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

2×5×47 Posts

Firstly ET_: Thanks for your suggestions.

Most active factorers (number of tests done)

Factorers that discovrered most factors (number of factors found)

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.

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