PRPnet servers for NPLB

[vaughan]

Both sets of "user stats" in Post #1 in this thread end up with a blank screen and the URL changes to about:blank

methinks the server is not worky

[gd_barnes]

Only the port G5000 links are not working because it is offline as shown in the 1st posting here. i.e.:

NPLB PRPnet server #1 (updated 2009-08-03 09:00 GMT):
Note: Server is not online yet. Links below will not work until server is brought online.

We're still fighting some issues with a PRPnet server over at CRUS (Conjectures 'R Us) before bringing it online.

The port G2000 links are working so the server should be working. Let us know if you experience problems connecting to it.


Gary

[mdettweiler]

Originally Posted by gd_barnes

Only the port G5000 links are not working because it is offline as shown in the 1st posting here. i.e.:

[b]

We're still fighting some issues with a PRPnet server over at CRUS (Conjectures 'R Us) before bringing it online.

The port G2000 links are working so the server should be working. Let us know if you experience problems connecting to it.


Gary

As Gary said--G5000 isn't online yet, so its links won't work. However, G2000's are working fine for me; note that these pages are generated on the fly and often take a few seconds to load. Wait for them, and that big blank page will turn into the requested info.

[vaughan]

Very strange, the :2000 stats wouldn't work for me about this time last night from Melbourne but just now worked fine for me in Sydney.

Edited by MyDog: Solution - Stay in Sydney LOL

[Zachariassen]

..and suddenly I got work from the G3000 !!!! - server...
Is the G2000 down ?

Whatever the reason was - the G2000-server is working now...

[vaughan]

@Zach: thanks for the hint, I'll check out port 3k.

@MyDog: nice travel tip but Melbourne is head office so I cannot avoid it.

[Zachariassen]

Originally Posted by vaughan

@Zach: thanks for the hint, I'll check out port 3k.

http://nplb-gb1.no-ip.org:3000/user_stats.html

Well - the user stats shows that we are doing some work at the G3000-server from time to time...

But... we have a long way to go before we can compete against the 'top guys' - I don't even know what those big numbers are ... billions... trillions... fantasillions ????

Edited MyDog: Or maybe crunch-illions

[rogue]

Originally Posted by Zachariassen

http://nplb-gb1.no-ip.org:3000/user_stats.html

Well - the user stats shows that we are doing some work at the G3000-server from time to time...

But... we have a long way to go before we can compete against the 'top guys' - I don't even know what those big numbers are ... billions... trillions... fantasillions ????

Edited MyDog: Or maybe crunch-illions

I cannot view the stats from work (the port is blocked), but if any of them were generated from the 2.1.2 (or older) server, then the large ones are most likely garbage. I fixed an issue in 2.1.3 where scores were calculated incorrectly. The user stats are persistent, in other words, they are not calculated on the fly like the server stats.

[mdettweiler]

Originally Posted by rogue

I cannot view the stats from work (the port is blocked), but if any of them were generated from the 2.1.2 (or older) server, then the large ones are most likely garbage. I fixed an issue in 2.1.3 where scores were calculated incorrectly. The user stats are persistent, in other words, they are not calculated on the fly like the server stats.

Hmm, I see. Well, I'm pretty sure that most of that data was picked up on 2.2.x versions, so we should be good on that count. I have noticed, however, that PRPnet scores in general tend to balloon to very big numbers if you put a lot of crunching onto one server; see my personal server at http://nplb-gb1.no-ip.org:1864/user_stats.html for an example of this. Note that this server, AFAIR, never ran a version lower than 2.2.1. Edit: Note also that this server's done a bunch of big base 12 numbers, so that huge score isn't quite as abnormal as it would otherwise look.

[rogue]

The scores are definitely wacko, but I don't know why at this time. If you want, you can recalculate them by taking averages of the other users and multiplying out by the number of tests. I wonder if it somehow miscalculated the decimal length of some numbers, because I think that is about the only way they can get whacked.

[vaughan]

AppName: prpclient AppVer: 0.0.0.0 ModName: prpclient.exe
ModVer: 0.0.0.0 Offset: 0001755f

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-16"?>
<DATABASE>
<EXE NAME="prpclient.exe" FILTER="GRABMI_FILTER_PRIVACY">
<MATCHING_FILE NAME="cllr.exe" SIZE="3956736" CHECKSUM="0xDFFF2752" MODULE_TYPE="WIN32" PE_CHECKSUM="0x0" LINKER_VERSION="0x0" LINK_DATE="02/01/2008 07:10:16" UPTO_LINK_DATE="02/01/2008 07:10:16" />
<MATCHING_FILE NAME="pfgw.exe" SIZE="5575680" CHECKSUM="0x70A557FB" MODULE_TYPE="WIN32" PE_CHECKSUM="0x55476C" LINKER_VERSION="0x0" LINK_DATE="07/25/2009 21:37:06" UPTO_LINK_DATE="07/25/2009 21:37:06" />
<MATCHING_FILE NAME="phrot.p3-mingw32.exe" SIZE="199168" CHECKSUM="0x5BD4CABD" MODULE_TYPE="WIN32" PE_CHECKSUM="0x3A182" LINKER_VERSION="0x10000" LINK_DATE="04/27/2009 10:31:32" UPTO_LINK_DATE="04/27/2009 10:31:32" />
<MATCHING_FILE NAME="prpclient.exe" SIZE="606208" CHECKSUM="0x68C7A1E4" MODULE_TYPE="WIN32" PE_CHECKSUM="0x0" LINKER_VERSION="0x0" LINK_DATE="07/17/2009 12:59:11" UPTO_LINK_DATE="07/17/2009 12:59:11" />
</EXE>
<EXE NAME="kernel32.dll" FILTER="GRABMI_FILTER_THISFILEONLY">
<MATCHING_FILE NAME="kernel32.dll" SIZE="989696" CHECKSUM="0x2D998938" BIN_FILE_VERSION="5.1.2600.5781" BIN_PRODUCT_VERSION="5.1.2600.5781" PRODUCT_VERSION="5.1.2600.5781" FILE_DESCRIPTION="Windows NT BASE API Client DLL" COMPANY_NAME="Microsoft Corporation" PRODUCT_NAME="Microsoft® Windows® Operating System" FILE_VERSION="5.1.2600.5781 (xpsp_sp3_gdr.090321-1317)" ORIGINAL_FILENAME="kernel32" INTERNAL_NAME="kernel32" LEGAL_COPYRIGHT="© Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved." VERFILEDATEHI="0x0" VERFILEDATELO="0x0" VERFILEOS="0x40004" VERFILETYPE="0x2" MODULE_TYPE="WIN32" PE_CHECKSUM="0xFE572" LINKER_VERSION="0x50001" UPTO_BIN_FILE_VERSION="5.1.2600.5781" UPTO_BIN_PRODUCT_VERSION="5.1.2600.5781" LINK_DATE="03/21/2009 14:06:58" UPTO_LINK_DATE="03/21/2009 14:06:58" VER_LANGUAGE="English (United States) [0x409]" />
</EXE>
</DATABASE>