[QUOTE=chalsall;287349]For each worker, the scales are their own.[/QUOTE]I understand what [i]Dubslow[/i] is saying, but I agree the graph should maintain the best scaling within itself, there's too much variation to provide a reasonable universal scale that works for everyone.

If you got real ambitious for some reason, you could make a compare-me-to-him tool that generates comparison graphs, for example overlaying userX's and userY's LL-TF work on a single graph (one graph per worktype, with as many data sets as users being compared, just like the normal [url=http://www.gpu72.com/reports/workers/graph/17-26/]overall ranking graphs[/url], but with specific users and for a single worktype.

[QUOTE=chalsall;287352]I don't; George does.

There's lots available to TF if you're interested.... :smile:[/QUOTE]

Ah but I have about a week of work reserved from gputo72 and it won't let me reserve more.

New graph looks nice; it's funny to see my P-1 line running almost exactly in sync with the TF line.

[QUOTE=garo;287364]Ah but I have about a week of work reserved from gputo72 and it won't let me reserve more.[/QUOTE]

Ahhh... Now I understand more fully what you mean...

For a while, at the beginning of this sub-project, some were trying to reserve (much) more work than they had demonstrated they could do in one month.

This limitation has been removed. (But the expiry script is running, so anyone who reserves work but doesn't complete it, or extend it, within 31 days will lose the work.)

Sorry about that.

Lovely work!

I noticed a glitch [URL="http://www.gpu72.com/reports/workers/graph/28-37/"]here[/URL] : I should be below Sid&Andy, but the line appears to be higher...

Not that I care about it... :smile:

Luigi

me too (love the addition with two scales). I was ready to suggest it myself some time ago (i am also a good example of "all types of work, even a better one, with more equilibrated stuff on hte chart), but after a couple of other ignored suggestions, I gave up :P

anyhow, good work, keep it on!

p.s. there is still a small error in the assignment page, it keeps telling me I have 8 TF assignment. I have no TF assignment since ages, I was hoping the stuff will correct itself after few DC/LL completions or new reservations, but still keeps the 8..

So then unreserve them...? Or you mean that you completed them?

I like the new graphs as well. With the former one I had attempted to gain control over more CPUs in order to raise the CPU graphs, but failed ... :smile:

On the [URL="http://www.gpu72.com/reports/available/"]Available Assignments[/URL] page, some of the fields have yellow background. What does that mean? Is that the range when exponents are returned to primenet? Would be strange to have lower bitlevel at 55M ...

[QUOTE=Bdot;287431]
On the [URL="http://www.gpu72.com/reports/available/"]Available Assignments[/URL] page, some of the fields have yellow background. What does that mean? Is that the range when exponents are returned to primenet? Would be strange to have lower bitlevel at 55M ...[/QUOTE]

Yes it is, We return candidate in the yellow range if they had P-1 done. I think we keep 250 in the yellow range if they didn't have any P-1.

And I agree, More bang for the buck doing TF at 55M then at 45M.

But in the grand scheme of thing it does change much since we have hardly any TF candidate that don't require P-1 > 55M. But I guess it could be argued that we don't pick up the candidate to 71 for range > 55M that had P-1 done on them...

[QUOTE=LaurV;287414]p.s. there is still a small error in the assignment page, it keeps telling me I have 8 TF assignment. I have no TF assignment since ages, I was hoping the stuff will correct itself after few DC/LL completions or new reservations, but still keeps the 8..[/QUOTE]

Yeah, thanks for reminding me of that. The system didn't update a user's count if they didn't have any more assignments left. Fixed.

[QUOTE=Bdot;287431]On the [URL="http://www.gpu72.com/reports/available/"]Available Assignments[/URL] page, some of the fields have yellow background. What does that mean? Is that the range when exponents are returned to primenet? Would be strange to have lower bitlevel at 55M ...[/QUOTE]

Yes, that is correct. After TFed to that level, plus P-1 done. And I agree we should be taking 55M and above to 72 (or more), but someone (I can't remember who at the moment) suggested we return them after only going to 71 for the time being in order to not horde too many candidates from PrimeNet. (And there's approximately a 50% chance we'll get another shot at them when they expire again.)

Once we've cleared out most of <55M I'll change the logic. But, of course, people are free to pledge to go to 72 up there now by changing the minimum range field.