Project 1487 (Run 0, Clone 86, Gen 24)

Moderators: Site Moderators, FAHC Science Team

Post Reply
tmoble
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 7:19 am
Location: Glendale, Az

Project 1487 (Run 0, Clone 86, Gen 24)

Post by tmoble »

Well, looks better than last time when it was eight hours for each percent, about 2.5 hours each this time. Take about 10 days on this AMD 3500. Anybody know what points will be awarded? Last time it tied up the machine for a month, gave 600 points. Not nice.

Is there some way to re-config the Linux client to exclude getting these WUs?
toTOW
Site Moderator
Posts: 6309
Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:38 am
Location: Bordeaux, France
Contact:

Re: Project 1487 (Run 0, Clone 86, Gen 24)

Post by toTOW »

I think there are two kind of 1487 :

- some are very, very slow (huge clone number)
- some are faster and fold in a reasonable time (small clone number)

I don't know what makes the differences in folding times nor which exact Clone wil fold faster ... :(
Image

Folding@Home beta tester since 2002. Folding Forum moderator since July 2008.
bruce
Posts: 20910
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:13 pm
Location: So. Cal.

Re: Project 1487 (Run 0, Clone 86, Gen 24)

Post by bruce »

tmoble wrote:Anybody know what points will be awarded? Last time it tied up the machine for a month, gave 600 points. Not nice.
1741 points, which should be a lot more reasonable.
In the future you can check the Project Summary page (see http://fah-web.stanford.edu/psummary.html or the link at the top of this page).
Is there some way to re-config the Linux client to exclude getting these WUs?
No, and Stanford still needs the science to be done.
tmoble
Posts: 58
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 7:19 am
Location: Glendale, Az

Re: Project 1487 (Run 0, Clone 86, Gen 24)

Post by tmoble »

Thanks for taking time to reply. 1700 for 10 days sounds better than 600 for 30 days.

Tom
efishy
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2007 7:47 am

Re: Project 1487 (Run 0, Clone 86, Gen 24)

Post by efishy »

toTOW wrote:I think there are two kind of 1487 :

- some are very, very slow (huge clone number)
- some are faster and fold in a reasonable time (small clone number)

Sorry, I have to say I do not agree with this statement. See other thread with all of the facts I have provided that do not agree with your statement.
Post Reply