Folding Forum

On occasion, after the client uploads a completed WU, the server responds with a "PLEASE WAIT" and the client keeps trying again at intervals until it succeeds.

I'm not bothered by the reason for this (servers get busy and it usually only needs a couple of attempts) but a recent WU was delayed by something like half an hour, and as the actual processing period for that WU was only a couple of hours I think the allocated credit may have suffered in consequence.

I can see the reasoning behind this if I'm right- the results are of no use to the project until they're actually in the system, even if any delay isn't the donor's fault. So this isn't really a complaint, just a request for clarification as to whether the points are calculated on the basis of time elapsed until the WU is completed by the client (ie the first upload attempt) or until finally accepted by the server?

The calculation of the QRB Time is like this:
Start Time -> When the Server successfully assigned it to you
End Time -> When the Server successfully receives the completed WU from you

This time duration calculation means that any delays in the upload of the completed WU will cause you loss of points. Generally, there shouldn't be such a delay from the server side but it can happen on occasion. If you want, please post the PRCG of the WU so we can do a look-up and see how much points were actually awarded to you.

PantherX wrote:The calculation of the QRB Time is like this:
Start Time -> When the Server successfully assigned it to you
End Time -> When the Server successfully receives the completed WU from you

This time duration calculation means that any delays in the upload of the completed WU will cause you loss of points. Generally, there shouldn't be such a delay from the server side but it can happen on occasion. If you want, please post the PRCG of the WU so we can do a look-up and see how much points were actually awarded to you.

I'd had a look at the allocated points, that's what raised my suspicions- they were a bit lower than I'd anticipated (1723 vs about 1800). Not enough to get worked up about, but enough to prompt the question.

I'm quite happy with the clarification, thanks.