This is hands down the observed and documented record keeper. On the what if, the 0.8 with 0.04 time would have produced a 95 credit claim. Would have been a nice uplift for the guy in pink

No I am forever to be mono-lingual but I can't tell that Inglese is not your native tongue, although now I know it is not. My use of 'time out' with was jargon and should have read time it will finish in.

Based on the beta testing we are able to move a new version of the validator into production early.

These large mismatches are due to an error in one workunit causing it to exit early (as you all have surmised). The new validator can detect these and will treat them as invalid results.

We do not yet have a way to prevent them in the code, so as a result, we will award full credit to invalid results until we fix this issue.

This should resolve this unfortunate issue. The new version was put in place about an hour ago.

thank you for your contribution and patience

I have a suspicion that the CEP performance effect FAAH on the side, it seemed to do on my machine. 21 hours is not normal for something that claims 41 (?) credit perhours . Do you recollect 1 or more CEP running simultaneous on your Quad? Vista? What monster claims 41 per hours?

Okay, in that context and with the fortune of the servers tracking credit record, the 163 on a 1.5 ghz machine seems a fair credit... 8 per hour. Does that deviate much from other results of that machine?