[QUOTE=James Heinrich] I'm battling valiantly to re-index the 33-million-record table of known factors. It's going poorly, unfortunately. I hope to have it back up and running properly within a day or so, but who knows. I didn't want to risk losing any data which is why I disabled submissions, and purposely took down the site for some time.[/QUOTE]

A few hours ago.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;289514]A few hours ago.[/QUOTE]

Ah... Thanks. I didn't see that.

Reindexing a 33 million row table can take some time....

[QUOTE=chalsall;289515]Ah... Thanks. I didn't see that.
Reindexing a 33 million row table can take some time....[/QUOTE]You didn't see that cause you didn't ask (Dubslow did, in a PM). :smile:

Monkeying with the tables on my home machine / development server (Sandy-E, OCZ Vertex 3) works fine, albeit still slow (a few dozen minutes to complete). On my production server it's nigh impossible to work with that table anymore. Oh sure, selecting is fine, and inserting a few records at a time is no problem, but major operations take 5+ hours (let it run overnight, then find the ISP killed the process after ~5 hours cause it still hadn't finished).

So I'm taking a new approach: split it into 101 tables, one for each 10M range (plus one for >=1000M) and now it's a [b]much[/b] more manageable ~300k-500k records per table. And except for a couple rare cases, it's no worse, in fact it's better off since it's querying a much more-specific smaller table.

If all goes well my site should be back up by the end of tonight...

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;289517]If all goes well my site should be back up by the end of tonight...[/QUOTE]Apparently it went well. :cool:

It should be 99% functional now, the last 1% can regenerate while the site is running. Please let me know if anything's broken, cause it shouldn't be.

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;289517]
Monkeying with the tables on my home machine / development server (Sandy-E, OCZ Vertex 3) works fine, albeit still slow (a few dozen minutes to complete). On my production server it's nigh impossible to work with that table anymore. Oh sure, selecting is fine, and inserting a few records at a time is no problem, but major operations take 5+ hours (let it run overnight, then find the ISP killed the process after ~5 hours cause it still hadn't finished).
[/QUOTE]
Get a better server? Or is the obvious solution one that doesn't work?

chalsall, why has the LLTF reserved count dropped from >30K to <27K? I didn't see any major spike in the throughput graphs...

[QUOTE=Dubslow;289543]chalsall, why has the LLTF reserved count dropped from >30K to <27K? I didn't see any major spike in the throughput graphs...[/QUOTE]

Expired exponents perhaps?

-- Craig

[QUOTE=Dubslow;289543]chalsall, why has the LLTF reserved count dropped from >30K to <27K? I didn't see any major spike in the throughput graphs...[/QUOTE]

With our two big guns fighting it out in the DC range (hopefully temporarily), I was uncomfortable holding >30K assignments. So I had the system throw back to PrimeNet a few thousand which had already been TFed to 71.

[QUOTE=Bdot;289496]I like that a lot, big thank you!

[URL="http://www.gpu72.com/reports/worker/5b6f7bd5a6b6e7e6988c81e70d6cd07d/"]My graph[/URL] is quite spiky ... I could use a running average :smile:

Or, maybe add a column to the top table like "avg. GHz days per day" - for each work type and the total?[/QUOTE]

Or overlay some colored lines on top of the bars showing some sort of moving average? Something like [url]https://chart.googleapis.com/chart?chs=200x125&chds=0,100,0,100&cht=bvs&chd=t1:43,35,48,57,67,60,70|10,18,12,16,16,23,30&chco=78c2f4,003971&chbh=15,10&chm=D,003971,1,0,3|@a,000000,0,.25:.75,7|@tExpected,000000,0,.35:.85,10[/url] (first example I could find, but some imagination will get you to what I was thinking of).

[QUOTE=kjaget;289578]Or overlay some colored lines on top of the bars showing some sort of moving average?[/QUOTE]

OK. That is actually quite easy to do. Five minutes, in fact.

I'm only rendering a total running average, rather than a seperate line for each work type. I think the graphs would get too cluttered with five lines.

[QUOTE=chalsall;289580]OK. That is actually quite easy to do. Five minutes, in fact.

I'm only rendering a total running average, rather than a seperate line for each work type. I think the graphs would get too cluttered with five lines.[/QUOTE]
YES! That's perfectly what I had thought of ... Thanks!

EDIT: However, the line disagrees with what the "View Assignments" page says: "... you have done on average 224.105 GHz Days of work per day." But my avg. line seems to end at ~175.