re: MISFIT [STRIKE]updating[/STRIKE] reporting results every 4 hours (there is long discussion after, related to different subject, which I have yet to read)

Why would one wants to report results every hour??? The 332M not many people are there (I see only myself and another one or two), the 35-45M DC will be gone in a month (DCTF type of work will disappear in the future, as is reaching the tail of LLTF, which is tf-ed one bit higher, therefore soon will be no DCTF anymore, gone, kaput, basta!). The most needed work, LLTF, is reaching the bitlevels where one assignment takes a hour or more on a GOOD card.

So, why one would want to report faster then he can finish assignments? Let MISFIT to report every 4 hours. I mean, 6 times per day is pretty quite often! I thought I am the most pettifogger here...

[QUOTE=LaurV;332477] I just need 3-4 days more to be able to point you to [URL="http://www.gpu72.com/reports/workers/saved/"]this link[/URL] and say "see what happens when you mix the saved time of LLTF with the saved time of LMHTF? you come on the second place!" :razz:[/QUOTE]
Told you!

This to remain for posterity now: :razz:
[ATTACH]9560[/ATTACH]

It won't report if there is nothing in the results text file, so if it is set to report hourly and you only finish work in 3 hours, it only reports in 3 hours.

[QUOTE=LaurV;333683]Why would one wants to report results every hour??? The 332M not many people are there (I see only myself and another one or two), the 35-45M DC will be gone in a month (DCTF type of work will disappear in the future, as is reaching the tail of LLTF, which is tf-ed one bit higher, therefore soon will be no DCTF anymore, gone, kaput, basta!). The most needed work, LLTF, is reaching the bitlevels where one assignment takes a hour or more on a GOOD card.[/QUOTE]

OK, let me please refine my comment to mean that those doing nominal LLTFing should report their results within a reasonable time as they are completed. Those doing DCTF or 100M digit ranges don't have as much pressure.

But for the LLTF / LL wave, we are still *really* tight. And please keep in mind that while TFing gets cheaper the higher (by Candidate, not bit level) the faster it gets. This is *not* true for P-1ing nor LLing.

At the end of the day, submitting results to Primenet when they are available, rather than in batches, is going to put very little additional load on Primenet.

[QUOTE=LaurV;333726]Told you!

This to remain for posterity now: :razz:
[ATTACH]9560[/ATTACH][/QUOTE]

:rofl: Our guest has been taking up a great deal of our time (he's one of those who needs to be entertained -- he can't entertain himself. And he thinks that because he's on vacation, everyone around him is)... Additionally, I have a hard deliverable for Monday.

Enjoy it while it lasts -- it won't for too much longer.... :smile:

[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.[/QUOTE]

OK... While my SWMBO (and her (*really*) stupid cousin; our guest) were out to watch Polo, and I had a big machine doing some work on my deliverable for Monday, I decided to go into my "comfort zone" and work with computers and their exacting languages (much better in my mind than having to deal with humans and to worry about their "feelings"... :wink:).

The Individual Workers' reports now default again to the adjusted graphs. The "exact" graphs are available via a click-through in the note at the bottom of the page.

A couple of examples where this really makes a difference: [URL="https://www.gpu72.com/reports/worker/7e6a2e592a37a719fac4f765eb0f6ca8/"]Xyzzy[/URL] and [URL="https://www.gpu72.com/reports/worker/6e67460a77a11a707a665a6270df1a82/"]Oliver (AKA The Judger)[/URL].

As always, please let me know if anyone sees any regressions or SPEs.

:bow:

This is good — although I report several times a day, I still like the averaging.

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;333794]:bow:[/QUOTE]
@chris, double that, :bow::bow:

[QUOTE=LaurV;333803]@chris, double that, :bow::bow:[/QUOTE]

Well, at least I can [URL="https://www.gpu72.com/reports/worker/d0a0a9610115a8227c686f0d8951998b/"]see[/URL] excactly how much P-1 GHZ/days I am producing! :P

[QUOTE=chalsall;333518]Since you are the authority on this subject, where should the GPUs currently be TFing to (knowing we can currently hold our lead going to 73)?

Edit: For the record, I really enjoy working with really smart and motivated people. :smile:[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;333523]:surprised I beg to differ on that point!

You have a much better perspective on that than I would. You can monitor the balance of all the various available assignments, how many PrimeNet is releasing for LL with what level of TF and all that. That's the real-life data on which TF depth assessments should be based, not some theoretical crossover point based on a non-representative configuration (GPUs used exclusively for TF and LL).[/QUOTE]
Two or three years ago, I (inter alia) judged that the GPU firepower at the time could TF to 72 and keep COMFORTABLY ahead of the LLwave, which was then ~54M.
I think you will agree that this was an accurate assessment then.
After all, you named your effort at coordination "GPUto72" in acknowledgement.

How much has the GPU firepower increased since then?
Should keeping ahead to 73 or 74 bits really be such a struggle?

David