 0 Clone 056 Gen 136
Run 0 Clone 073 Gen 125
Run 0 Clone 095 Gen 085
Run 0 Clone 095 Gen 085
Run 0 Clone 142 Gen 121
Run 0 Clone 160 Gen 098
Run 0 Clone 160 Gen 098
Run 0 Clone 171 Gen 060
Run 0 Clone 171 Gen 060


Inconsistent WUs:
Below is the list of WUs (RCG only) belonging to Project 6013. There may be duplicate entries which would indicate that more than one donor tried to complete it but one was successful while the other gave error.. (More details below)

Code: Select all

Run 0 Clone 050 Gen 140
Run 0 Clone 050 Gen 140


Reported WUs:
Below is the list of WUs (RCG only) belonging to Project 6013 that have been reported but lack enough data be be classified in any category.

Code: Select all

Run 0 Clone 095 Gen 085
Run 0 Clone 188 Gen 121
Run 0 Clone 095 Gen 085


Data Collection Method:
If you are reporting the P 6013 WUs, there are some fields that must be included, while others are recommended.

Mandatory Fields:
Run/Clone/Gen
CPU
RAM
OS

Recommended Fields: (If you can think of other data points that might be useful in finding a pattern, please mention it and I will try to add it.)
FahCore Version
TPF
Other Clients
Dedicated
-smp X

Notes:
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) The 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)

2) If a user is having lot of systems and can't accurately associate the hardware to the corresponding PRCG, then I can make a link to their profile/post (which ever contains all the Mandatory Fields)

3) If you have been using HFM.NET for monitoring, then go to Help -> View HFM.NET Data Files -> (Folder Opens) -> Click "CompletedUnits" (it's a Microsoft Office Excel Comma Separated Values File (.csv)) you can go through the file and select only the P 6013 WUs.

4) If you have Office 2007 (Haven't checked this method with 2000, 2003, or 2010. If somebody can check it and report any differences, I will add it), then select the entire table (Ctrl+A) -> Format as Table (In the Home tab) -> Click OK (Make sure that the box "My table has headers" is Checked) -> Click drop-down box in ProjectID (Small arrow pointing down) -> Uncheck "Select All" (All boxes will be will become blank) -> Scroll till you find 6013 -> Check only that box -> Click OK. You will then have the necessary information displayed to report here. (Don't save the changes to the original file!)



Data Files & Usage:
All the other data fields which the user reported above has be entered in an Excel File (.xlsx) which I will be updating on regular basis. A download link has been provided below so that users can download it and view more information. In order to maintain data security, I have locked the worksheets from any modification (Only a PG/Admin/Mod can request for the password). Users will only be allowed to use the filters to manipulate the view. This is because I believe that in order to find a pattern, one needs to have large data set that can be easily manipulated to identify a possible pattern. I have extrapolated data from the already provided ones to create two or more fields that will provide a fine control when selecting what information to view.

Available Data Fields:
Project 6013 Run X, Clone X, Gen X - This will be sorted from A -> Z (See User Suggestions Below)
CPU Vendor - Extrapolated from CPU.
CPU Model CPU Speed (GHz) - Extrapolated from CPU.
Cores / Threads - Extrapolated from CPU.
RAM Type - Extrapolated from RAM.
RAM Speed (MHz) - Extrapolated from RAM.
OS - Extrapolated from OS.
32/64 bit - Extrapolated from OS.
Core Version - The version of the a3 Core that processed the WU. If you manually forced the Core to upgrade while it was processing the Same WU, include them both.
TPF - How long it took to complete 1%. Will be present if User provides it.
Note - Any special tweaks/testing the User did/finds, e.g. Processed the same WU with two different versions of a3.
Dedicated - Is the system running F@H 24/7 without any other applications running. Yes/No will suffice for now.
SMP X - If you are are not using all the available CPU resources, if you use -smp then I will report the total number of cores as the value.
Other Clients - Are you running any other F@H Clients on the same system? A brief mention will suffice for now, e.g. GPU3 BETA Con @ 1 or GPU2 GUI @ 1 ...
User - Contains the username of the User reporting the WU. If the User declines to do so, all the appropriate usernames will be replaced by User 1, User 2...

