[QUOTE=davieddy;304817]For Christ's sake, it is so obvious that adequate TFing should precede LL assignment.[/QUOTE]

Completely obvious.

It should be equally obvious that that is exactly what we've been doing.

Or have you forgotten that we've [URL="http://www.gpu72.com/reports/released_level/"]taken 114,680 (and counting) LL candidates to 72 bits or above[/URL]?

OK
866 taken to 73 in the last week.
I guess you are getting near to what is required.

Bravo.

It appears GPU72 [URL="http://www.gpu72.com/reports/overall/graph/hourly/"]lost contact[/URL] with PrimeNet some 10 hours ago...

Actually just me being used to "now" being on the extreme right of the graph, as opposed to somewhere in the middle. :confused:

[QUOTE=ckdo;305011]Actually just me being used to "now" being on the extreme right of the graph, as opposed to somewhere in the middle. :confused:[/QUOTE]

That's actually a bug with that graph -- it doesn't fill in earlier hours if they're empty.

The gap being shown currently should be on the left hand side, when PrimeNet had about an eight hour outage Satuday night / Sunday morning.

Everything's fine at the moment.

Hey Chalsall, I noticed a discrepancy between the GHz Days of work reported as completed on my [URL="http://gpu72.com/account/completed/"]Completed Assignments Page[/URL] and the GHz Days of work displayed on the barchart on my [URL="http://gpu72.com/reports/worker/659a202c7e9ff182479bb0a2d32eed40/"]Individual Overall Statistics Page[/URL]. Here's a rundown of the past week's results:

[CODE]
Date Completed Assignments Barchart Difference
7/17 364.982 GHz Days ~244 GHz Days ~-121 GHz Days
7/16 146.016 GHz Days ~267 GHz Days ~+121 GHz Days
7/15 511.157 GHz Days ~367 GHz Days ~-144 GHz Days
7/14 316.502 GHz Days ~367 GHz Days ~+50 GHz Days
7/13 332.922 GHz Days ~384 GHz Days ~+51 GHz Days
7/12 349.246 GHz Days ~384 GHz Days ~+35 GHz Days
7/11 349.458 GHz Days ~342 GHz Days ~-7 GHz Days
[/CODE]When I noticed the discrepancy, I thought at first it might be related to the partial completion of an assignment. Starting 7/13 I began to send in the results of my first assignments from 71 to 73 bits. Prior to that I had been mostly doing factoring from 71 to 72. If an assignment has multiple bit-ranges, I know that GPU72 won't acknowledge it as completed until the entire range is reported as complete, but that's not enough to account for the much larger differences in what the barchart displays. I report results to Primenet once a day using your perl script(my submission on the 15th was delayed by about 12 hours due to the Primenet outage) and I'm pretty sure GPU72 is correctly picking up all my Primenet results.

From my angle it looks like the two pages are making different calculations. Am I looking at it incorrectly? Any ideas?

[QUOTE=Jaxon;305047]From my angle it looks like the two pages are making different calculations. Am I looking at it incorrectly? Any ideas?[/QUOTE]

Yes, the two pages are calculating things differently.

Because several of our users only submit their results as infrequently as once every two weeks or so, it was causing extreme spikes on the graphs (Xyzzy, for example, only today submitted 1,878 results totaling 17,885 GHz Days!). So what the system does is calculate an adjusted date for completed results to spread them approximately evenly across the period of time the assignments were "out". This is then used for all the graphs.

The "Completed Report" under your account, on the other hand, shows the actual time the completion was observed by Spidy.

The adjustment is non-destructive -- the actual completion date is stored in each record; the adjusted date is a separate field. If it was desired, I could offer "un-adjusted" graphs for individual participants. But please rest assured that you are not losing credit -- the total of both reports will match.

Ah that's reassuring. I wasn't worried about my credit per se, but rather the apparent drop-off of production that I thought the barchart was representing, which led me to believe that something might be wrong with my hardware. "I do play videogames every once in a while," I thought to myself, "but not enough to cause a 25% drop in production! I'd better investigate!" Now I'll know better, I guess. :smile:

[QUOTE=Jaxon;305051]Ah that's reassuring. I wasn't worried about my credit per se, but rather the apparent drop-off of production that I thought the barchart was representing, which led me to believe that something might be wrong with my hardware. "I do play videogames every once in a while," I thought to myself, "but not enough to cause a 25% drop in production! I'd better investigate!" Now I'll know better, I guess. :smile:[/QUOTE]Chris is so informative and forthcoming.

[QUOTE=davieddy;305128]Chris is so informative and forthcoming.[/QUOTE]

David never misses a chance for an irrelevant non sequitur.

... or an irreverent sequitur.