If you check it religiously, a few appear every few days. I reserved the only one I saw today a few hours ago. :smile:

[QUOTE]Craig and Xyzzy -- you two still want to fight it out in the DC range??? :wink:[/QUOTE]The new "Saved" metric is exactly what we were hoping for. After our current run of DCTF work is done we will tackle this challenge aggressively!

:mike:

[QUOTE=frmky;289645]Nice to make your acquaintance. :smile:[/QUOTE]

Looks like I'm losing #3, did you add something or switch something over?

[QUOTE=bcp19;289666]Looks like I'm losing #3, did you add something or switch something over?[/QUOTE]
The older Tesla S1070 became free, so I'm doing some on it to 71-bits. It's only CC 1.3, so at 72 bits it switches from a mul24 kernel to a less efficient mul32 kernel. I've been using two GTX 480's for a while.

@chalsall: just a small cosmetic, does not seems quite normal to me to click on "workers" column header, to have the tables sorted according with... the output, which is a totally different column. The "worker" should sort the table alphabetically, for the case I am looking for an user. And maybe make the column headers of "saved", "factors", "ghzdays" whatever, clickable too, and sort accordingly when clicked (eventually with increasing/decreasing option, the second click changes the sort direction, and also the perfect thing would be to have different links on the last three column heders, depending on the fact if we are in P1, DC, LL, DCTF or LLTF "modes", you know what I mean)

[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]

Nice, and the data is different than what I expected which means it's giving useful info.

Agree on the separate lines - I thought it would be cool. But looking at what you've done there would be one readable line for GPU-TF and a bunch of overlapping lines near 0 for the rest. One line makes it easier to see what's actually happening.

[QUOTE=KyleAskine;289626]As always, my glory was both undeserved and temporary :smile:[/QUOTE]

14 minutes 15 seconds of fame remaining - use them wisely :)

[QUOTE=frmky;289681]The older Tesla S1070 became free, so I'm doing some on it to 71-bits. It's only CC 1.3, so at 72 bits it switches from a mul24 kernel to a less efficient mul32 kernel. I've been using two GTX 480's for a while.[/QUOTE]

I always wondered if the Tesla would work on this and what the throughput would be. Maybe when I win the lottery... Or find M48.

New individual graphs: GHz Days of Work Saved.
 

Just so you know, I've added a new graph to everyone's [URL="http://www.gpu72.com/reports/worker/fc9f090d094ad7c7eff10a39caffe3a4/"]Individual Worker's Overall Statistics Page[/URL] -- GHz Days of Work Saved per Day. :smile:

And a question for everyone... For those with sparce results (like, for example, [URL="http://www.gpu72.com/reports/worker/7e6a2e592a37a719fac4f765eb0f6ca8/"]Xyzzy[/URL], what do you think about my spreading the results across the previous days which didn't have any results (up to a limit of the result being no earlier than the assigned date)? This would lessen the extreme vertical scaling for people like Xyzzy who only check in every few days, and Carsten who lost access to his machine for a couple of weeks. This would make the charts more readable.

Anyone against this idea?

According to my graph of [url=http://www.gpu72.com/reports/worker/56f1b7572536a14513b08c88b2ba9578/]GHz Days per Day of Work Saved[/url] I've saved LLs and DCs, but no P-1s? Surely a TFLL factor would save 1 each of P-1, LL and DC?

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;289750]According to my graph of [url=http://www.gpu72.com/reports/worker/56f1b7572536a14513b08c88b2ba9578/]GHz Days per Day of Work Saved[/url] I've saved LLs and DCs, but no P-1s? Surely a TFLL factor would save 1 each of P-1, LL and DC?[/QUOTE]

Absolutely, and the graph is actually taking that into account. The problem is that a P-1 is so small in comparison to a LL/DC that it is scaled down so much that it is nearly invisible.

Edit: I'm not sure I like it, but if I turn off the rendering of the bar borders the P-1's are [I]just[/I] visible.