Submitting Data:
In order for me to maintain the list in a quick and efficient manner, I have made a data form where all the above mentioned data fields will be available so that the User can easily add all the necessary data and can submit it to me via e-mail (view profile). Do note that it may take some time as some mails may be accidentally classified as Junk Mail. Once I have updated the list with your information, I will mention it in this thread. If you have already submitted it and 48 hours have passed, please tell me. (Hopefully I plan to do it within 12 hours)

Verifying The Reported Data:
As data accuracy is paramount, Users can help me by verifying that I have added their findings correctly. This can be done by viewing the data against your name. You can select your username from the drop-down box (small arrow pointing down) next to the User field and view all records that you submitted. Note that if any mistakes are detected, you can't correct it as it is protected so please tell me what it is along with the Grid Reference, e.g. F22 -> It should be DDR3 not DDR2.

Adding More Data:
If you have already submitted data but later want to make extensive modifications, please give me your Username so that I will be able to send you your records so you can update them. Once you finish, please send it back so that I can update the file. I would appreciate if you followed my formatting style so that it will be easier for me to update the files.

Sorting Data:
All fields stated above can be sorted in one way or another so see if a possible pattern emerges. Users can sort it as they like and if they do find any possible theories please report it here so that I can add it and further research can be done in order to prove/disprove it.

Download Link: (LINK REMOVED. PM ME IF YOU WANT IT. ) {Last Updated @ 26-Jun-10 9:13 AM UTC}
Note that there are four files available to download:
1) Data Submission Form - Contains One worksheet only which is Unlocked {saved as .xlsx}
2) WU Listings For Project 6013 [Good & Bad] Details - Contains Four worksheets which are Locked {saved as .xlsx}
3) ~Data Submission Form - Contains One worksheet only which is Unlocked {saved as .xls}
4) ~WU Listings For Project 6013 (Good & Bad) Details - Contains Four worksheets which are Locked {saved as .xls}

You can't view the files online as they are protected.
If you are using Office 2000/2003 choose .xls
If you are using Office 2007/2010 choose .xlsx
If you are experiencing any formatting problems please inform me so that I can rectify it.



User Suggestions:
1) In order to make the PRCG sorted in A -> Z manner, I will have to change the current format which is used by PG. If I am given permission to do so, then only I will make this change:
Current PRCG Format: Run 0, Clone 1, Gen 8
Proposed PRCG Format: Run 0, Clone 001, Gen 008
The reason is that with the Current PRCG Formatting, the results are: 1, 10, 100, 2, 20, 200, 3, 30, 300 rather then what one would expect: 1, 2, 3, 10, 20, 30, 100, 200, 300. By changing to the new format, I have verified that it will get the required results. [Suggested by Bob8421] {Accepted}



Theories:
Any valid theories are listed here: (If any are invalid, I will mark them rather than deleting so we can have an idea of what we have covered and what isn't)




If you find any errors, please tell me so that I can make the appropriate corrections.
If a member of PG wants more details to be collected in order to troubleshoot this Project, I will do so.
EDIT by Mod: We need to know your RAM, your CPU, and your OS. The version of FahCore would be nice but not as important.

Re: WU Listings For Project 6013 [Good & Bad]

Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:28 pm
by mplee73
This one is bad: Project: 6013 (Run 0, Clone 160, Gen 98)

TPF is 1:00:20 on a Q9650 at stock speeds.

OS: Windows 7 Pro x64
RAM: 4GB
I don't recall what machine it was, but it was probably core 2.19 then 2.22 that it was running on. I updated the core after I kept receiving the same WU.

Re: WU Listings For Project 6013 [Good & Bad]

Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:50 pm
by Wrish
Got the same unit: p6013 R0 C160 G98. TPF is 1:06:46 on an X6800 @ stock 2.93 GHz with a GT240 also folding. It's like we're all utilizing one core and seizing up the simulation. Process Explorer showed both A3 threads receiving almost full CPU time, though.

Edit: RAM is 4 GB dual-channel. OS: Win7 x64. Core for the ~67-minute TPF was 2.19. Upgrading to 2.22 results in a TPF increase to ~116 minutes.

