![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Projects can sometimes take a long time to complete. Even then, Stanford might replace the 2665s with similar or even slower WUs worth less. We don't know. The best option right now if we want to keep our PPD up is to install different client types. That might require purchasing more hardware, but it will also mean a more stable production output. A diverse portfolio is probably the best way to go instead of the eggs in one basket approach.
Fah uses port 80 & 8080.
Port 80 tends to be the asignment server.
Port 8080 for uploading-downloading work.
I only notice the uploads when I play online games.
At which point I lag like hell ..........
But then 99.9% of my protiens are p2605 which are only 5 Meg upload size.
Luck ...........
I don't bother myself with online gaming, only single player games (if I have time, which is very very very rare anyway).
I am not getting dual 2665 on all my boxen.
I get a 3065 / 3062 ever so often but very rare.
I did catch a few stanford ppl saying that 2665 is scaling horrible on FahCore_a1.
It was really designed for FahCore_a2. That is why 2662 runs so much better.
They need to get that core out in the wild, instead of keeping it in the lab.
They need to get the FahCore_a2 outa' the damn lab and get it into the "wild and wooly" public arena so's we can break it. (only kidding about "damn" and break it parts, I know the lab people at Stanford are only doin' what's right ).
I agree
I gots to say, I hate the WU 2665 under FahCore_a1, but I've done about 5 of em' I'll do however more and , while the pernts are great, I'm more worried about the science.
Please release the FahCore_a2 when you think it's ready, just please hurry up.
Yes, the site has been down since last night. Don't know the problem but they have experienced issues a number of times in the past few months.
+1 for getting out the A2 core ASAP. After about 34 project 2665 WUs I'm ready for some more efficient crunching. Quads have been around for a while now and are only getting more numerous. We need a FAHcore that is going to scale to all 4 cores and beyond efficiently. It would be in Stanford's best interest to insure that the software we are using is as efficient as possible otherwise they are just wasting their resources.
Off topic- has anyone else noticed that the extremeoverclocking stats website has been down since last night? Are they doing some maintenance or is something else at work here?
You are 4th in production for our team....nobody is going to mow you over.... Just kidding. We all have a lot of boxen/space/electricity tied up with this project. (some much more than others) None of it should be wasted. Fold On!
). 
![[H]ugh_Freak](https://cdn.hardforum.com/data/avatars/m/65/65895.jpg?1580525148){kind=avatar}
I lost 2 @ 97% after a power outage on saturday.
I've done a grand total of .............
Wait for it .................
2 .....
I'm crunching p2605 99.9% of the time.
Of which I've done 2,245 at this time.
Thats almost 4,000,000 points worth.
Luck ...........
Did they EUE after you restarted them or their deadlines expire?
Did they EUE after you restarted them or their deadlines expire?
Are the rest of you guys (and gals) seeing issues with this run, or am I just riding the bad luck train these days?
The only issue with the 2665 I have seen which others reported as well is the inordinately long result upload time. There's a reason for this and it was mentioned at the FCF.I'm getting a *lot* of re-occuring EUE's with the 2665 series WU's, on bone stock machines, and an getting pretty tired of dealing with them, myself.
I'm getting a *lot* of re-occuring EUE's with the 2665 series WU's, on bone stock machines, and an getting pretty tired of dealing with them, myself.
Just picked up 2 more of them.
For me they fold ~400 PpD slower than p2605 on my VM's.
Luck ...........
262 of these puppies under my belt already... that kinda wows me! That is 10% of everything I have processed.... man these things came on hard and strong!
Now we just need the A2 core!
when I first read about how you had already done 262 of these bad boys (2665 WU series) my load was lightened. I haven't done that many of them, but up until I paid attention and gave the notfred CD a go (which someone on this forum mentioned) I only had like 3x boxen. (2x LinSMP and 1x WinSMP) and now I'm proud to say I've got 5x boxen foldin' 24/7. (one of my E6600's was an expensive paper weight, now it's back up and smokin' the WU's, now I have a E6420 crunchin' WU's 24/7 headless, diskless, mouseless and caseless)
Stop counting and just fold.
Check your stats once a month, it feels better that way
If these WUs keep taking too long on my system that they end up just starting over again... Then it's a huge loss for not just my points, but for Sandford as well Well.. not a HUGE loss, it's just one or two WUs.. but still. Over time it adds to a lot I'm sure 
what? so after a while they start over?
@echo off
:: variables
set drive=[COLOR=Red]D:\Folding@Home\BackupSMP1[/COLOR]
set hour=%time:~0,2%
if "%hour:~0,1%"==" " set hour=0%time:~1,1%
set folder=%date:~10,4%_%date:~4,2%_%date:~7,2%_%hour%_%time:~3, 2%
%backupcmd% "...source dir..." "%drive%\%folder%\...destination dir..."
set backupcmd=xcopy /s /c /d /e /h /i /r /k /y
echo ### Backing up directory...
%backupcmd% "[COLOR=Red]D:\Folding@Home\FoldSMP1[/COLOR]" "%drive%\%folder%"
:: variables
set drive=[COLOR=Red]D:\Folding@Home\BackupSMP2[/COLOR]
set hour=%time:~0,2%
if "%hour:~0,1%"==" " set hour=0%time:~1,1%
set folder=%date:~10,4%_%date:~4,2%_%date:~7,2%_%hour%_%time:~3, 2%
%backupcmd% "...source dir..." "%drive%\%folder%\...destination dir..."
set backupcmd=xcopy /s /c /d /e /h /i /r /k /y
echo ### Backing up directory...
%backupcmd% "[COLOR=Red]D:\Folding@Home\FoldSMP2[/COLOR]" "%drive%\%folder%"
echo You have done a Killer Backup of your folding files. Congrats!
@echo off
clsIt may have been a new WU but the same project. I guess you're receiving a lot of Early Unit Ends, then? Perhaps your system is OC a little high for the SMP client and this time of year. Maybe lowering the frequency a bit might help with stability. It could also be that your combination of hardware doesn't like this particular project, see bottom reply.
The 2665 WUs are very slow processing, especially if only two cores are working on it as it appears is the case with your dual client setup. That's why Stanford gave the 2665 a longer 6 day deadline instead of 3 or 4. Don't worry, 2 1/2 days isn't that long for a 2665. I have a system that takes nearly double that time.
Other people reported about 2665s crashing a lot, so you're not the only one. Evil Alchemist posted about his issues and is understandably very upset about it. For some reason I've had less problems with this WU than the 30xx project WUs, which were plaguing most of my systems with EUEs a while back regardless of system architecture or frequency. The 2665 takes a long time, but is stable and always completes on my systems... :shrug:
Thanks!OK, then keep everything as it is for now. You probably received a bad crop of WUs like I did a while back with the other projects. I knew my systems were stable because they were battle-tested for nearly a year, lol...
Anyone else notice a few 2665s creeping into their Linus VMs recently? I guess all the good WUs are used up and now no client is safe.
