Folding Forum

Looking at my WU list, I can see that my 5700XT often has several failed WU in a row. Sometimes after a few minutes of run time. Sometimes after a couple hours. I can see from the WU details that it was then complete by a much faster GPU. It's understandable that the F@H system would try to get WU done as fast as possible. Is the 5700XT old enough now that there are few scraps left for it to nibble on?

Am I misinterpreting the WU details? Failing after a few minutes doesn't matter, but after a couple hours is a bit annoying. 6 failed in a row, wasting roughly ~6hrs of folding seems like an inefficient algorithm in the WU distribution.

Someone go buy a 5090 and donate their 'old' card to me.

Looking at the WU my GPu does complete, its funny to see that I'm always completing it after the same 2 other users failed. So there are apparently 2 people out there with slower GPUs than me.

It would help us full system details, including OS. And logs of failed instances is a must in order to get help

It would help us better guide for 8.4.9 client. Currently there is no explanation of Logged Credits on the Work Unit Details page.

I think he is talking about this situation:


All completed units has 2 people failed on that WU. Why?
Sometimes the unit he got fails without any reason and he is thinking that now he is one of that 2 guys and the reason of failure is that somebody cpmpleted it faster. What is the logic of that kind of distribution if it's true?

Failures are extremely rare without explanation. No need to be over dramatic. Logged credit was useful for people with number watching fetish, and useless for the rest of the userbase, since stat pages already exist which do much more thorough job in logging various stats

He is getting 6 in the row so maybe not so rare.
I've seen Core 23 and 26 units stuck at the end or at any percent sometimes. Core 22 never stuck on the same machine.
So something need to be fixed.

Something is being fixed.
Patience grasshopper

I'm not worried about it, I was just curious. The last 3 days have been good with no fails and 11 completed.

Funny that 'lootsmurf' and 've6jhc" are users in the screenshot above. Those are 2 of the 3 users that are frequently listed as failed in the logs for the WUs that I complete.

Is there a way to look at the logs for previous WU? The current active WU log is easy to see, but it doesn't seem to be available for previous WU.

vica153 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 5:35 pm Is there a way to look at the logs for previous WU? The current active WU log is easy to see, but it doesn't seem to be available for previous WU.

The client rotates the log daily as I recall for current v8 versions. It retains the last 99(?) logs in a folder named logs in the F@h client data directory. A date and timestamp is added to the name of the log file when it is moved there.

Even the v7 client retained older logs. By default it kept the previous 16 log files.

vica153 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2025 5:35 pm I'm not worried about it, I was just curious. The last 3 days have been good with no fails and 11 completed.

Funny that 'lootsmurf' and 've6jhc" are users in the screenshot above. Those are 2 of the 3 users that are frequently listed as failed in the logs for the WUs that I complete.

Is there a way to look at the logs for previous WU? The current active WU log is easy to see, but it doesn't seem to be available for previous WU.

Yes, click on the log icon of the computer (not the resource group) and type in the WU number you want to see, or even search any key words you want to look for. Logs are not cut by each WU, they are combined into one file for specific time stamp or file size.

Maybe there's something wrong with the FAHcore actually.With my GTX1080Ti,I am able to finish WUs much faster than before.However,before I got the 1080Ti a month ago,my graphics card was AMD Radeon R9 290x(GCN),which is absolutely older than 5700xt.But I rarely saw that the WU failed as long as I didn't overclock.And even if somenthing wrong occurred during the running time,I saw it restart from the latest checkpoint(I knew this when seeing the logs).I am used to the previous v7 client,so I didn't use v8.Maybe this could be a reason why old 290x haven't been cut off by faster GPUs.(My English maybe awful to you,and thank you for reading this embarrasing English)

Fahcores remained the same for vast majority of the time