6098 (1, 21, 309) core:0xa3 [Not] Bad
Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 4:08 pm
I dumped this WU: PRCG 6098 (1, 21, 309) core:0xa3
Same thing, no progress, no ETA, no Estimated PPD, no Estimated TPF.
This smp:2 (the lowly AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4200+) is now happily munching on PRCG 6338 (45, 26, 4):
ETA: 13 hours 22 mins
Base Credit: 163.00
Estimated Credit: 499.69
Estimated PPD: 895.71
Estimated TPF: 8 mins 02 secs
Assigned: 2013-01-25T15:35:59Z
Timeout: 2013-01-28T15:35:59Z
Expiration: 2013-02-01T15:35:59Z
Could the P6098 WUs, which have a Base Credit of 1593.00, be too much for this lowly CPU? Task Manager showed the normal thing for FahCore_a3.exe, namely 99% to 100% CPU Usage. Perhaps the CPU was unable to deconstruct the WU into its two cores? This system, despite its lowly CPU, has been able to complete all other (non-P6098) WUs well within the Timeout value, and getting a bonus from the QRB. I had never seen a P6098 WU before, on any system, until these two showed up today. Could this possibly be an AS issue, that WUs are assigned to systems that cannot work on them?
EDIT:
Sorry, bollix47, I was entering this (I guess) while you were answering the other report. I will wait longer in the future on the P6098 WUs.
Same thing, no progress, no ETA, no Estimated PPD, no Estimated TPF.
This smp:2 (the lowly AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4200+) is now happily munching on PRCG 6338 (45, 26, 4):
ETA: 13 hours 22 mins
Base Credit: 163.00
Estimated Credit: 499.69
Estimated PPD: 895.71
Estimated TPF: 8 mins 02 secs
Assigned: 2013-01-25T15:35:59Z
Timeout: 2013-01-28T15:35:59Z
Expiration: 2013-02-01T15:35:59Z
Could the P6098 WUs, which have a Base Credit of 1593.00, be too much for this lowly CPU? Task Manager showed the normal thing for FahCore_a3.exe, namely 99% to 100% CPU Usage. Perhaps the CPU was unable to deconstruct the WU into its two cores? This system, despite its lowly CPU, has been able to complete all other (non-P6098) WUs well within the Timeout value, and getting a bonus from the QRB. I had never seen a P6098 WU before, on any system, until these two showed up today. Could this possibly be an AS issue, that WUs are assigned to systems that cannot work on them?
EDIT:
Sorry, bollix47, I was entering this (I guess) while you were answering the other report. I will wait longer in the future on the P6098 WUs.