Re: WU Listings For Project 6013 [Good & Bad]

Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 5:40 pm
by Bob8421
4 good work units:
Project 6013 (Ran in May and my log file does not go back that far)
Project 6013 (Run 0, Clone 19, Gen 260) ran 12.33 hours (Q6600)
Project 6013 (Run 0, Clone 38, Gen 136) ran 7.90 hours (i7-920)
Project 6013 (Run 0, Clone 140, Gen 145) ran 7.75 hours (i7-920)

2 bad work units (run 10 times longer):
Project 6013 (Run 0, Clone 171, Gen 60)
Project 6013 (Run 0, Clone 95, Gen 85)

Re: WU Listings For Project 6013 [Good & Bad]

Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 6:13 pm
by PantherX
mplee73 wrote:This one is bad: Project: 6013 (Run 0, Clone 160, Gen 98)

TPF is 1:00:20 on a Q9650 at stock speeds.
Have added it.
Wrish wrote:Got the same unit: p6013 R0 C160 G98. TPF is 1:06:46 on an X6800 @ stock 2.93 GHz with a GT240 also folding. It's like we're all utilizing one core and seizing up the simulation. Process Explorer showed both A3 threads receiving almost full CPU time, though.
Added it too
Bob8421 wrote:4 good work units:
Project 6013 (Ran in May and my log file does not go back that far)
Project 6013 (Run 0, Clone 19, Gen 260) ran 12.33 hours (Q6600)
Project 6013 (Run 0, Clone 38, Gen 136) ran 7.90 hours (i7-920)
Project 6013 (Run 0, Clone 140, Gen 145) ran 7.75 hours (i7-920)

2 bad work units (run 10 times longer):
Project 6013 (Run 0, Clone 171, Gen 60)
Project 6013 (Run 0, Clone 95, Gen 85)
Added it but if you can, please tell the TPF or tell me how to calculate them (you can give me an excel formula for easier conversion as Maths isn't my strong suite, yet :roll: )

Re: WU Listings For Project 6013 [Good & Bad]

Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 6:50 pm
by PantherX
I did search this Sub-forum so add more WUs. Here are my findings:
Bad WUs added:
Project: 6013 (Run 0, Clone 27, Gen 136) (Link)
Project 6013 (Run 0, Clone 53, Gen 157) (Link)
Project: 6013 (Run 0, Clone 56, Gen 136) (Link)
Project 6013 (Run 0, Clone 171, Gen 60) (Link)
Project: 6013 (Run 0, Clone 142, Gen 121) (Link)

Need more info before adding these WUs to the BAD list:
Project: 6013 (Run 0, Clone 95, Gen 85) (Link)
Project: 6013 (Run 0, Clone 50, Gen 140) (Link)

Also if I have missed any WUs (Good or Bad) please tell me and I will add it.

Re: WU Listings For Project 6013 [Good & Bad]

Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 8:21 pm
by Bob8421
PantherX wrote:Added it but if you can, please tell the TPF or tell me how to calculate them (you can give me an excel formula for easier conversion as Maths isn't my strong suite, yet
Multiply the numbers I gave you by 0.6 to get minutes per frame, which is the same as:

Divide total run time by 100 to get time per frame in hours.
Multiply by 60 to convert hours to minutes.

If you want seconds instead of fractions of a minute, multiply the fraction by 60.

Re: WU Listings For Project 6013 [Good & Bad]

Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2010 9:41 pm
by bruce
See my EDIT in the original post. (It's OK if it's in your sig or you've set it up in your forum Control Panel.)

Re: WU Listings For Project 6013 [Good & Bad]

Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:15 am
by Grandpa_01
These were all good to my knoledge I haven't had a bad one. But if you look at the last one completed it only had 1000 attoms which is strange.
All were run on Vista or Windows 7 64bit
All had 4GB DDR 2 1066
Image

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

I fixed it may be that will make it a little easier to collect the data.

Re: WU Listings For Project 6013 [Good & Bad]

Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:34 am
by PantherX
@Grandpa_01: that's a lot of WUs :mrgreen: Before I add it to the list, I have to get some sleep to ensure 100% efficiency :wink: A quick scroll down your list I noticed a CPU "P II 940" I am not sure what exactly you mean by "P II"? Also both your Vista & 7 are 64-bit right?

Re: WU Listings For Project 6013 [Good & Bad]

Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 4:38 am
by Zagen30
PantherX wrote:@Grandpa_01: that's a lot of WUs :mrgreen: Before I add it to the list, I have to get some sleep to ensure 100% efficiency :wink: A quick scroll down your list I noticed a CPU "P II 940" I am not sure what exactly you mean by "P II"? Also both your Vista & 7 are 64-bit right?
Pretty sure that would be a Phenom II.

