[QUOTE=manfred4;408436]Another thing since this has gotten your "new visualization tool"-thread: [URL="http://www.mersenne.ca/graphs/factor_bits_384M/factor_bits_384M_20150820.png"]This Picture[/URL] seems to not be updating properly anymore since 6 days, the progress in the last 6 days seems to be way too less compared to the timeintervals before. Did you mess around there as well?[/QUOTE]Not intentionally, but it's not impossible that I broke something unintentionally. Keep an eye on it and let me know if it continues to misbehave over the next few days (or sooner if it gets really wonky).

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;408433]A more complex compromise I haven't properly thought through could be something like 0.01M resolution in (0M-100M); 0.1M resolution in (100M-1000M); 1M resolution in (1000M-4294M). This would give the most detail where people are likely to care without too many spurious data points.[/QUOTE]I have just implemented this approach to see how it goes.

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;408445]I have just implemented this approach to see how it goes.[/QUOTE]

Just to put on the table, it used to take my spider about one hour of work to get the current data, and then the summary scripts about another four.

Not a terrific Internet connection, but not a terribly bad server either.

Happy to share my historical datasets James (while empirically noisy).

The right arrow in the lower right side does not work (the pointer is in the weeds).

(edit: and I am terrible upset by the <65 column. Could not be split in few, at leas for views of <1M expos? well.. this is nitpicking, you can ignore it, but here in this part of the world we would like to see the split :razz:)

[QUOTE=LaurV;408467]The right arrow in the lower right side does not work (the pointer is in the weeds).[/quote]I fixed what I think it was you meant.

[QUOTE=LaurV;408467]and I am terrible upset by the <65 column. Could not be split in few, at leas for views of <1M expos?[/QUOTE]No problem, it's just a display consideration. I've lowered the min to 61.

b-e-a-utiful! Thanks! I knew you are the man! :tu:

[QUOTE=LaurV;408467]Could not be split in few, at leas for views of <1M expos?[/QUOTE]

I didn't imagine you were keen on that region.
In a few weeks there might not be anything below the 62 column, anywhere.
I hope it is recognised that the numbers remain inconsistent with PrimeNet.

There are several of us keen on that region...
As of now, the correct count is

61 - 898
62 - 15084
63 - 114
64 - 2

Total < 65 bits - 16098

All exponents TFed to less than 65 bits are < 1 M.

[QUOTE=snme2pm1;408495]I hope it is recognised that the numbers remain inconsistent with PrimeNet.[/QUOTE]Very likely. It'll be another couple days before I have hope of being in sync. I will let you know when I think that is the case and [I]then[/I] you can start pointing out what doesn't match what.

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;408441]George has just provided me with the data I need on this front, importing it now. As suspected above, there's a significant number of discrepancies in the 500M range and elsewhere.[/QUOTE]As it turns out the data file I got was incomplete. I have re-run the update with the now-complete data file and there was large number of additional updates to my data. Unfortunately I can't give a breakdown of counts by range (or even overall counts) since my connection timed out during the update :sad: But it was [i]many[/i]. I had to restart the run from 831M and the last part of the update looked like this:[code][832] => 18190
[833] => 19477
[834] => 16172
[835] => 18614
[836] => 18242
[837] => 20867
[838] => 18160
[839] => 19710
[840] => 10414
[841] => 16051
[842] => 19450
[843] => 10041
[844] => 18929
[845] => 20201
[846] => 15946
[847] => 22085
[848] => 9124
[849] => 12634
[850] => 8684
[851] => 20088
[852] => 20368
[853] => 3680
[854] => 17773
[855] => 14069
[856] => 17622
[857] => 15487
[858] => 18112
[859] => 16923
[860] => 3982
[861] => 15053
[862] => 1525
[863] => 10259
[864] => 19286
[865] => 19889
[866] => 18642
[867] => 21487
[868] => 19872
[869] => 11385
[870] => 20105
[871] => 21791
[872] => 22159
[873] => 5382
[874] => 18284
[875] => 4120
[876] => 8365
[877] => 13381
[878] => 4000
[879] => 5006
[880] => 5944
[881] => 16342
[882] => 17080
[883] => 12851
[884] => 1862
[885] => 14264
[886] => 17130
[888] => 14323
[889] => 14128
[890] => 18256
[891] => 16852
[892] => 16896
[893] => 14307
[894] => 18943
[895] => 19340
[896] => 9353
[898] => 15794
[899] => 1240
[900] => 1
[901] => 5854
[902] => 8240
[903] => 16026
[904] => 10980
[905] => 12724
[906] => 22555
[907] => 2287
[908] => 12077
[909] => 18991
[910] => 1
[911] => 5391
[912] => 3
[913] => 8443
[914] => 103
[915] => 124
[916] => 2019
[917] => 1
[918] => 1
[919] => 16
[920] => 204
[926] => 2441
[928] => 26
[929] => 24
[930] => 3
[932] => 1
[934] => 2105
[936] => 20
[937] => 27
[938] => 14992
[939] => 548
[940] => 15
[941] => 25
[942] => 1
[943] => 192
[944] => 1
[945] => 27
[946] => 7987
[947] => 1232
[948] => 927
[950] => 15140
[951] => 14177
[952] => 2
[955] => 1
[956] => 1
[957] => 24
[958] => 12
[959] => 7
[960] => 947
[961] => 13218
[962] => 2986
[963] => 1918
[964] => 899
[965] => 822
[966] => 1864
[967] => 2232
[968] => 1501
[969] => 1242
[970] => 14713
[971] => 15157
[972] => 9364
[973] => 12541
[974] => 20195
[975] => 8107
[976] => 10098
[977] => 6152
[978] => 1688
[979] => 1039
[980] => 11962
[981] => 13431
[982] => 15277
[983] => 15145
[984] => 8413
[985] => 12304
[986] => 12808
[987] => 9691
[988] => 15647
[989] => 11218
[990] => 204
[993] => 62
[999] => 376[/code]

[QUOTE=manfred4;408436]Another thing since this has gotten your "new visualization tool"-thread: [URL="http://www.mersenne.ca/graphs/factor_bits_384M/factor_bits_384M_20150820.png"]This Picture[/URL] seems to not be updating properly anymore since 6 days, the progress in the last 6 days seems to be way too less compared to the timeintervals before. Did you mess around there as well?[/QUOTE]I have also discovered a problem that may be related to that. I have fixed the code, unfortunately I need to reparse a large amount of data. Hopefully I can complete that before the end of today, we'll see how it goes.

[QUOTE=James Heinrich;408399]I lived in Kelowna for a [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Okanagan_Mountain_Park_Fire]year[/url] so I'm not unfamiliar with the area :smile:[/QUOTE]

The fires in Okanogan are bad news (I live in the Seattle area, so the sunrise this morning was spectacular though). I've been looking at property in that area and it's sad to know that some of the beautiful areas I've seen on my drives will be scorched.

EDIT: and of course I just saw that your link mentioned Okanagan (in BC), not Okanogan (in WA). :smile: