Points not properly credited?

[AtzeFisch]

Hello F@H community,

i have started folding 3 days ago, and stuff works pretty well so far.
The only question i have is regarding the points that are getting credited.

I run both a GPU (Geforce GTX 1070) as well as two of my CPU cores.
But what i noticed is that after a job completes, it seems that only the points from my CPU get credited, not the ones of my GPU.



My GPU gets an estimated 70k-90k points per job, my CPU far less.
But even after the GPU job finished and the data got uploaded, it doesn't seem to add towards my profile credit.



Is there anything that i have to set up first to get these points credited to the same account?
Is there even a distinction between the resource from where the coins come from?
I would guess that by being logged in on the client, it would assign the points from all jobs universally to the same account, or am i wrong?

I also waited 1-2 days because at first i thought it might take some time before the points from the finished jobs show up on the profile, but they didn't

Would be cool if someone with more experience can explain it to me shortly. A "just wait" would be enough

Thanks

[Jesse_V]

Hi and welcome to the forum!

Questions related to Curecoin or other cryptocurrencies are best relayed on their specific forum. In general though, I can tell you that the stats system is pretty flooded right now from the huge number of new users, so it may take a little time for the information to show up. The stats system is usually updated in batches but F@h has reliable history of recording credits so they should show up in the end. If you put your username, team ID, and passkey into the client software, all the workunits completed there will all be credited under that same account. It just make take a little bit of time.

[Wakkaluba]

As far as I have learned are the points gathered through the entire computing process.
They dribble in and get added to your balance every few seconds. You can watch the increase.
The points are getting credited while computing, not when finished and uploaded like you may know it from seti@home or boinc

You have 1600 points credited for 2% of work on the CPU. So when adding it up to 100%, it is a value of ~80.000 points . Sounds reasonable to me
A screenshot of your stats after finishing these 2 WUs would be helpfull to see if the points are getting credited properly

[Jesse_V]

As far as I have learned are the points gathered through the entire computing process.
They dripple in and get added to your balance every few seconds. You can watch the increase.
The points are getting credited while computing, not when finished and uploaded like you may know it from seti@home or boinc

You have 1600 points credited for 2% of work on the CPU. So when adding it up to 100%, it is a value of ~80.000 points . Sounds reasonable to me
A screenshot of your stats after finishing these 2 WUs would be helpfull to see if the points are getting credited properly

The F@h servers award points when they receive a completed workunit. You'll see the exact credit number in the log when the software uploads a finished workunit. The value is determined by how quickly you return it, the credit value of that project (all projects are benchmarked) and whether you use a passkey for your account. The Points Per Day (PPD) that you see in the client software is an estimation; it looks at the workunit's credit value and it's ETA and estimates how many points the server will give you, thus determining the PPD. The points you see in the client software should roughly match what the server awards you so everything matches up. If you don't complete a workunit and never return it, or return it after the expiration deadline, the server won't give you any points for that effort.

[Wakkaluba]

Ah!
Thanks for clarifying.
I'm struggling too but on other topics. Probably mostly newbie mistakes

[AtzeFisch]

Hey,

thanks for the quick replies.
I just finished another WU of the GPU, the logs say it finished uploading the result, with Final credit estimate, 60421.00 points

Let's see if they get credited or not

[Yujah]

Last 3 or 4 WUs at my end did not get credited. Which, I'll admit, is starting to annoy me a bit, seeing as how it keeps my "Total WUs" at exactly 9; as such, my points for any jobs I do very low.

[Jesse_V]

It may take some time for the credits to show up on the stats pages. I'd give it 24 hours. You can also put in your username here: https://apps.foldingathome.org/cpu and see the last returned workunits, the awarded credit and whether or not you got bonus points with the passkey.

F@h has reliable history of accurately recording points. Part of the problem is that the servers, including the stat systems, are heavily loaded from all the new users, but I'm confident that the points will accurately show up in the end.

[Neil-B]

The Stats have been a bit lagged of late (due to load) but they do tend to catch up in fits/starts … Team most likely working on getting WUs assigned and results in and work on the stats service will follow … They do seem to catch everything though (unless specific issue with a server - even then they appear to back trace and find missing points).

If the WUs have been finishing cleanly (I usually see three lines one "Work Ack", one "Final credit estimate" and a last one "Cleaning up") then fairly sure you will see the points added at some point … Once past 10 WUs you will see the estimated points eventually not just base points (iirc).

As the processes catch up with the increased folding capacity the timeliness of stats updates should improve.

Sorry (duplicates above - in less detail) should have refreshed screen before posting)

[Yujah]

You can also put in your username here: https://apps.foldingathome.org/cpu and see the last returned workunits, the awarded credit and whether or not you got bonus points with the passkey.

Thanks for the link. According to it CPU (14523, 978, 5, 6) and GPU (11780,0,412,10) are the last returned WUs. Some quick rummaging through today's logs shows that leaves at least the following currently still MIA:

1. (13851, 0, 31505, 1)
2. (11749, 0, 545, 7)
3. (11747, 0, 7383, 9)

and I'd have to be severely mistaken if not some from yesterday were still missing as well (but I'll not log-dive deeper). Currently I'm processing

4. (13382, 0, 923, 1)
5. (11747, 0, 3996, 6)

and would by now feel it unexpected if those would register, stat-wise.

