P2631?

C

capreppy

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - April 2009
Joined
Jul 4, 2007
Messages
3,410
I just picked this up on my Q6600 @ 3.2

I've not seen this one before, but HFM.net has it at base of 462 points, but total credit of 73,106 POINTS!!! This is obviously even bigger than the Big Adv WUs considering it is running on a C2Q. I'm not entirely sure where it is getting the credit number from as it doesn't really have a baseline to go with.

I literally just picked it up, so don't have any PpD numbers, but it is running A3 core 2.19.

edit: According to FAH-Addict, this was just released today.
yet another edit: looks like it was a false alarm :( FHM.net now has it at 2580 credit for a PpD of ~6500 which is on par with the normal PpD of my Q6600 @ 3.2


 
LOL I wish.
I'm running a 2630 right now. Only getting 5500'ish ppd, the 2 gpu clients take a good chunk to run.
 
I'll trade you my 6701s and 6702s for your 2631. Considering I usually don't pull much over 5-5.5k PPD on those with [email protected] I'd probably kill for some other work units on a regular basis.

 
Holy crap.. these things are 114MB upload!!..Damn, If I wanted to have an upload of that size I'd be doing bigadv. It takes me an hour or more to upload. This BS is nuts. Looks like I'll be deleting these when I get them.
 
Yeah, that was a HUGE upload. On a good note, my Q6600 did complete in a very timely fashion and was rock solid stable for a new WU
 
yea I like these WUs. I have decent upload speeds....1mbps iirc.....and my 3ghz q6600 gets 5,500 ppd on them, which is a nice improvement compared to the other crap WUs I've been getting, which result in less than 5k ppd
 
jebo_4jc said:
yea I like these WUs. I have decent upload speeds....1mbps iirc.....and my 3ghz q6600 gets 5,500 ppd on them, which is a nice improvement compared to the other crap WUs I've been getting, which result in less than 5k ppd
Click to expand...
It's nice to see something that will give decent results on older quads. I didn't notice the upload time, I'll have to look at my logs.
 
I didn't notice the size either...I'll take the increased upload size and the corresponding ppd for them over the 6701 and 6702.

Of course one of my machines that just uploaded a 2630, received a 6702 to work on.
 
Hmm, I haven't received a P2631 yet but why would Stanford assign a 26xx designation to a regular A3 WU? In the past 26xx was used for A1 WUs and more recently, -bigadv WUs. :confused:

Stanford should really consider reevaluating WUs based beyond some arbitrary criteria, and look to additional measurements like size of the WU. That's a big upload posted about here if it's even larger than a -bigadv. I would expect some compensation for the tie down, or at least limit these WUs for those people who have configured their clients to accept 'big' WUs. That what the client config is for.
 
These may be limited to "big" WUs. I know all my SMP2 clients are configured as such.
 
nimbyfaygo said:
It's nice to see something that will give decent results on older quads. I didn't notice the upload time, I'll have to look at my logs.
Click to expand...
Every other project but 6701 and 6702 give the same PPD results as 2631 on my 2 Q6600s. All those are between 3.5MB and 20MB uploads. 2631 is 5 times larger then those and almost 3 times larger then the 43MB 6701 and 6702.

APOLLO said:
Hmm, I haven't received a P2631 yet but why would Stanford assign a 26xx designation to a regular A3 WU? In the past 26xx was used for A1 WUs and more recently, -bigadv WUs. :confused:

Stanford should really consider reevaluating WUs based beyond some arbitrary criteria, and look to additional measurements like size of the WU. That's a big upload posted about here if it's even larger than a -bigadv. I would expect some compensation for the tie down, or at least limit these WUs for those people who have configured their clients to accept 'big' WUs. That what the client config is for.
Click to expand...

jebo_4jc said:
These may be limited to "big" WUs. I know all my SMP2 clients are configured as such.
Click to expand...

Big is an understatement. At a 384kbps upload (sorry I live in the sticks) it takes an hour or longer to upload these things, decreasing the bonus points even more. It would be nice if they restricted thsese WUs to only those clients configured as "big" but mine are all either set as normal or small to try to avoid gigantic uploads. My guess is that setting doesn't do anything, but would make sense if it did. Then again, making sense is something rarely seen out of Stanford :(


 
APOLLO said:
Hmm, I haven't received a P2631 yet but why would Stanford assign a 26xx designation to a regular A3 WU? In the past 26xx was used for A1 WUs and more recently, -bigadv WUs. :confused:

Stanford should really consider reevaluating WUs based beyond some arbitrary criteria, and look to additional measurements like size of the WU. That's a big upload posted about here if it's even larger than a -bigadv. I would expect some compensation for the tie down, or at least limit these WUs for those people who have configured their clients to accept 'big' WUs. That what the client config is for.
Click to expand...


i think the numbers are based on what person/professor/scientist makes the WU's.. at least thats what ive noticed lately..
 
