Folding Forum

That's my first WU.

By the way, thanks.

bruce wrote:You've done an amazing number of changes to the settings. I don't recommend that, but it's not necessarily the cause of your problem. Fah works best if you start it and just let it run.

Also, I see that you paused and then shut down -- twice. That has been known to cause problems with other cores, though it might not with ProtoMol. The purpose of the Pause function is to temporarily suspend FAH while you do something else. You're expected to resume work. If your intention is to shut down, you should either not pause at all or Resume before shutting down.

+++A bunncchh to Bruce's advice. For ME and my systems the 'Bonus WU's' (SMP2 or EL WUs under VMWare) are very very (repeat as neccessary) sensitive to 'system changes' . I never change any system settings until the WU's finish (or not).

I've been checking with the experts at FAH. I can't promise anything, but I'm developing a theory about why the status information about your WU failed to appear in our Moderator DB. If everything comes together, maybe they will identify and fix a bug in the ways the servers coordinate with each other.

How and why the server found a problem with your unit is a separate issue entirely, but if that coordination data can be found, I'll be able to tell you more about what happened to your WU. We can face that issue only if we get that far.

shdbcamping: A very nice example of advice, thank you

bruce: Does this problem can arise from incorrect username & passkey combination?

wan.ardiles wrote:shdbcamping: A very nice example of advice, thank you

bruce: Does this problem can arise from incorrect username & passkey combination?

I have no tools to monitor passkey usage. I'm not sure what you mean by an incorrect combinations of UserName and Passkey, but if it is a problem, it would be a different problem than the one I'm working on.

Every WU that I've completed has either used my passkey or used no passkey at all. I have used my passkey with more than one UserName. I did not get a server message saying the server had a problem with the unit. Bonus qualification for each UserName/passkey is independent of any other UserName/passkey combination, but the WU should have received at least the base points and should appear in the database.

I don't know what happens if you misspelled your passkey and used some combination of digits that does not exist in Stanford's list of passkeys.

Your username is:
Wan_Ardiles
**Note that your username was modified because it contained troublesome characters.

In case this may help. My 1st WU submitted without any passkey (as for that time, I'm still new), so no problem arise. But as my 2nd WU progressing (not finish yet), only by that time I configure & use passkey. That error (refer qoute) happens as I'm using my e-mail address as username, which is from what I've read in FAQs, it should be no problem since the server can simply ignore the"@myemailcompany.com" part.

By the time the passkey created, I simply ignored the instructions from the e-mail, suggesting that I should use Wan_Ardiles, instead I used wan.ardiles until now.

While 4th WU in progress, I realized that mistake. So I created (re-register) new passkey and applied it to all my machines. That passkey corresponded with my current username. My 4th, 5th & 6th WUs works fine, get credited (as I can see from my team stat page). 3rd WU still running, doesn't finish yet.

Any probability from that?

wan.ardiles: Sorry you had this problem. I'm one of the developers at F@H. I looked in to this fairly thoroughly. There are no records of the work unit being return to either the work server or the collection server. I believe that this means there was a combination of network communication errors and a client software failure. The client software passed the work unit even though communication with the collection server failed.

We are working on improving the software and particularly on better guaranteeing credits. I am working on both the new work server and a new client which will hopefully help with these issues. In the meantime we ask that you please be patient with us.

If this happens again please file a report. Unfortunately, due to our limited resources, we cannot always provide a satisfactory solution but we do take these things seriously.

Thanks for the report.

If it is a bug, then I'm more than glad to help.

Thanks for your attention.

It's not a bug. It's the way the current Passkey works from my experience. I fold on one passkey, however, on a couple Teams ans well as under many 'user names'. Most still come back to my 'total if all points combined' at F@H stats. A new Passkey should not have been neccessary, IMO. Pande has a bit of tweaking to do with the "Passkey" thing, but it works decently for my needs ATM.

Sean

wan.ardiles wrote:

Your username is:
Wan_Ardiles
**Note that your username was modified because it contained troublesome characters.

In case this may help. My 1st WU submitted without any passkey (as for that time, I'm still new), so no problem arise. But as my 2nd WU progressing (not finish yet), only by that time I configure & use passkey. That error (refer qoute) happens as I'm using my e-mail address as username, which is from what I've read in FAQs, it should be no problem since the server can simply ignore the"@myemailcompany.com" part.

By the time the passkey created, I simply ignored the instructions from the e-mail, suggesting that I should use Wan_Ardiles, instead I used wan.ardiles until now.

While 4th WU in progress, I realized that mistake. So I created (re-register) new passkey and applied it to all my machines. That passkey corresponded with my current username. My 4th, 5th & 6th WUs works fine, get credited (as I can see from my team stat page). 3rd WU still running, doesn't finish yet.

Any probability from that?

Can you explain more clearly?

When the passkey system was introduced, I suspect that most people thought in terms of one passkey combined with one UserName. Now everybody is trying out other combinations to see what works and what doesn't work.

Experimentally we have been able to tell that if a person uses multiple UserNames or Multiple Passkeys, that each combination needs to be qualified separately. I don't remember reading this anywhere.

Suppose that Passkey1/User1 has more than 10 WUs at more than 80%. He would get bonuses.
Now suppose he decides to run as User2 with Passkey1. He would start with 0 WUs and need to be qualified separately.

Also we can suppose that for some unknown reason he requests Passkey2. The combination of Passkey2/User1 would also start with 0 WUs and need to be qualified separately.

As near as I have been able to determine, TeamNumber has nothing to do with bonus qualifications.

The totals in the stats are a different matter. There's a total for User1/Team1, a separate total for User1/Team2 and a grand total for User1 on all teams. That part has not changed with the advent of passkeys.

There is a new aspect to Stanford's database query, though. In addition to asking for the points for User1, you can ask for the totals for User1/Passkey1 and compare it to User1/Passkey2. I think you can also search for Passkey1 which would give you the totals for Passkey1/User1 and Passkey1/User2.

Wow! Never thought such a long explaination from you. Thanks bruce.