Re: WU Listings For Project 6013 [Good & Bad]

Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:46 am
by Grandpa_01
P II is Phenom and all ar 64bit

Re: WU Listings For Project 6013 [Good & Bad]

Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 1:36 pm
by Bob8421
Adding fields to existing records in your tables:

GOOD WUs:
Run 0, Clone 19, Gen 260---Q6600 @ 2.4 GHz---4 GB @ 1066 MHz---WX3---2.19---0:07:24
Run 0, Clone 38, Gen 136---i7-920 @ 2.66 GHz---6GB @ 1333 MHz---WX3---2.19---0:04:44
Run 0, Clone 140, Gen 145---i7-920 @ 2.66 GHz---6GB @ 1333 MHz---WX3---2.19---0:04:39

BAD WUs:
Run 0, Clone 95, Gen 85---Q6600 @ 2.4 GHz---4 GB @ 1066 MHz---WX3---2.19---1:15:00
Run 0, Clone 171, Gen 60---Q6600 @ 2.4 GHz---4 GB @ 1066 MHz---WX3---2.19---1:15:00

Re: WU Listings For Project 6013 [Good & Bad]

Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 2:19 pm
by PantherX
Bob8421 wrote:4 good work units:
Project 6013 (Ran in May and my log file does not go back that far)
Project 6013 (Run 0, Clone 19, Gen 260) ran 12.33 hours (Q6600)
Project 6013 (Run 0, Clone 38, Gen 136) ran 7.90 hours (i7-920)
Project 6013 (Run 0, Clone 140, Gen 145) ran 7.75 hours (i7-920)

2 bad work units (run 10 times longer):
Project 6013 (Run 0, Clone 171, Gen 60)
Project 6013 (Run 0, Clone 95, Gen 85)
Do you remember the CPU Speed? Also what CPUs relieved the Bad WUs?

Grandpa_01 wrote:These were all good to my knoledge I haven't had a bad one. But if you look at the last one completed it only had 1000 attoms which is strange.
All were run on Vista or Windows 7 64bit
All had 4GB DDR 2 1066