Yah, well, as said, never mind I guess; it'll probably work out. But for a new user it does feel a bit awkward.

[Neil-B]

If I understand it correctly the link shows the latest WU received for each slot and should be up to date (real time as such) … the statistics are generated (at the moment) in batch updates so it is possible for WUs to not show in your stats yet even if the link is showing your latest WU as you expect … If that makes sense.

I understand how it must feel as a new user but simply the Team have been blindsided but the massive influx of support (which is beyond even a fantasists wildest expectations - and then some) has simply meant that for hopefully a fairly short time things are a bit "iffy" … they are responding incredibly quickly (in infrastructure engineering terms) and scaling up as quickly as possible - and all the processes will catch up as quickly as they can make them - but yes, for the time being the folder experience is sub-optimal which the Team must be hating - it is not how things are normally.

In some ways it is a really nice problems for them to have - but in the current circumstances it must be really hard for them to keep scaling up when the challenge is scaling up just as quick.

In time (hopefully a surprisingly quick time) things will get better … but in the early days for a new folder every stat counts (been there - and still am tbh) so delays in them being posted a hard.

Caveat: Just a regular folder - any mistakes in post are simply me not understanding things correctly

[Yujah]

WUs 4 and 5 from the above have been completed and credited. Others (still) lost but oh well; stats have me at 11 WUs now, so that's fine...

[joancoja]

So I've got this machine that completed this job today:

Code: Select all

FINISHED_UNIT
01:58:43:WU00:FS00:FahCore returned: FINISHED_UNIT (100 = 0x64)
01:58:43:WU00:FS00:Sending unit results: id:00 state:SEND error:NO_ERROR project:13861 run:0 clone:4546 gen:6 core:0xa7 unit:0x000000080d5a98395e72548d0ba05eb0
01:58:43:WU00:FS00:Uploading 5.26MiB to 13.90.152.57
01:58:52:WU00:FS00:Upload complete
01:58:52:WU00:FS00:Server responded WORK_ACK (400)
01:58:52:WU00:FS00:Final credit estimate, 2241.00 points
01:58:52:WU00:FS00:Cleaning up
01:q

It's the first job sent with the user name in question, yet my stats in the group only show 243 points (like 10% of the points indicated in the log?)

Code: Select all

https://apps.foldingathome.org/teamstats/team236269.html

joancoja_16 243 1

Why would that be?

[AtzeFisch]

Here are my current stats, thanks @Jesse_V for the cpu link you gave earlier. This page lists even less for me somehow, do these numbers add up for you?
Either way, i guess we all just wait. But Neil-B is right, for new users it's a bit demotivating if your points don't get credited. It's like you play Pac Man and for every ghost you eat you get no highscore points

[Yujah]

It's the first job sent with the user name in question, yet my stats in the group only show 243 points (like 10% of the points indicated in the log?)

Yes, that's normal; you need to get to 10 WUs under some given (and verified, i.e., passkeyed) identity to in fact qualify for the so-called QRB, Quick Return Bonus, but the client does not check your total number of WUs before giving you that estimate in the logs; assumes that you qualify if you have a passkey set in the first place. Before that you get only to the so-called base-credit for any give WU. You can see both the base and estimated credits for a running job through Advanced Control -> Status -> <specific slot>.

Note; I should really say "... need to get 10 for the QRB eligible WUs" but I believe that at this point most/any WUs are eligible; more detail and including as to "why" at https://foldingathome.org/support/faq/points/

I'm one of the currently many beginning participants as well and to me, calling it "a bonus" seems somewhat besides the point (-s, pun intended) if said bonus is literally 10 times the base-credit; that's not "a bonus" but a completely different tier and that confused me a bit early on. Also, if as per this thread the system's not keeping up with the statistics it can actually make for a somewhat frustrating experience. I.e., I was stat-wise stuck on exactly 9 WUs for a long time while the F@H stats-infrastructure was scrambling.

Although I'm always really bad at coming up with ways in which people would "game the system" (which the 10 WU requirement is assumedly in place to protect against?) what I believe would at least in theory make for a nicer system is:

1. Have a base-credit that is basically the base-credit + full QRB of now.
2. Assign 10% of final credit (which is still base-credit minus time-penalty, same as currently) before the 10 Total WU marker but keep the other 90% reserved for the passkeyed user.
3a. Assign all the reserved credit at the 10 WUs marker.
3b. Or, actually, I'd in that case quickly suggest assigning 20% of the original final credit at 20 WUs, 30% at 30 WUs and so on (or whatever other percentage/total-wus scale of course)

As to 3b it would need to be capped at a level where new/individual users can also semi-easily get to, say, 100 WU = 100%, but it would seem to make for a more newbie-friendly yet otherwise basically same incentive system as now, or if indeed going with 3b, a basically same yet longer lasting one as now.

Clearly that calls for additional server-side statistics keeping and said servers are in a project like this supposedly fairly explicitly geared towards doing science rather than enabling semi-silly interweb-competitions. Hey. There's some form of it in place with the current QRB; would need someone with a clue about the current technical infra-structure of the stats-system to comment on it being a good, bad or lousy idea...