[QUOTE=chalsall;332802]The averaging will be re-introduced soon, with the option of viewing the "true" graphs for those who want to ensure their graphs exactly match their tabular reports.

Also, the "Overall" graphs will remain averaged. We still have too many people submitting their results only every week or so not to.[/QUOTE]

Ah nice, I liked the old averaged graph :)

BTW, the ordering of the [URL="http://www.gpu72.com/reports/workers/"]Workers' Overall Progress[/URL] table seems to be wrong, #12 comes before #9, #10 and #11, and there are many more errors.

[QUOTE=BigBrother;332804]BTW, the ordering of the [URL="http://www.gpu72.com/reports/workers/"]Workers' Overall Progress[/URL] table seems to be wrong, #12 comes before #9, #10 and #11, and there are many more errors.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I know. This was a Stupid Programmer Error (SPE) (I am the programmer) when I added a requested feature without appropriate testing which caused a regression.

Unfortunately I'm *really* busy at the moment. Please trust me when I say that no information has been lost -- it's just a bug in my SQL (or maybe the Perl) which produces that report.

[QUOTE=chalsall;332813]Yeah, I know. This was a Stupid Programmer Error (SPE) (I am the programmer) when I added a requested feature without appropriate testing which caused a regression.

Unfortunately I'm *really* busy at the moment. Please trust me when I say that no information has been lost -- it's just a bug in my SQL (or maybe the Perl) which produces that report.[/QUOTE]

Something is really funny about #12 - the total on the overall page jumped 17,000 a couple of days ago, and does not agree with the sum of work types completed.

[QUOTE=Chuck;332817]Something is really funny about #12 - the total on the overall page jumped 17,000 a couple of days ago, and does not agree with the sum of work types completed.[/QUOTE]

What part of "I made a mistake, and I'm really busy!" isn't clear? :smile:

As I used to tell my Mother when I broke something as a child: "I can fix it!". :wink:

Edit: And to be clear, the problems which are being seen are only on the reporting. The core back-end has not been touched and is stable. No duplication of work is happening.

We understand your current time limitations, so maybe consider this post as informational only. We are certain it can be fixed later on.

We set up MISFIT last night. It looks like it is working, and results that have occurred after the setup show up in GPU72's results. But, prior to setting up MISFIT, we dumped ~1,500 GHz-days worth of work, waited a few hours and unreserved all of our assigned work. (We did not know if MISFIT would play nice with our current worktodo.txt files so we decided to start from a clean slate.)

What may have happened is the GPU72 spider missed the upload and when we unreserved all of our assigned work we actually unreserved the work we had already turned in.

We used the manual submission page at PrimeNet.

Attached it the work we turned in. Hopefully it has not been reassigned to anyone.

Sorry for the trouble!

:redface:

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;333306]Sorry for the trouble![/QUOTE]

Grrr... :wink:

OK, the good news is this can be fixed without too much trouble. I'll have to write a little Perl script to un-unreserve these assignments (won't be until Saturday or Sunday).

The database shows you unreserved them before "Spidy" scanned the ranges in question. (Note that for the 65M and 332M ranges, Spidy only checks twice an hour.) Also, it doesn't appear anyone was assigned the candidates before their TFed depth level was updated. As in, no duplication of work occurred.

:busted:

[QUOTE]You can see that for many people, the graphs become much less readable because of "spikes".[/QUOTE][COLOR="white"].[/COLOR]

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;333362].[/QUOTE]
You may access your "view assignment" page on gpu72, select all, and do "regenerate" the worktodo file. Manually append that to your misfitworktodo.txt file which is in the misfit folder. This would be the easiest, and you still do your assignments, Misfit may do good job in taking care about the duplicates, according with the discussions around (I never tested personally this feature, but Scot and Jerry can give you more details), so you don't need to select them one by one in the assignment page. You are done with 3 clicks and a copy/paste, then put MISFIT to redistribute the work.

Related to the second question, MISFIT plays very nice with work already existent, you can stop/restart misfit without stopping/restarting mfaktX, and nothing bad would be happening, and you still can do everything you used to do before, like manually editing the worktodo files, but do not touch the first line, and be careful not to do that just before some exponent finishes the bit level (otherwise you may duplicate some work if the first line is cached into your editor), etc. But honestly, all the manual work is futile now, with MISFIT.

By setting the report interval to 4, 6, 8 hours (like more times per day, default is 4) you will also avoid those spikes.

[QUOTE=LaurV;333401]... Manually append that to your misfitworktodo.txt file which is in the misfit folder. [/QUOTE]

Thanks LaurV... Just to clarify some functionality. From the MISFIT "Add Work" button you get a form with a text box and a FETCH button. Clicking fetch causes an instant fetch to occur. You can also paste data directly into the text box. There are two benefits when using this form.
[LIST=1][*]File-Locking is applied/handled for MISFITworkToDo.txt during the save event.[*]The data in the text box is checked that each row starts with [B]"Factor="[/B] and error is shown if validation fails[*]Blank rows are tossed[/LIST]

As for frequency of uploads: Every upload puts load on the GIMPS server so I favor less frequent uploads.


thx

[QUOTE=swl551;333423]As for frequency of uploads: Every upload puts load on the GIMPS server so I favor less frequent uploads.[/QUOTE]

On the other hand, not much load.

And we're currently in a "race condition". We need to get back to Primenet as many candidates as possible TFed to at least 73 (and, in an ideal world, P-1'ed).

I would argue it's better for people to submit their results sooner rather than later.

Once an hour wouldn't cause Primenet any distress, and would probably help let it release lower candidates for LLing earlier.