[QUOTE=retina;424082]Thanks.

But the TF cannot be correct. The blue line crosses to the negative (which I assume is each week). Are factors somehow sucked out of the DB?[/QUOTE]

They don't really... I fussed with that stupid thing and I try forcing the baseline to zero, but Google insists on making the baseline a negative number. It probably has to do with the fact that I use dual y-axes on that one since the TF factors and the P-1 + ECM factors have such different daily totals... even when I set the baseline of each to zero it still wasn't working right.

But the data itself is clear (you can look at the page source)... there aren't any "negative" factor counts for any day... an occasional zero perhaps for the P-1+ECM but maybe not even that. The apparent dip below zero is just a visual thing from the scaling, I guess.

The strangely cyclic nature is indeed a Mon-Fri thing with Sat/Sun being low periods. I have no idea why, but it might have to do with that large anonymous GPU72 account? I didn't dive into it more to see where those were coming from or if it's even one user.

The mini spike in P-1+ECM factors is from a day when TJAOI (or however that's spelled) turned in a bunch of ECM factors on small (6 digit) exponents.

[QUOTE=srow7;424092]TF does not match
[url]www.mersenne.ca/status/tf/0/1/1/0[/url][/QUOTE]

Beats me.

I just queried the raw data for Jan 24 and I come up with:[LIST][*]1128 factors by TF (12 of them were two factors for the same exponent, so really only 1116 distinct exponents)[*]33 factors by P-1[*]9 factors by ECM (although 4 of those were for F12... Fermat factoring sometimes skews the results, but whatever... the server accepts that kind of work).[/LIST]
Here's the data as sent to Google Charts for that day:
Date(2016,0,24),1128,42

I can only account for what's on Primenet... not sure what the mersenne.ca discrepancy is but if they're saying 1224 factors for that day and not the 1170 that Primenet is aware of, I don't know how to account for that. I think both systems use UTC, but there's a lag between when mersenne.ca crawls Primenet to get the data... not sure if the timestamps are retained through that, but if they were slightly off, it could account for it... some factors came in a day before or later. It would average out over time if so.

And I don't know if mersenne.ca gets factors from any source besides Primenet?

[QUOTE=Madpoo;424143]The strangely cyclic nature is indeed a Mon-Fri thing with Sat/Sun being low periods. I have no idea why, but it might have to do with that large anonymous GPU72 account? I didn't dive into it more to see where those were coming from or if it's even one user.[/QUOTE]

Nope. GPU72's cyclic workers tend to submit their results over the weekend. Besides, since we're working just before the "wavefronts" to optimal TF depth we rarely find more than 40 factors a day; I imagine that this is someone(s) doing high range TF'ing to low bit levels during the week.

BTW, the new graphs are beautiful!!! :smile:

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;424128]The sub-62M milestone is down to 10. This appears to be because of another poach. I find the "Most Recent Cleared" entry a bit peculiar, though:
...
Usually when someone poaches, the "Days" field reads 0.0, but in this case it reads 19.5. I am curious why it doesn't read 0.0, since this exponent had been assigned to MikeB (and still is, now as a double-check). Also, the residue does look rather suspicious...[/QUOTE]

The result that came in had an apparently valid assignment ID and it was assigned to them on 2016-01-06.

There is now an assignment for it that's older and is now a double-check. Kind of weird because it doesn't look like it was actually expired (it's expiration date is missing in the DB), but it does seem like it was old enough (assigned 2015-10-30) that it got reassigned...

Kind of weird that it got reassigned to someone on Jan 6 though. That's way too soon for a 90-day expiration on LL cat 1.

Basically I can't explain that one either.

[QUOTE=retina;424082]The blue line crosses to the negative (which I assume is each week). Are factors somehow sucked out of the DB?[/QUOTE]

It's just a visual annoyance linked to using "smoothed" lines (as opposed to "straight" ones) with hundreds of data points and major variations in data. I've seen it happen in XL, LibreOffice... and now in Google Graphs as well ;-)

In any case, kudos to Aaron: the new charts are awesome.

[QUOTE=chalsall;424145]Nope. GPU72's cyclic workers tend to submit their results over the weekend. Besides, since we're working just before the "wavefronts" to optimal TF depth we rarely find more than 40 factors a day; I imagine that this is someone(s) doing high range TF'ing to low bit levels during the week.

BTW, the new graphs are beautiful!!! :smile:[/QUOTE]

Oh, it's user TJAOI. Apparently they're inactive on the weekend, but on M-F they typically report ~ 7400-7500 factors each day.

Oddly, it appears that TJAOI does NOT report "no factor by TF" results. Or at least they haven't reported any of those since March 2015, and even then it was for smaller exponents (< 1M) in the 61-62 bit range.

Unfortunately what that means is that we don't have a record of just how much factoring was done on all of the exponents where no factor was found.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the sheer effort involved... this one account has found nearly 120,000 factors by TF just since the start of this year! But if anyone were interested in going a bit or two deeper at some point down the road, how would they know where to pick up?

