Folding Forum

p2652 r0 c217 g23, EUEed 3 times in a row at 35% at 15:49:16, 21:37:19 (UTC dec.26) and 03:27:27 all for zero points.

Why serve the same WU if it EUE's ?
Why serve it a third time if it EUEed 2 times at the same place ?
This seems illogical to me and a double waste of resources.
If I was impolite, which I am not, I would think...

I'm running a stock Q6600, no overclocking, no fancy stuff.

Mactin wrote:Why serve the same WU if it EUE's ?
Why serve it a third time if it EUEed 2 times at the same place ?
This seems illogical to me and a double waste of resources.

...because the WU might have failed due to an error during downloading and trying the download again makes sense ... or it did when the client was first designed and we all used modems over very noisy lines.

It all depends on what the software designer assumed would be the most troublesome part of FAH.

Respectfully, I dont accept your answer.
Modems have not been used for ages.
If your answer is wrigh, that part of infrastructure should have been modernized ages ago, to avoid waste by donators.
Respect of donators time and resources (and ultimaely money) should be the project's number one priority, if not they will get anoined and stop folding.

This will be my last complaint, sinse I'm going on vacation for 24 day somewhere where there is nice sunshine. Yes, my Q6600 will be left ON and will fold 24/7. Hopefully for the whole time.

Salut

Mactin wrote:Respectfully, I dont accept your answer.

I don't accept my answer either, but it's still probably true. Do you have a better explanation?

Complaining that he Pande Group "should have" done something different than they have actually done doesn't make it happen. If the current version is less than optimum but still gives accurate results that's a lot more important than if the current client only retried EUEs once but returned inaccurate scientific results. They decide which change has which priority, not you or me.

Mactin wrote:p2652 r0 c217 g23, EUEed 3 times in a row at 35% at 15:49:16, 21:37:19 (UTC dec.26) and 03:27:27 all for zero points.

This does seem to be a problem WU. Several people are listed in the WU database as having partially completing it and received partial points for their effort. I suspect they had to run qfix to upload the results to get partial credit. If you look in the work folder you'll probably see several wuresults_0x.dat files. Using qfix should get you credit for at least one of them if they're duplicates.

In the future if you see a WU EUE and find a wuresults_0x.dat file that didn't upload you can stop the client and run qfix which will upload the result preventing you from receiving the same WU again.