[H]ugh_Freak;1035926678 said:
Every other project but 6701 and 6702 give the same PPD results as 2631 on my 2 Q6600s. All those are between 3.5MB and 20MB uploads. 2631 is 5 times larger then those and almost 3 times larger then the 43MB 6701 and 6702.





Big is an understatement. At a 384kbps upload (sorry I live in the sticks) it takes an hour or longer to upload these things, decreasing the bonus points even more. It would be nice if they restricted thsese WUs to only those clients configured as "big" but mine are all either set as normal or small to try to avoid gigantic uploads. My guess is that setting doesn't do anything, but would make sense if it did. Then again, making sense is something rarely seen out of Stanford :(


Click to expand...

If you have a concern, you should definately consider posting over on the Stanford folding forums as they won't know unless people make their concerns known. This is an issue for a lot of people as well. I live in the city and am still limited to a crappy 384kbps upload speed, so needless to say i'm glad that i'm only uploading these 100mb bigadv workunits once every 3.7 days or so.
 
[H]ugh_Freak;1035926678 said:
Every other project but 6701 and 6702 give the same PPD results as 2631 on my 2 Q6600s. All those are between 3.5MB and 20MB uploads. 2631 is 5 times larger then those and almost 3 times larger then the 43MB 6701 and 6702.
Click to expand...
I should have specified, I was comparing to the 6701 which takes drastically more time to complete.

I checked the log and the 2630 is 114mb! That's huge.
I have an (advertised) 2mb upload speed, it took 14min to upload. Those times don't bother me, but if it took over an hour, I'd be getting mad

Actually with it searching for the server, it came out to be a lot longer

[19:52:58] + Attempting to send results [July 9 19:52:58 UTC]
[19:52:58] - Reading file work/wuresults_05.dat from core
[19:52:58] (Read 114763317 bytes from disk)
[19:52:58] Connecting to http://171.67.108.24:8080/
[20:20:21] - Couldn't send HTTP request to server
[20:20:21] + Could not connect to Work Server (results)
[20:20:21] (171.67.108.24:8080)
[20:20:21] + Retrying using alternative port
[20:20:21] Connecting to http://171.67.108.24:80/
[20:34:46] Posted data.
[20:34:47] Initial: 0000; + Results successfully sent
[20:34:49] Thank you for your contribution to Folding@Home.
 
APOLLO said:
Hmm, I haven't received a P2631 yet but why would Stanford assign a 26xx designation to a regular A3 WU? In the past 26xx was used for A1 WUs and more recently, -bigadv WUs. :confused:
Click to expand...
All A2 and most A1 units are 26xx.
 
nimbyfaygo said:
I should have specified, I was comparing to the 6701 which takes drastically more time to complete.

I checked the log and the 2630 is 114mb! That's huge.
I have an (advertised) 2mb upload speed, it took 14min to upload. Those times don't bother me, but if it took over an hour, I'd be getting mad

Actually with it searching for the server, it came out to be a lot longer

[19:52:58] + Attempting to send results [July 9 19:52:58 UTC]
[19:52:58] - Reading file work/wuresults_05.dat from core
[19:52:58] (Read 114763317 bytes from disk)
[19:52:58] Connecting to http://171.67.108.24:8080/
[20:20:21] - Couldn't send HTTP request to server
[20:20:21] + Could not connect to Work Server (results)
[20:20:21] (171.67.108.24:8080)
[20:20:21] + Retrying using alternative port
[20:20:21] Connecting to http://171.67.108.24:80/
[20:34:46] Posted data.
[20:34:47] Initial: 0000; + Results successfully sent
[20:34:49] Thank you for your contribution to Folding@Home.
Click to expand...


cant wait til i get my own place on monday.. ill run these things all day long on my 30/5mbit connection.. should of moved there 4 days ago.. poor computers been sitting idle or off for the last 3 1/2 weeks..
 
Further update - these projects have been switched off for now unless you are a beta tester. Speaking of which where's EA been recently - he seems to have completely disappeared
 
Nathan_P said:
There have been some updates, Vijay himself has apologised and has asked the project creator to either fix it or put it into -bigadv
Click to expand...
Don't know what's up with Stanford the past 2 months. Unstable WUs, low credit but long running WUs, and now these 'miscast' P263x WUs...
 
Well I only got one of these and that was it. Since they've been turned off, I guess I won't be getting any more. None of my other Quad Cores got them though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top