GPU to 72 status...

[MrHappy]

The linear trend in "work saved" is falling. What is the expected date when GPU to 72 crosses the zero line?

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by MrHappy

The linear trend in "work saved" is falling. What is the expected date when GPU to 72 crosses the zero line?

It's temporary... A couple of our "big guns" went over to DCTFing fighting for the Factor's Found metric. Then Dubslow pointed out that perhaps GHz Days Saved was a better metric.

Nothing happens fast here. But keep an eye on that trend line over the next month. It will become positive again in about two weeks...

[Dubslow]

Originally Posted by chalsall

It The derivative will become positive again in about two weeks...

#iamsuchanerd #nerdorgeek?

[LaurV]

Originally Posted by Dubslow

#iamsuchanerd #nerdorgeek?

Then, it will hold water again in about one week. Or does it hold water already?

[Dubslow]

So PrimeNet is assigning TF in the 56M range, and I just got a 54.9M P-1 assignment. I think we should seriously consider how necessary it is to reserve assignments >55M or >56M as LLs via the GPU 2 72 system.

[LaurV]

Well, it was fun as long it lasted... :P

Now joking apart, we would need a "system" to coordinate at least the LLTF and DCTF assignments for GPUs. Primenet does not always give you lowest assignments, I got TF on 68M and higher... You can be lucky when someone drops a big bunch of lower stuff just before you ask Primenet for more work, but this is seldom. A system of trust on primenet (in fact, p95 doing the job gpu272 is doing now, assigning lower expos to more-trusted users) would be fine, but as long as we do not have it....

And moreover, is more fun competing on the closer circle of gpu272, with 30 users, instead of primenet with 5000 users :D

[Bdot]

I just randomly checked what primenet thinks about some of my assignments, and I noticed that almost all of my DC assignments have been assigned to other people by primenet ...

For example 26173363 was assigned to me by GPU272 on 2012-02-03. Primenet assigned it as Double-checking to "KYOJI_KAMEI" on 2012-02-03 (which is not me ).

26087387 was assigned to be by GPU272 on 2012-01-11. Primenet lists it as Double-checking to "ANONYMOUS" on 2012-02-22 --- if that is me, then why was it assigned today? I assume it was reassigned to someone else.

I already unreserved a few of my DC's from GPU272 when I noticed that many of them are almost complete on machines that have no internet access.

I now decided to kick all DC assignments that have no or less than 10% of their work done. Assignments that have more than 75% done already will keep going (there were none between 10-75%).

But what is happening here? And do I need to check each of my GPU272 assignments if they are still valid? Or just DC and LL which are supposed to be assigned to ourselves (which is not happening for machines with no internet)? What about P-1?

Is there some way GPU272 could help identifying cases where primenet reassigned stuff differently than GPU272?

[Dubslow]

Originally Posted by Bdot

...

Go see the last 5 or so posts in the assignment discrepancy thread (starting from #54).

Originally Posted by LaurV

Now joking apart, we would need a "system" to coordinate at least the LLTF and DCTF assignments for GPUs. Primenet does not always give you lowest assignments, I got TF on 68M and higher... You can be lucky when someone drops a big bunch of lower stuff just before you ask Primenet for more work, but this is seldom. A system of trust on primenet (in fact, p95 doing the job gpu272 is doing now, assigning lower expos to more-trusted users) would be fine, but as long as we do not have it....

And moreover, is more fun competing on the closer circle of gpu272, with 30 users, instead of primenet with 5000 users :D

I do agree that we still need it for DCTF and for the lower LLTF -- but not necessarily the higher stuff. Perhaps other users can see what sort of TF they get from PrimeNet?

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Bdot

I just randomly checked what primenet thinks about some of my assignments, and I noticed that almost all of my DC assignments have been assigned to other people by primenet ...

For example 26173363 was assigned to me by GPU272 on 2012-02-03. Primenet assigned it as Double-checking to "KYOJI_KAMEI" on 2012-02-03 (which is not me ).

Yes -- this was discussed over on the Assignment discrepancy thread yesterday. For some reason PrimeNet mapped the Anonymous DC account to "KYOJI_KAMEI" a few days ago. I had to create a new account, unreserve all the candidates which had not yet been assigned to workers, and then re-reserve them.

Originally Posted by Bdot

26087387 was assigned to be by GPU272 on 2012-01-11. Primenet lists it as Double-checking to "ANONYMOUS" on 2012-02-22 --- if that is me, then why was it assigned today? I assume it was reassigned to someone else.

Nope -- if you look at that page, you'll see that PrimeNet reports that you completed that DC today. I checked a few of your other assignments, and those which were assigned today PrimeNet is reporting as being assigned to "Anonymous". I suspect this is because your Prime95 client hasn't checked in with PrimeNet to claim them yet.

Originally Posted by Bdot

I already unreserved a few of my DC's from GPU272 when I noticed that many of them are almost complete on machines that have no internet access.

I now decided to kick all DC assignments that have no or less than 10% of their work done. Assignments that have more than 75% done already will keep going (there were none between 10-75%).

Even if "assigned" to "KYOJI_KAMEI", it is safe to complete them. The AID is valid, and KYOJI_KAMEI's machines have not claimed them.

Originally Posted by Bdot

But what is happening here? And do I need to check each of my GPU272 assignments if they are still valid? Or just DC and LL which are supposed to be assigned to ourselves (which is not happening for machines with no internet)? What about P-1?

Is there some way GPU272 could help identifying cases where primenet reassigned stuff differently than GPU272?

I didn't release and re-reserve any which were already assigned to workers because there is a small chance Spidy wouldn't be successful in re-reserving them, and the keys would change.

However, if anyone sees this and wants this done, please PM me. I'm going to do this today for one user who already has asked for it to be done.

Note that this did NOT happen for any LL assignments. And P-1 and TF assignments are owned by the non-anonymous Spidy accounts.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Dubslow

I do agree that we still need it for DCTF and for the lower LLTF -- but not necessarily the higher stuff. Perhaps other users can see what sort of TF they get from PrimeNet?

My thinking is since Spidy is always "on the job", that the system will continue to be useful for coordinating these efforts even if we pull ahead of the LL "wave" like we have the DC wave.

Keep in mind that Spidy is not grabbing any work above 55M which is already TFed to 71 bits or above. However, once it finds a candidate at 70 or below, it keeps it until TFed to 72 (or 73 above 59.69M).

And, yes, certainly people can work directly with PrimeNet. But I think some enjoy seeing the pretty graphs and stats (and competing with others) that GPU72 offers, and it does generally have lower candidates than are available from PrimeNet.

[Graff]

Originally Posted by chalsall

Hey all. Just so people know, over the weekend I:

- Added a "Released Trend" (Linear Regression) line to the Trial Factoring Depth per Day graphs on the Overall System Progress Graphs.

- Tweeked the LR lines on the other graphs so the current day is not including in the linear regression. This is to prevent the trend line varying during the day, and tending to be a lower slope than it should be.

- Made both of the daily GHz Days graphs on the Individual Stats pages have a 30 day moving average rather than an overall running average.

- Added a conditional for the Individual graphs so the X-axis date labels don't bunch up / overwrite for those who have been with the project for while.

- Fell off a Segway at 15 km/h onto coral stone. Three times... Semi-serious abrasions on both arms, and possibly a broken toe... Boy was it fun!!!

Are the top-n graphs generated dynamically? Or are they prepared
at intervals? I ask because the P-1 graphs don't seem to match the
P-1 table.

Gareth