• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Points not being added?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

inkfx

Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Location
San Antonio, Texas
I've been running dual folding clients on my 3.0E for the past few nights now and partially during the day but my score on the stanford site doesn't seem to be increasing. It also says my active processors within 7 days is 0. I added my username and team number to the client.cfg so the points should be going to me. Are some of the work units really this long? Even with my old A64 rig my points added up at least every day.

http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=userpage&username=inkfx
 
Yeah, some of these work units take a very long time to process, especially when running 2 clients on a P4 HT machine. If you drew some of the p212x wu's, they take 3-5 days when folding 24/7 and just 1 of these running per core. Nowadays, I recommend to not run 2 clients on HT-enabled machines as some of the wu's are so long and you don't see that much gain in points production with 2 clients running and HT enabled.
 
You won't get any points recorded until a wu gets finsished and returned to stanford, and the stats server gets updated. EOC updates are every 3 hours so you can add another 3-4 hours before it will get reflected there.

If you are running as a service, and don't have a monitoring program like emIII or fahmon setup, you can check your progress by looking in the folding instance's directories at the fahlog.txt or unitinfo.txt files to see how they are doing.

And :welcome: to the t32 Fold :)
 
The WU just may be one of our famously slow one's, but I would double check your client.cfg file. If you make an error while you're editing it, the client will write out a new one with default values of "Anonymous" for name, and "0" for team.

Worth a check, just in case.

Adak
 
muddocktor said:
Yeah, some of these work units take a very long time to process, especially when running 2 clients on a P4 HT machine. If you drew some of the p212x wu's, they take 3-5 days when folding 24/7 and just 1 of these running per core. Nowadays, I recommend to not run 2 clients on HT-enabled machines as some of the wu's are so long and you don't see that much gain in points production with 2 clients running and HT enabled.
Right now I've got a 2125 and a 2905 so I'm guessing that's why it's taking so long. Is it bad if I continue to run 2 instances? Will I not get as many points if I were running 1 instead? I can't wait to get back on my E6400. sigh.
 
You may get as much as 25% more points overall running 2 instances ... but when you do that each wu is slower to complete.

Some wu's contend with each other more than others, so the best case is 25% more, and the worst case can actually be a reduction in points.

Not sure how many wu's there are atm the would yield a net reduction in points - last years qmd's would do it, 1498 and other 149x's might do it.

The 2 you have now probably net you more ppd folding 2 at a time, but as you are experiencing, you have to wait longer to see the results.
 
pscout said:
You may get as much as 25% more points overall running 2 instances ... but when you do that each wu is slower to complete.

Some wu's contend with each other more than others, so the best case is 25% more, and the worst case can actually be a reduction in points.

Not sure how many wu's there are atm the would yield a net reduction in points - last years qmd's would do it, 1498 and other 149x's might do it.

The 2 you have now probably net you more ppd folding 2 at a time, but as you are experiencing, you have to wait longer to see the results.
Okay, great. That's just the answer I was looking for. I suppose whenever I get a 1498 or any other 149x's I'll only run one insance. Maybe if Sapphire didn't have such a bad RMA service I would already be on my Conroe. :mad:
 
The 149x's all thrive on as much cache as they can get ... 1MB in your 3.0E, smithfield's (8X0D) which has 1 MB per core.
the presslers 2MB/core, allandale's 2MB shared by 2 cores, and the conroes and quads 4mb/shared by 2 cores.

Allandales work best with only 1 149x running since 2 will contend with each other for the cache. The 6600's and up only take a small hit running 2 of them at the same time.

No hit on the smithfield & presslers since each core has its own cache.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for that info. I wish I could get that E6600 in my sig folding. It's my dads and he thinks the fact the system runs at 100% 24/7 is going to make it explode. :rolleyes: But I think I'll slowly talk him into it. :)
 
Back