505K-506K is complete. No primes.
Reserving 506K-507K.

506K-507K is complete. No primes.
Reserving 507K-508K.

502k-503k done, no prime, results sent

(rieselprime.de updated)

I'm missing a few results from this drive:

Gamer: n=492K-493K

Karsten: n=464K-465K, 481K-482K, 495K-496K

Can you guys check and see if you still have those results available and post them here?

Karsten, I'm pretty sure I got everything pulled off of my Email. ([b]kar_bon: sent![/b])


Thanks,
Gary

Dang. That's a long way back.... I deleted them...

I'm almost done my current range, I'd give it <= 1 day. If you like, I can get the files off you and recrunch them.

[quote=gamer007;211816]Dang. That's a long way back.... I deleted them...

I'm almost done my current range, I'd give it <= 1 day. If you like, I can get the files off you and recrunch them.[/quote]

Naw, don't worry about it. What's strange is if you go back to the original post where you completed it, it was edited as though you attempted to attach the file but weren't successful.

Right now, we're loading all of our manual results into our stats database. Eventually I think we'll probably load all of the results from this drive in there if we haven't done so already.

Max, did you (we) decide whether we wanted to load the manual results from this drive into the DB?


Gary

[quote=gd_barnes;211817]Naw, don't worry about it. What's strange is if you go back to the original post where you completed it, it was edited as though you attempted to attach the file but weren't successful.

Right now, we're loading all of our manual results into our stats database. Eventually I think we'll probably load all of the results from this drive in there if we haven't done so already.

Max, did you (we) decide whether we wanted to load the manual results from this drive into the DB?


Gary[/quote]
Yes, the goal is to eventually have everything loaded. Right now the next thing up on the radar for loading is Drive #3, but there's no reason why we couldn't go ahead and do n<500K for this drive as well. Could you possibly plop your big aggregate results file for that range into the "results files" folder on jeepford's desktop? I can then pull it down from there and prep it for import.

The main thing we need to figure out is what "drive number" we're going to assign this mini-drive for DB cataloguing purposes. What we're doing is using the "port #" field to record which drive manual results come from--i.e., the DB sees server MN0001 for Drive #1, MN0002 for Drive #2, etc. While the numbering scheme is quite obvious for the numbered drives, we need to come up with something for non-numbered efforts such as mini-drives and inidividual-k drives. How about allotting the 8000 and 9000 spaces for them (since there's no way we'll ever get that high with numbered drives): 8xxx for inidivual-k drives (8001 for k=300-400, n=600K-1M, 8002 for k=300-400, n=1M-2M) and 9xxx for mini-drives (so far just 9001 for this drive). Does that sound good? (Remember, this is just a semi-arbitrary number so we can differentiate these on the backend.)

507K-508K is complete. No primes.

Reserving 508K-509K.

[quote=mdettweiler;211841]Yes, the goal is to eventually have everything loaded. Right now the next thing up on the radar for loading is Drive #3, but there's no reason why we couldn't go ahead and do n<500K for this drive as well. Could you possibly plop your big aggregate results file for that range into the "results files" folder on jeepford's desktop? I can then pull it down from there and prep it for import.

The main thing we need to figure out is what "drive number" we're going to assign this mini-drive for DB cataloguing purposes. What we're doing is using the "port #" field to record which drive manual results come from--i.e., the DB sees server MN0001 for Drive #1, MN0002 for Drive #2, etc. While the numbering scheme is quite obvious for the numbered drives, we need to come up with something for non-numbered efforts such as mini-drives and inidividual-k drives. How about allotting the 8000 and 9000 spaces for them (since there's no way we'll ever get that high with numbered drives): 8xxx for inidivual-k drives (8001 for k=300-400, n=600K-1M, 8002 for k=300-400, n=1M-2M) and 9xxx for mini-drives (so far just 9001 for this drive). Does that sound good? (Remember, this is just a semi-arbitrary number so we can differentiate these on the backend.)[/quote]


That sounds good to me.

[quote=gd_barnes;211817]Naw, don't worry about it. What's strange is if you go back to the original post where you completed it, it was edited as though you attempted to attach the file but weren't successful.

Right now, we're loading all of our manual results into our stats database. Eventually I think we'll probably load all of the results from this drive in there if we haven't done so already.

Max, did you (we) decide whether we wanted to load the manual results from this drive into the DB?


Gary[/quote]

Gamer,

We're in the process of getting ready to load all manually produced results into our DB, which reflects work done by everyone and gives a score based on effort done. Unfortunately without the n=492K-493K results, the DB won't give you that credit. If you aren't too concerned about that, then don't worry about it. But if you'd like for the DB to give you that credit, you would need to redo that range.

I'm sorry about that. Many times I won't save off the results out of the posts for several weeks. Unfortunately somehow in that post, they did not get attached, even though it appears you intended to post them.


Gary

[quote=gd_barnes;212001]Gamer,

We're in the process of getting ready to load all manually produced results into our DB, which reflects work done by everyone and gives a score based on effort done. Unfortunately without the n=492K-493K results, the DB won't give you that credit. If you aren't too concerned about that, then don't worry about it. But if you'd like for the DB to give you that credit, you would need to redo that range.

I'm sorry about that. Many times I won't save off the results out of the posts for several weeks. Unfortunately somehow in that post, they did not get attached, even though it appears you intended to post them.


Gary[/quote]
FYI, for any such ranges that have missing results, if the person who originally did them isn't interested in re-doing them so they can get credit, I'll generally try to go back and re-do them (or at least make sure somebody's doing them). I did this a couple times for small ranges on the 1st Drive, as a I recall. No, I'm not trying to poach credit (heck, for that matter I could spend the same amount of CPU time doing fresh work and get the same credit), just trying to make sure that everything's filled in. :smile: But nonetheless, the original "owner" of the range definitely has first dibs on it for credit reasons.