[quote=AMDave;164070]thanks.
confirmed int(n*log(2)+log(k)+1) is not correct

I also used log10() and got the wrong answer. hmm. R&D in progress.[/quote]
The formula is correct when log() is understood to be the base 10 logarithm, not the natural (base e) logarithm and int() is the integer part. I'm not sure how to make sure it's using the base 10 logarithm.

yah I have it now
round(n*log10(2)+log10(k)+1)

log10() was right but when I did my unit testing after kar_bon pointed out my error, I substituted k & n with the numbers in his example BUT I transposed them giving me a really small number, hence it took me a bit longer to spot the transposition error.

All fixed and in production.

thanks for the work-out :)

New 'live' chart

Ranges as defined on kar_bon's 'NPLB > Drive' pages and colors per kar_bon's drive chart:
[url]http://www.rieselprime.de/NPLB/Graphs.htm[/url]

exception: I split the #9C and #9D ranges per the Drives pages.

Hope you enjoy.

[QUOTE=AMDave;164156]New 'live' chart

Ranges as defined on kar_bon's 'NPLB > Drive' pages and colors per kar_bon's drive chart:
[url]http://www.rieselprime.de/NPLB/Graphs.htm[/url]

exception: I split the #9C and #9D ranges per the Drives pages.

Hope you enjoy.[/QUOTE]

cool graph!!!

but: 9B is a little bit too dark. my colors are choosen without any deeper thought of that, perhaps we can change these colors and i can make a new graph with that!

BTW:
the number of digits isn't still correct: you have to substract 1!

BTW2:
seems not incorrect for all: false ones: 1957*2^473121-1 or 1731*2^473589-1!
correct: 1911*2^473158-1!!

[QUOTE=kar_bon;164164]cool graph!!!

but: 9B is a little bit too dark. my colors are choosen without any deeper thought of that, perhaps we can change these colors and i can make a new graph with that![/QUOTE]
thanks for the feedback.
I lightened the #9B color a couple of shades
[QUOTE=kar_bon;164164]
BTW:
the number of digits isn't still correct: you have to substract 1!

BTW2:
seems not incorrect for all: false ones: 1957*2^473121-1 or 1731*2^473589-1!
correct: 1911*2^473158-1!![/QUOTE]

BTW1 - I was incorrectly using ROUND() so c-library was rounding up and down. Moved to using FLOOR() which returns the largest integer that is not greater than the passed value.

BTW2 -
893*2^639440-1 was 192494 is now 192494
1957*2^473121-1 was 142428 is now 142427
1731*2^473589-1 was 142569 is now 142568
1911*2^473158-1 was 142439 is still 142439

Pls advise
We'll keep working on it until it is 'precfet' :D

ok, better!

i think it's correct now! test more the day.

[quote=AMDave;164156]New 'live' chart

Ranges as defined on kar_bon's 'NPLB > Drive' pages and colors per kar_bon's drive chart:
[URL]http://www.rieselprime.de/NPLB/Graphs.htm[/URL]

exception: I split the #9C and #9D ranges per the Drives pages.

Hope you enjoy.[/quote]
Very cool indeed! :big grin: One thing that would be kind of neat to have, though, is possibly the % done labeled on each drive. I believe all of those figures are already shown on Karsten's pages for the various drives, so it wouldn't be hard to obtain them. :smile:

Sure thing. I agree.
Give me several days though.
I like things to be data driven so I need to do some development for that.

[QUOTE=AMDave;164238]Sure thing. I agree.
Give me several days though.
I like things to be data driven so I need to do some development for that.[/QUOTE]

a possible workaround:

store the number of candidates (available from Gary or me) for a running drive anywhere (perhaps an extra entry in the server-stats) and count the submitted pairs to this server -> percentage is available easily!

issue to solve:
there're 4 primes in the database and the result-files that were done by Max for testing.
please delete them from both:

[b]results_20081118_0659_GB_nplb_4000.txt:[/b]
2008-11-17 22:51:36 16260063105*2^95682-1
2008-11-18 00:33:52 18446744073709551615*2^19763-1 -> in resultfile: 531131527270075522241760982081252274580435*2^19763-1
(note: the k's in the resultfile and the database are different! length of datafield not sufficient!?)

[b]results_20081119_0659_GB_nplb_4000.txt:[/b]
2008-11-18 11:27:41 10495740081*2^9725-1
2008-11-18 12:41:07 11694962547*2^83124-1

thanks

PS: my dream: some day all data are correct! :grin:

[quote=kar_bon;164249]a possible workaround:

store the number of candidates (available from Gary or me) for a running drive anywhere (perhaps an extra entry in the server-stats) and count the submitted pairs to this server -> percentage is available easily![/quote]
Well, what I more had in mind was the overall % complete for each drive (including both manual and LLRnet work)--the same number that you post on each drive's info page. Otherwise, none of the figures will ever reach 100% (except Drive #9) since most of our drives aren't run 100% through LLRnet.

[quote]issue to solve:
there're 4 primes in the database and the result-files that were done by Max for testing.
please delete them from both:

[B]results_20081118_0659_GB_nplb_4000.txt:[/B]
2008-11-17 22:51:36 16260063105*2^95682-1
2008-11-18 00:33:52 18446744073709551615*2^19763-1 -> in resultfile: 531131527270075522241760982081252274580435*2^19763-1
(note: the k's in the resultfile and the database are different! length of datafield not sufficient!?)

[B]results_20081119_0659_GB_nplb_4000.txt:[/B]
2008-11-18 11:27:41 10495740081*2^9725-1
2008-11-18 12:41:07 11694962547*2^83124-1

thanks

PS: my dream: some day all data are correct! :grin:[/quote]
Hmm...I could have sworn I'd deleted those from the results files. I guess not. :huh: Anyway, yes, those should be deleted from the database and results files, as Karsten said. Sometime later today I'll see about removing them from the copies of the results files stored on the [url]http://nplb-gb1.no-ip.org/llrnet/[/url] server. :smile:

they have now been erased from the posted files, backup files and the prod and test databases.

when I rebuilt the database I saw that the k field size was 20 digits I increased it to 30 and n was short so I increased that to 20.

Aside from that test record there are no other long k's or n's so I will keep the fields at 30 and 20 respectively until advised otherwise.