View Single Post
Old 2008-03-26, 20:23   #20
Mini-Geek
Account Deleted
 
Mini-Geek's Avatar
 
"Tim Sorbera"
Aug 2006
San Antonio, TX USA

17×251 Posts
Default

Your extrapolation of my CPU time is practically precisely what I recorded. Task Manager told me it was ~17.5 CPU hours per instance when I did the things, and I could have made my calc's easier with using your reverse-engineering. I calculated ([total pairs]/(([total pairs]-[pairs remaining])/[CPU hours]))/24=. For reference, yours would be 1/([completed n]/160000)*[CPU hours]/24=.
Mine would probably be a little more precise due to varying remaining pairs per n as n increases, but yours is far easier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gd_barnes View Post
Further incrementing and summing up to n=260K shows that it should take you 8.027126 days to do n=100K-260K for a file with 12000 candidates with the final range of n=259900-260000 taking .009814 of a day, assuming that you used the straight multiplication to give your original estiamte.

Based on this, the 25000 candidate range should take 25000/12000 * 8.027126 = 16.72318 days.

And further, the average file size currently posted is 19563 candidates. Based on that, the average file size should take 19563 / 12000 * 8.027126 = 13.08639 days.
A note on the exact sizes of the ranges (as I put it in off the top of my head, before I did all the calculations which used the exact sizes): They're 12969 and 22674. You may want to plug that in to your spreadsheet and see if it changes a significant amount.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gd_barnes View Post
So, it looks like we're in the ballpark but a little large. I suspect that you have a high-speed machine so this average is somewhat larger than I would like but not too bad. If Anon wants to mess with it, if people with slower resources want to chip in and not spend up to 4 weeks on a file, then we could consider splitting up a file or two.
It's on a dual-core 2.5 GHz Athlon (http://www.newegg.com/product/produc...82E16819103778 if you want to know exact). You may or may not consider that high-speed. I think the ranges are too large currently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gd_barnes View Post
You'll have to let me know how close this is to the actual amount of time taken for the files.
Will do. I'll be sure to get the exact, or closest estimate, time each range finishes, and I can look back to when I reserved for very close estimates of when I started them. I might be able to get CPU time, too, but I'm not sure my computer won't be rebooted or I won't restart an LLR instance before then.
Mini-Geek is online now   Reply With Quote