Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

And now for the my **** is biger the your's stats!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Damn Willis,

    Ranked #22 in Top Crunchers with 117

    And too bad my average doesnt show.
    But, the last 117 hours I did in an average of 6hours 5min.... put me at 38 fastest Murc'er... Fastest of those who pumped out 100+ Wu's .. !

    And I also made it.. on the 'by effort' list..

    Im surprised to see you guys have so many damn machines... I am also surprised.

    Also, I would like to know how the f*ck you get 3:30 .... What kinda freakin` machine do you have?

    My p3-938 Doesnt even do that.. There are like 4:20's hehehe

    ------------------
    G400 on a G400
    What the hell are we doing in the middle of the desert?

    Comment


    • #17
      Well Andy is last night is anything to go on I might be able to manage >100/day every day this week So I will majorly smoke you. Luckily all my machines have net access so they just upload the units themselves.

      Comment


      • #18
        Public apology time again (hi Steve ):

        Originally posted by jms:
        Martin,
        sure you fixed those script's?
        The occasional WU gets done in 3:30, but theres no way that my average is that low.
        Could this be SETI@Home's fault?

        Jan M.
        Damn, I'm sorry.

        The scripts are okay now (I hope ). But apparently, me and my database have had a small misunderstanding.

        When I told it to display the average cpu-times with two decimals, I thought it would understand that it should just *display* it with two decimals. Not bloody *store* it in two decimals precision.

        But it did, as I (you) now found out. So the averages were indeed inaccurate: it should be about right, but the rounding error is way too large, since I'm multiplying the reported averages with the number of WUs.

        (Hmm, well, not quite sure that makes any sense. I anyone doesn't get what I meant back there, but is interested: here's what I do:

        insert into temp_now (name, tot_wu, ave_cpu) select name,tot_wu, ave_cpu from stats_individual where run_no=8517;

        insert into temp_then (name, tot_wu, ave_cpu) select name,tot_wu, ave_cpu from stats_individual where run_no=8362;

        insert into temp_result (name,wus,hours) select temp_now.name, (temp_now.tot_wu-temp_then.tot_wu) as wus, (temp_now.tot_wu*temp_now.ave_cpu-temp_then.tot_wu*temp_then.ave_cpu) as hours from temp_now,temp_then where strcmp(temp_now.name,temp_then.name)=0 and temp_now.name<>"" having hours>0 and wus > 0;

        update temp_result set average_decimal=hours/wus;

        update temp_result set average=concat(floor(average_decimal),'h ',round((average_decimal-floor(average_decimal))*60),'m');

        select name, wus, round(hours,2) as hours, average from temp_result order by average_decimal limit 50;

        Hope that's clearer . If anyone sees any other obvious mistakes, let me know .)

        Anyway, I've re-educated myself, and my database (*Slap*! Take that, you #$%!), so next week's averages should be more realistic.

        I think I'll go and sit in a corner somewhere now, crying softly.

        Martin

        Comment


        • #19
          Martin,
          no need to apology.
          You're doing a h**l of a job!

          Jan M.

          Comment

          Working...
          X