Code: Select all

Project	Instance Name     Frame Time 	PPD    Download Date/Time    Completion Date/Time 	Credit	Frames	Atoms	Run/Clone/Gen	
6013	P II 940 3.6Ghz	0:05:35	5019.6	1/1/2010	9:31 PM	1/2/2010	6:45 AM	1946	100	146808	(0/10/86)	
6013	Q9650 4Ghz	0:04:50	5961.4	1/2/2010	3:37 PM	1/3/2010	12:20 AM	2001	100	146808	(0/21/30)	
6013	P II 940 3.6Ghz	0:05:14	5496.9	1/4/2010	9:30 AM	1/4/2010	6:15 PM	1998	100	146808	(0/0/154)	
6013	P II 940 3.6Ghz	0:05:11	5498.3	1/3/2010	3:24 PM	1/4/2010	12:19 AM	1979	100	146808	(0/12/76)	
6013	P II 940 3.6Ghz	0:08:17	2763.7	1/5/2010	7:51 PM	1/6/2010	9:41 AM	1590	100	146808	(0/26/11)	
6013	Q9650 4.2Ghz	0:04:08	7840.8	1/7/2010	6:31 PM	1/8/2010	1:25 AM	2251	100	146808	(0/1/154)	
6013	P II 940 3.6Ghz	0:05:45	4779	1/8/2010	5:06 AM	1/8/2010	2:42 PM	1908	100	146808	(0/15/70)	
6013	Q9650 4.2Ghz	0:04:02	8130	1/8/2010	1:27 AM	1/8/2010	8:11 AM	2277	100	146808	(0/20/33)	
6013	Q9650 4.2Ghz	0:04:04	8024.7	1/10/2010	9:16 AM	1/10/2010	4:04 PM	2266	100	146808	(0/23/28)	
6013	P II 940 3.6Ghz	0:05:10	4428.2	1/9/2010	6:25 PM	1/10/2010	8:16 AM	1589	100	146808	(0/4/161)	
6013	P II 940 3.6Ghz	0:05:45	4775.6	1/11/2010	6:29 AM	1/11/2010	4:05 PM	1907	100	146808	(0/20/37)	
6013	Q9650 4.2Ghz	0:04:02	8110.9	1/10/2010	10:54 PM	1/11/2010	5:40 AM	2272	100	146808	(0/28/8)	
6013	Q9650 4Ghz	0:04:50	6198.2	1/11/2010	4:34 PM	1/12/2010	12:39 AM	2080	100	146808	(0/10/108)	
6013	Q9650 4.2Ghz	0:04:04	8025.8	1/12/2010	9:14 AM	1/12/2010	4:02 PM	2267	100	146808	(0/22/38)	
6013	P II 940 3.6Ghz	0:08:05	2897.3	1/12/2010	10:22 AM	1/12/2010	11:35 PM	1626	100	146808	(0/26/19)	
6013	P II 940 3.6Ghz	0:07:20	2717.4	1/11/2010	4:06 PM	1/12/2010	10:21 AM	1384	100	146808	(0/30/5)	
6013	Win SMP 1	0:05:16	5447.7	1/12/2010	12:40 AM	1/12/2010	9:28 AM	1992	100	146808	(0/7/142)	
6013	Q9650 4Ghz	0:04:08	7839.9	1/12/2010	10:48 PM	1/13/2010	5:41 AM	2250	100	146808	(0/18/63)	
6013	P II 940 3.6Ghz	0:07:41	3093.2	1/12/2010	11:36 PM	1/13/2010	12:26 PM	1650	100	146808	(0/20/41)	
6013	P II 940 3.6Ghz	0:05:50	4674.2	1/13/2010	11:34 PM	1/14/2010	9:19 AM	1894	100	146808	(0/21/50)	
6013	Q9650 4Ghz	0:04:06	7916.4	1/14/2010	2:17 AM	1/14/2010	9:09 AM	2254	100	146808	(0/9/108)	
6013	P II 940 3.6Ghz	0:05:56	4556.8	1/14/2010	9:20 AM	1/14/2010	7:15 PM	1878	100	146808	(0/9/109)	
6013	P II 940 3.6Ghz	0:05:51	4656.6	1/15/2010	8:01 PM	1/16/2010	5:46 AM	1892	100	146808	(0/16/74)	
6013	P II 940 3.6Ghz	0:05:21	5324.7	1/17/2010	12:26 AM	1/17/2010	9:21 AM	1978	100	146808	(0/17/68)	
6013	P II 940 3.6Ghz	0:05:03	5597.5	1/16/2010	3:20 PM	1/17/2010	12:24 AM	1963	100	146808	(0/25/22)	
6013	Q9650 4.2Ghz	0:04:03	8073.7	1/17/2010	4:03 PM	1/17/2010	10:50 PM	2271	100	146808	(0/34/2)	
6013	Q9650 4.2Ghz	0:04:06	7931.5	1/19/2010	4:03 PM	1/19/2010	10:54 PM	2258	100	146808	(0/0/182)	
6013	i7 920 4.2Ghz	0:02:45	14413.6	1/30/2010	10:48 PM	1/31/2010	3:24 AM	2753	100	146808	(0/44/9)	
6013	i7 920 4.2Ghz	0:02:48	14020.9	1/31/2010	8:13 AM	1/31/2010	12:55 PM	2726	100	146808	(0/76/4)	
6013	Q9650 4.2Ghz	0:03:20	10824.1	2/8/2010	2:20 AM	2/8/2010	7:54 AM	2506	100	146808	(0/109/16)	
6013	Q9650 4.2Ghz	0:04:03	8068.9	2/10/2010	11:56 PM	2/11/2010	6:43 AM	2269	100	146808	(0/36/18)	
6013	Q9650 4Ghz	0:04:07	7882.3	2/21/2010	10:35 AM	2/21/2010	5:27 PM	2253	100	146808	(0/114/35)	
