[QUOTE=chalsall;289751]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.[/QUOTE]Oh... silly me. Somehow I was thinking number of tests saved, not effort saved. Thanks for making the P-1 savings visible.

[QUOTE=chalsall;289748]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?[/QUOTE]

I'm not super keen on this idea, though I wouldn't complain if you did it. If you do this you should label it something else, since that chart would stop being what it seems it should be.

You could also make a separate scale on the right side just for the average GHz-d/saved and done lines so they aren't stuck to the bottom on people like xyzzy and me.

[QUOTE=KyleAskine;289766]You could also make a separate scale on the right side just for the average GHz-d/saved and done lines so they aren't stuck to the bottom on people like xyzzy and me.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I don't really like altering true data either. And I actually wouldn't -- it would be a seperate field in the records for that table. But point taken.

The problem with a seperate axis is the GD::Graph module doesn't handle that properly for cumulative graphs, but I agree with you that it's the better solution. Maybe I need to climb into that code base and debug it....

In the overall system progress reports, the number of expos to each level per day are not bar graphs, and therefore don't have a regression. Is is possible to put the regression on there without the bar graph, and if not, change them to bar graphs?


[QUOTE=chalsall;289769]Yeah, I don't really like altering true data either. And I actually wouldn't -- it would be a seperate field in the records for that table. But point taken.

The problem with a seperate axis is the GD::Graph module doesn't handle that properly for cumulative graphs, but I agree with you that it's the better solution. Maybe I need to climb into that code base and debug it....[/QUOTE]
For me at least, at [url]http://gpu72.com/reports/worker/829a683f5d991e17d4cca0453117d491/[/url] , my Work Completed graph scale is all out of whack because my initial batch of work was done over week-long Thanksgiving break -- you can hardly see the rest of the graph.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;289781]In the overall system progress reports, the number of expos to each level per day are not bar graphs, and therefore don't have a regression. Is is possible to put the regression on there without the bar graph, and if not, change them to bar graphs?[/QUOTE]

Just so everyone knows, Dubslow has once again beaten me (:smile:) to announcing that I've added an overall GHz Days per Day of Work Saved graph, and a Linear Regression Trend line to many of the graphs, on the [URL="http://www.gpu72.com/reports/overall/graph/month/"]Overall System Progress Graphs[/URL] page.

I've been thinking about how to do this for the TF Depth graphs. The problem I'm having is what would I regress?

The aggregate of each completion type?

Those that have been TFed to the release level?

I need to run some experiments, and see what visually communicates the information best.

Whoops :razz: I thought that was part of the stuff discussed above my post. Didn't mean to steal your thunder :P

Good point, I hadn't thought about that. My initial suggestion would be just regress the 72, but if your experiments show something else is best, then whatever works.

I probably just missed the announcement of a GPUto72 feature, but I just noticed that now, clicking on an exponent in the View Assignments page plugs it into the PrimeNet "Exponent Status" widget.

Another great convenience! Many thanks, chalsall.

[QUOTE=chalsall;289787]Just so everyone knows, Dubslow has once again beaten me (:smile:) to announcing that I've added an overall GHz Days per Day of Work Saved graph, and a Linear Regression Trend line to many of the graphs, on the [URL="http://www.gpu72.com/reports/overall/graph/month/"]Overall System Progress Graphs[/URL] page.
[/QUOTE]

All you need to do is find the webcam he stashed in your room so he can watch what you are doing and beat you to the punch.

[QUOTE=chalsall;289751]

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.[/QUOTE]

I don't like the way the graphs look without the border.

Brent-Suyama 0_o

[url]http://mersenne-aries.sili.net/exponent.php?exponentdetails=52827883[/url]


Also: [URL="http://gpu72.com/reports/worker/69e746069963cd4101e668076c65188f/"]suspicious[/URL]

[QUOTE=Dubslow;289828]Brent-Suyama 0_o
[url]http://mersenne-aries.sili.net/M52827883[/url][/QUOTE]Parsing data from PrimeNet I don't know what bounds were used to find a P-1 factor, or even that P-1 was used at all. If you can submit you results.txt to the site then you'll get the pretty P-1 graph that clearly shows the factor outside the used P-1 bounds.