Contributions Not Registering in Standings Stats?
Posted: Sat May 25, 2013 7:00 am
I have been a contributor now for around 3 years, and have been steadily climbing in rank (and, of course, overall points) until about the last 10 days. Admittedly, that climb has been slowed the higher I climb--the steeper the slope becomes. The highest (lowest numerical) rank I've achieved was 7064, about 3 days ago. But that was after about having achieved 7067, only to fall for about 4 days to 7075, but then with the completion of one single job, I jumped "down" to 7064. From there the number has been climbing, and rank falling again for about 3 to 4 days again.
This state of affairs seems, to me, to mean that I'm either getting regularly passed by people, or my contributions are being completed, sent in, but not registered in the ranking, point and work unit system. Perhaps my two computers are being given jobs in a series of jobs that don't register until the whole series is completed. I don't know. I just know I'm getting some very large jobs, usually, on both computers, that run 24/7, and those large jobs always yield the lowest PPD rates that my CPUs can crank out. It makes sense that lower CPU rates will result in jobs taking longer; but the proportional differences in time between spent on a job are in no way indicative of the change in PPD rate.
For instance, my desktop might get a 3 hour job, and run at a rate of somewhere between 22.5k and 25k PPD. My laptop would run at a slower PPD rate, because it clocked slower. But if I get a 22 hour job, it's not because my PPD has fallen by a factor of 7.33. It will be more like 16-17k PPD. My PPD rates have been commensurate with past job sizes, going up with smaller jobs and down with larger ones, as usual.
I suppose I could answer this question for myself. To do that I'd have to start looking at the overall points and work units once each day, since it seems rank ought to be based on these. Of course, if I wanted to be really sure, I'd have to track each job, and check when it finishes, or in the next hour AFTER it finishes, for both computers. I know it seems petty to take pride in doing more than others have, since this is, in essence charity--my cpu's didn't come to me free, nor does the electricity they burn. The sense of accomplishing something is the only immediate satisfaction I get out of running FAH, at all.
Of course there's the long range benefit I believe will come to all. And, I must confess, that sense of pride helps me not to think about the fact that FAH (I have the newest version that no longer limits itself to a maximum of 25% of the cpu's capabilities) is costing me money in electricity and maybe in having to replace my computers sooner.
Any thoughts about this, pointers, or ways to find out what's up would be appreciated. I don't really want to have to monitor this stuff, myself, to be sure everything is functioning as it ought to and has in the past. Maybe some gang of people with really awesome computers joined and is passing me up now. If so, good for them. But, I know how steep this slope is now, and that seems unlikely. I'm not running ancient hardware or software: 2 I7's, one with 12GB memory, clocked at 3200GH, and the other with 16GB memory, clocked at 2300GH. The fact that I don't have to monitor it for it to work is one of the things I've always liked about FAH. AND, I liked watching rank rise, points and WU are what I thought drove that rise in rank.
RABishop
This state of affairs seems, to me, to mean that I'm either getting regularly passed by people, or my contributions are being completed, sent in, but not registered in the ranking, point and work unit system. Perhaps my two computers are being given jobs in a series of jobs that don't register until the whole series is completed. I don't know. I just know I'm getting some very large jobs, usually, on both computers, that run 24/7, and those large jobs always yield the lowest PPD rates that my CPUs can crank out. It makes sense that lower CPU rates will result in jobs taking longer; but the proportional differences in time between spent on a job are in no way indicative of the change in PPD rate.
For instance, my desktop might get a 3 hour job, and run at a rate of somewhere between 22.5k and 25k PPD. My laptop would run at a slower PPD rate, because it clocked slower. But if I get a 22 hour job, it's not because my PPD has fallen by a factor of 7.33. It will be more like 16-17k PPD. My PPD rates have been commensurate with past job sizes, going up with smaller jobs and down with larger ones, as usual.
I suppose I could answer this question for myself. To do that I'd have to start looking at the overall points and work units once each day, since it seems rank ought to be based on these. Of course, if I wanted to be really sure, I'd have to track each job, and check when it finishes, or in the next hour AFTER it finishes, for both computers. I know it seems petty to take pride in doing more than others have, since this is, in essence charity--my cpu's didn't come to me free, nor does the electricity they burn. The sense of accomplishing something is the only immediate satisfaction I get out of running FAH, at all.
Of course there's the long range benefit I believe will come to all. And, I must confess, that sense of pride helps me not to think about the fact that FAH (I have the newest version that no longer limits itself to a maximum of 25% of the cpu's capabilities) is costing me money in electricity and maybe in having to replace my computers sooner.
Any thoughts about this, pointers, or ways to find out what's up would be appreciated. I don't really want to have to monitor this stuff, myself, to be sure everything is functioning as it ought to and has in the past. Maybe some gang of people with really awesome computers joined and is passing me up now. If so, good for them. But, I know how steep this slope is now, and that seems unlikely. I'm not running ancient hardware or software: 2 I7's, one with 12GB memory, clocked at 3200GH, and the other with 16GB memory, clocked at 2300GH. The fact that I don't have to monitor it for it to work is one of the things I've always liked about FAH. AND, I liked watching rank rise, points and WU are what I thought drove that rise in rank.
RABishop