Thread: Missions
View Single Post
Old 2004-08-13, 15:41   #8
dave_0273
 
dave_0273's Avatar
 
Oct 2003
Australia, Brisbane

2×5×47 Posts
Default

Firstly ET_: Thanks for your suggestions.

Quote:
Most active factorers (number of tests done)
easy

Quote:
Factorers that discovrered most factors (number of factors found)
easy

Quote:
Global project time
Exponents (or P90 days) per day
Searcher's factoring time and/or speed
Ok that one is a little more tricky. The problem is that I don't really get a daily update of amount of p-1 tests done. I use the "weekly" status files to track our progress.

So, how about some middle ground. How about I have a table that shows how many exponents are factored by mersenne-aries each time a new set of "weekly" status files comes out. Then, if I were to divide that by the number of days since the last set of status files, we could get a (rough) estimate as to the number of exponents cleared per day.

As for an individual speed, this is just as tricky. However, how about this. I could do it on a per month basis. I could rank people by the number of exponents tested over the last month. The reason that I don't suggest weekly is that it takes just over a week on a resonably fast computer to do a set of work at the moment. Therefore, if I were to do it on a weekly basis, it would look like they didn't do any crunching that week when really they were crunching all week. I know that some people submit work as they go, but the majority of people submit at the end of each block of work.

Quote:
List of found factors in descending order
(with the discoverer?)
Ok, I don't think that I have the time to keep up with this one. I personally have found over 200 factors and I am sure that there are at least a few others that have done about the same amount of work. But, how about if I track the largest factor found by each person??

So, how about these compromises?? Your suggestions are very much appreciated. If you can think of anything better than what I have suggested, please post it.

Mersenne-ary: As for your suggestion about smaller sets, I will start to post some blocks of 50 or so. They used to be all blocks of 50, however a lot of our crunchers asked for bigger sets, so I upped it to 100. That way they could leave it for longer without having to manually update it. However, now that I know that people prefered the blocks of 50, I will now do a selection of both.

As for a "round" number in each group, that is something that I do to make it easier for myself. They are easier to post and easier to keep track of this way. However, there is the occassional "non-round" set that I put on the boards. This is when I get to the end of a 0.5M range and I just post what is left over.

Thank you for your suggestions. Please keep them coming!!

Last fiddled with by dave_0273 on 2004-08-13 at 15:53
dave_0273 is offline   Reply With Quote