Running off-line with 5.4.9. Am attached to just a single BOINC project. Have a large "queue size".

While the client was crunching a 14-day-deadline WU, I connected to the server. The client requested some work and uploaded some results; two 7-day-deadline WUs were downloaded (including the files they depended upon). When one of the new WUs finished downloading (including its files) the client suspended the 14-day-deadline WU and started crunching the new 7-day-deadline WU. I have no problem with that. [Note: the WU it was now working on was shown last in the "tasks" panel in boincmgr.]

BUT when files finished downloading for the __other__ 7-day-deadline WU, the client SUSPENDED the 7-day-deadline WU it was now crunching, and started to crunch the other 7-day-deadline WU (the one whose files were last to finish downloading, but which was listed next-to-last in the "tasks" panel in boincmgr). That made TWO WUs now "suspended" for that project.

Since both newly downloaded WUs resulted from the same request for work, in my mind BOTH 7-day-deadline WUs ought to have had the __same__ expiration date. [To the accuracy shown by the boincmgr display field, both WUs indeed have the same expiration date/time!]

Let me suggest that it is INEFFICIENT to suspend one WU in order to initiate work on its TWIN. Before pre-empting an already started WU, the BOINC client ought to verify that the deadline for the WU it proposes to run instead is visibly __sooner__.
.