6013	Q9650 4Ghz	0:04:19	7335.4	2/22/2010	12:40 AM	2/22/2010	7:54 AM	2199	100	146808	(0/111/45)	
6013	Q9650 4.2Ghz	0:03:59	8223.3	2/27/2010	5:38 AM	2/27/2010	12:23 PM	2275	100	146808	(0/123/36)	
6013	Q9650 4Ghz	0:04:08	7832.2	2/27/2010	1:50 AM	2/27/2010	8:44 AM	2248	100	146808	(0/130/45)	
6013	Q9650 4Ghz	0:04:10	7735.5	3/5/2010	9:49 PM	3/6/2010	4:47 AM	2238	100	146808	(0/11/167)	
6013	P II 940 3.6Ghz	0:06:15	4214.9	3/14/2010	1:09 PM	3/14/2010	11:36 PM	1829	100	146808	(0/121/75)	
6013	Q9650 4.2Ghz	0:03:56	8439.4	3/14/2010	3:42 PM	3/14/2010	10:17 PM	2305	100	146808	(0/160/20)	
6013	P II 940 3.6Ghz	0:05:54	4597.1	3/14/2010	3:14 AM	3/14/2010	1:04 PM	1884	100	146808	(0/186/6)	
6013	Q9650 4Ghz	0:04:05	7983.6	3/17/2010	5:50 AM	3/17/2010	12:39 PM	2264	100	146808	(0/193/7)	
6013	Q9650 4.2Ghz	0:03:56	8439.4	3/29/2010	11:10 PM	3/30/2010	5:44 AM	2305	100	146808	(0/131/99)	
6013	Q9650 4Ghz	0:04:05	7983.3	4/9/2010	11:55 AM	4/9/2010	6:44 PM	2264	100	146808	(0/56/114)	
6013	Q9650 4Ghz	0:04:02	8121.4	4/13/2010	9:04 AM	4/13/2010	3:49 PM	2275	100	146808	(0/142/87)	
6013	Q9650 4Ghz	0:04:19	7345.3	4/13/2010	12:23 AM	4/13/2010	7:36 AM	2202	100	146808	(0/32/140)	
6013	Q9650 4Ghz	0:04:19	7339.3	4/16/2010	12:45 AM	4/16/2010	7:58 AM	2200	100	146808	(0/11/231)	
6013	Q9650 4Ghz	0:04:09	7777.6	4/18/2010	8:01 PM	4/19/2010	2:59 AM	2241	100	146808	(0/111/124)	
6013	Q9650 4.2Ghz	0:04:04	8029.9	5/21/2010	5:48 PM	5/22/2010	12:36 AM	2268	100	146808	(0/102/181)	
6013	Q9650 4Ghz	0:04:08	7825.1	5/23/2010	9:54 AM	5/23/2010	4:49 PM	2246	100	146808	(0/163/95)	
6013	Q9650 4Ghz	0:04:04	8023.5	6/9/2010	2:01 PM	6/9/2010	8:49 PM	2266	100	1000	(0/169/112)	
Have added it. I have also mentioned the 1000 Atom anomaly.
Zagen30 wrote:
PantherX wrote:@Grandpa_01: that's a lot of WUs :mrgreen: Before I add it to the list, I have to get some sleep to ensure 100% efficiency:wink: A quick scroll down your list I noticed a CPU "P II 940" I am not sure what exactly you mean by "P II"? Also both your Vista & 7 are 64-bit right?
Pretty sure that would be a Phenom II.
Thanks.
Grandpa_01 wrote:P II is Phenom and all ar 64bit
Thanks for confirming your details. However, I wanted to point something out in your data:
1) You stated "Q9650 4Ghz" and for consistency, I changed it to "Q9650 @ 4.0". Hope that is fine with you.
2) You stated "6013 Win SMP 1 0:05:16 5447.7 1/12/2010 12:40 AM 1/12/2010 9:28 AM 1992 100 146808 (0/7/142) " Do you remember the CPU type?

Re: WU Listings For Project 6013 [Good & Bad]

Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 2:26 pm
by PantherX
Bob8421 wrote:Adding fields to existing records in your tables:

GOOD WUs:
Run 0, Clone 19, Gen 260---Q6600 @ 2.4 GHz---4 GB @ 1066 MHz---WX3---2.19---0:07:24
Run 0, Clone 38, Gen 136---i7-920 @ 2.66 GHz---6GB @ 1333 MHz---WX3---2.19---0:04:44
Run 0, Clone 140, Gen 145---i7-920 @ 2.66 GHz---6GB @ 1333 MHz---WX3---2.19---0:04:39

BAD WUs:
Run 0, Clone 95, Gen 85---Q6600 @ 2.4 GHz---4 GB @ 1066 MHz---WX3---2.19---1:15:00
Run 0, Clone 171, Gen 60---Q6600 @ 2.4 GHz---4 GB @ 1066 MHz---WX3---2.19---1:15:00
Thaks for the formatting, made my work easier :mrgreen:

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.


Thanks