I'd say nearly all of the factors found recently are in the 60-61 bit range so I'm guessing they're only going up to 2^61, but the exponents being tested are all over the place. From M860143 on Jan 5 to M999958027 on Jan 22.

Maybe George can contact this person (or persons?) and see if they can provide a history of all the factoring they did where no factor was found. It really should be added to the DB.

[QUOTE=ric;424151]It's just a visual annoyance linked to using "smoothed" lines (as opposed to "straight" ones) with hundreds of data points and major variations in data. I've seen it happen in XL, LibreOffice... and now in Google Graphs as well ;-)

In any case, kudos to Aaron: the new charts are awesome.[/QUOTE]

Ah, that would explain it... I forgot it's doing the linear smoothing. If I turn that off it probably bottoms out as expected, but then it's not visually appealing. :smile:

Thanks for the compliments, but really I'm just throwing data at Google Charts and it makes it pretty. If you're saying you like the data itself, I'll accept that. LOL

I like seeing the longer term tflops (with a trendline to boot), and also seeing the daily breakdown of LL and DC results coming in. Fun to note that somewhat recently, daily DC results started approaching parity with first time checks. Might be due to the adjustment George made to the assignment rules a few months back?

Now he can get some visual feedback on how those tweaks are affecting things. Groovy.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;424149]The result that came in had an apparently valid assignment ID and it was assigned to them on 2016-01-06.

There is now an assignment for it that's older and is now a double-check. Kind of weird because it doesn't look like it was actually expired (it's expiration date is missing in the DB), but it does seem like it was old enough (assigned 2015-10-30) that it got reassigned...[/QUOTE]

The Active Assignments page was showing it as being assigned to MikeB, and not proxy2222. Yes, it was showing it assigned 2015-10-30 (to MikeB), and that's not quite 90 days. I believe it will expire around Feb. 10 if no further status update is made.

I'm thinking of running my own DC on this one, as the residue seems suspicious, as I also mentioned.

[QUOTE=srow7;424092]TF does not match
[url]www.mersenne.ca/status/tf/0/1/1/0[/url][/QUOTE]

Hmmm... it occurred to me that I actually don't know what date range you're referring to on mersenne.ca ... your link will show the most recent, but I don't know what dates it was showing when you looked it up. I may have been looking at the wrong date range on the Primenet side. I was looking at all factors reported on 2015-01-24.

In which case, if I understand James' system, that would be this on mersenne.ca:
[URL="http://www.mersenne.ca/status/tf/20160124/20160123/1/0"]http://www.mersenne.ca/status/tf/20160124/20160123/1/0[/URL]

That actually has a smaller # of factors than what Primenet has (988 instead of 1128 from Primenet for that day). Still doesn't match, but I wanted to clear up that I may have been looking at the wrong date info previously.

Now, if I look at Primenet for factors reported yesterday (Jan 25), there are 8686 of them (since I've discovered that TJAOI checks his in on Mon-Fri that makes sense).

So if I look at this mersenne.ca data:
[URL="http://www.mersenne.ca/status/tf/20160125/20160124/1/0"]http://www.mersenne.ca/status/tf/20160125/20160124/1/0[/URL]

It's *really* off.

Again, there could just be a lag in when mersenne.ca slurps the data from Primenet.

[QUOTE=cuBerBruce;424161]The Active Assignments page was showing it as being assigned to MikeB, and not proxy2222. Yes, it was showing it assigned 2015-10-30 (to MikeB), and that's not quite 90 days. I believe it will expire around Feb. 10 if no further status update is made.

I'm thinking of running my own DC on this one, as the residue seems suspicious, as I also mentioned.[/QUOTE]

Might as well go for it if you like. That assignment that's now a DC has little chance of completion.

I've noticed that if an exponent hasn't checked in for a month, there's very little chance it ever will. There are rare exceptions for certain folks (George among them) who may run things offline for months at a time, or maybe in a large install like Curtis where a machine is moved around and plugged in after months in storage, but generally you can spot an abandoned assignment by the fact that it hasn't been seen in 4-5 weeks. :smile: Just don't treat that as a hard and fast rule.

[QUOTE=Madpoo;424180]
I've noticed that if an exponent hasn't checked in for a month, there's very little chance it ever will. There are rare exceptions for certain folks (George among them) who may run things offline for months at a time, or maybe in a large install like Curtis where a machine is moved around and plugged in after months in storage, but generally you can spot an abandoned assignment by the fact that it hasn't been seen in 4-5 weeks. :smile: Just don't treat that as a hard and fast rule.[/QUOTE]

My 4 DC assignments that expired last year were in that category. They continued crunching while the machine was disconnected from the internet, and reported the results as soon as it was reconnected -- of course they were a TC at that point. Oh well.