[QUOTE=chalsall;280119][URL="http://gpu.mersenne.info/reports/workers/"]Workers' Progress[/URL] and [URL="http://gpu.mersenne.info/reports/overall/"]Overall System Progress[/URL], plus individuals' "Completed" report.

Obviously the Overall report needs to be reworked to show the number of attempts for DC (and, soon LL). The DC row was simply put there to show that the system is picking them up.

The Overall report needs some TLC anyway, in order to show the number of LL runs (and the associated GHz Days) saved because of the TF and P-1 work which found factors.

Please note that I'm still "training my spider" ("Fetch boy, fetch. Sit. Shake paw. Good boy..."), so the completed DCs are not yet picked up "real time". But they will be soon....[/QUOTE]

:bow wave:

We are not sure what your click-thru rate and earnings are for the ads on your page, but we would be willing to kick in some money to eliminate them.

:cat:

[SIZE=1]Edit: Aha![/SIZE]
[quote][SIZE=1]As an example, over on my GIMPS Visualization Tool site for example, I have installed two Google Adsense ads. Here are the statistics:

Page impressions: 192,910.
Clicks: 58.
Click Through Rate (CTR): 0.03%.
Total Earnings: $8.88. (Less than $0.50 a month; my serving costs me $10 a month. And it would take me more than 20 years before I earn the $100 payment threshold if this was the only place I had advertising.)[/SIZE][/quote]

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;280129]We are not sure what your click-thru rate and earnings are for the ads on your page, but we would be willing to kick in some money to eliminate them.[/QUOTE]

Well, to be perfectly honest and open, in the last 30 days I've had 21,614 page views, 38 click-throughs (0.18% CTR), and made a total of $18.58 USD.

The server infrastructure, meanwhile, cost me $60 USD hard cash (since this is on a dedicated server rather than a shared server), plus the approximate $6,000 USD of my development time which I consider donated (AKA "pro bono").

But if the ads are offensive, I'll remove them.

They are not offensive.

We just spend a lot of time on your pages and they get in the way a little.

Your new tool is one of the coolest ideas we have seen in a long time.

:smile:

I just noticed it records all work completed, not just stuff assigned by the system.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;280166]I just noticed it records all work completed, not just stuff assigned by the system.[/QUOTE]

Um, no...

Could you explain what you mean?

Wait... I'm not sure. I saw some exponents that I thought I got from Mr. P-1. Let me check, brb.

Edit: Nope, my bad. I had a large batch of P-1 of which three were his. I didn't check the size of the batch, only knew three were his. On my completed page, I saw a lot more P-1 than I remembered reserving, so I thought it must have been those, but further checking says they weren't. I had no clue I'd reserved so many P-1's. Sorry.

My DC's still missing from the workers report... Does the GPU-done (as instead of P95-done) has anything to do with it? Or still training the spider? ("Fetch boy, fetch. Sit. Shake pedipalp. Wiggle opisthosoma... Good boy...")

[QUOTE=chalsall;280119][URL="http://gpu.mersenne.info/reports/workers/"]Workers' Progress[/URL] and [URL="http://gpu.mersenne.info/reports/overall/"]Overall System Progress[/URL], plus individuals' "Completed" report.

Obviously the Overall report needs to be reworked to show the number of attempts for DC (and, soon LL). The DC row was simply put there to show that the system is picking them up.

The Overall report needs some TLC anyway, in order to show the number of LL runs (and the associated GHz Days) saved because of the TF and P-1 work which found factors.

Please note that I'm still "training my spider" ("Fetch boy, fetch. Sit. Shake paw. Good boy..."), so the completed DCs are not yet picked up "real time". But they will be soon....[/QUOTE]

Question on the website... On the View Assignments page, would it be a problem to allow an option for ordering by date? I was cutting and pasting from my 2 results files when I made a mistake and somehow copied instead of deleting so when I pasted I had old data and the new stuff is now gone. If I could sort by date, then in a couple of days I could figure out which exponents I fubared and rerun them.

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;279985]i7-920 @ 3.2GHz. On 3 cores I get 0.007s iterations. On 4 cores I get 0.006 :ermm:[/QUOTE]

Looking back, I see you got 0.021, which I'm guessing was on a single core, the 2400 gets 0.016 on a single, haven't tried to bump it up.

[QUOTE=bcp19;280181]Looking back, I see you got 0.021, which I'm guessing was on a single core, the 2400 gets 0.016 on a single, haven't tried to bump it up.[/QUOTE]If you do have a full benchmark, send it to me (PM, email) and I'll put it on my [url=http://mersenne-aries.sili.net/bench.php]benchmarks page[/url] (which automatically also puts it on the [url=http://mersenne-aries.sili.net/throughput.php?cpu1=Intel%28R%29+Core%28TM%29+i7+CPU+920+%40+2.67GHz|256|8192&mhz1=3200]throughput page[/url] with graphs and such.