during the day, the Numeric Statistics:Work Done:Overall reports the total INCLUDING work units in progress. At update time, the work units in progress are ignored and the Neighbors:Total Production reports the total EXCLUDING work units in progress. It only includes work units that have been completed...
Well, that explains a LOT. Why couldn't someone have said that clearly days ago? It might have saved us all a lot of bandwidth.
I certainly don't agree with that method, however. If you're going to show incomplete work in the ongoing 24 hour graph and charts, than use it for the daily ranking update, or else leave it out completely.
No wonder none of the numbers tie together!!!
Hmm, that might explain why my daily rate at the moment is only 11K cEMs while my 24/7 pc crunches at a constant 25K cEMs.
OTOH, i didn't complete a test today, so if i understand this correctely, tomorrow my daily rate should be 0 cEMs??
Really confused now.
But i'm not really in here about the stats (although i don't want to miss them), but more for the project it self.
Uhm, the stats are not the project?!?
Ok, so let me get serious again:
AFAI understand it, your score will drop somewhat, but it's still > 0 - as you almost certainly did at least 1 block of the current test. So the server has the log that you already finished x blocks.
Let's say:
You completed 10 blocks in the first day (and this day is yesterday). So your cEMs/sec for the last 24 hours would be 2,500 McEMs (10 blocks * 250 McEMs/block) / 86,400 seconds (one day) = roundabout 29 KcEMs/sec.
When the PC does 10 blocks again the next day (assuming the test consists of more than 20 blocks), it will be 5,000 McEMs / 172,800 sec = 29 KcEMs/sec again.
But if you shut down the PC the whole day, it would be 2,500 McEMs / 172,800 sec = 14,5 KcEMs/sec - for both days, but as only the last 24 hours count in this statistic...
Did I get it right now?!?
kugano:
Your explanation improved my understanding somewhat. Thanks a lot!
Work done is kind of like clocking out at the end of the day.
You don't get paid based on how much work you say you are going to do. You get paid based on how much work you do. They record this by spreading the amount of work you do over the time it took you to do the work. They don't know how long it's going to take you to do a block -- the amount of time it takes to do a block varies widely based on many, many variables -- so they can't credit it until you turn it in. So, you get credit for doing a block when you turn your work in. And your credit is spread evenly over the time since the last block was turned in.
Every time you turn in a block, the stats are updated. This update says "I did this block and I have been working on it (not necessarily continuously mind you) since I turned in the last block."
Mike
-----
Mike Faunce
mdfaunce at hotmail dot com
But my rate for the last day was 11,494K, while my pc which is on 24/7 does at least 25K. I also have a laptop and my P4 which report a couple of blocks a day.
The daily graph always showed a rate of at least 30K.
Even my lifetime average is 17,297K and that includes the 4 months i wasn't running the client at all.
The way the 'Last Day Rate' stat looks, it appears that dfamily's theory is closest. You don't get ANY credit for completed blocks if the entire work unit is not completed at the 1 AM stats run. That would explain why the daily rate in that stat is so drastically lower.
Now, if kugano could confirm that....
I wonder if it's an oversight, or intentional?
One other question to throw in:
Since the introduction of the "Production By Country" table (thx again for that little feature), the best coutries (except US) had ~ 1 McEMs/sec. But now, germany weights in at 5.61 McEMs/sec and the UK almost achieved 3! Did you change the distribution method?
Just pure interest...
The real work unit is one proth test = full test. Block is just fake.
Starting and stopping client does not matter. Project uses formula about how many cEM is in one proth test and divide this amount by used time. Because formula estimates incorrectly how many cEMs is in one full test you rate will increase all the time.
(bug causes cME per test increase faster than it in reality increases). I guess that same formula is used in server and client.
Yours,
Nuutti
Uhm, the stats are not the project?!?
Lest anyone miss this point, stats ARE the project.
Without stats, you won't get the big teams' participation. If the stats are borked, or skimpy, or non-existent, or too hard to figure out, or not parsable for external stats engines, the project will most likely wither. (not suggesting that SoB currently falls into any of these categories)
Just my opinion, from years of participating in DC projects.
Want to start one of the 'reasons I do this project' polls?
/me wonders...hmmmm.
/me thinks "if stats are borked and Ars is here for stats....would Ars go away if stats are borked? and TeamBeOS could take #1?"
/me votes for borked stats all the time!!!!!!!!!!!!
/me doesn't think stats are borked.
/me wishes for BeOS GUI client
===========
Posted with NetPositive under BeOS.
"Yeah. THAT dead OS
Agent Smith was right!: "I hate this place. This zoo. This prison. This reality, whatever you want to call it, I can't stand it any longer. It's the smell! If there is such a thing. I feel saturated by it. I can taste your stink and every time I do, I fear that I've somehow been infected by it."
LOL...Originally posted by Chinasaur
/me wonders...hmmmm.
/me thinks "if stats are borked and Ars is here for stats....would Ars go away if stats are borked? and TeamBeOS could take #1?"
/me votes for borked stats all the time!!!!!!!!!!!!
/me doesn't think stats are borked.
/me wishes for BeOS GUI client
/me was thinking the same think
/me was hoping they'd all go away so me would be back in the top ten
Angus: No, the 1 AM ranking update does credit for "blocks" (unfinished tests).
Mystwalker: Actually, yes, the method of computing countries was completely changed this morning. Instead of using unreliable reverse DNS lookups, the script now queries the IANA databases (many thanks to Vato for pointing out that I can actually do this
Angus, smh, et al.: You're right, I'm now myself convinced something is wrong with the ranking updates. I have no idea what; I just ran it manually before making this post and it came up with correct results for every user that I checked. But before I ran the manual update it most certainly showed incorrect numbers. I'll be around for the update tonight to see if I can put a finger on exactly what's going on.
Everyone else: Go see "The Two Towers." It's worth it.
Yep, that manual update fixed my stats also. Hmm... Good luck on debugging it.Originally posted by kugano
Angus, smh, et al.: You're right, I'm now myself convinced something is wrong with the ranking updates. I have no idea what; I just ran it manually before making this post and it came up with correct results for every user that I checked. But before I ran the manual update it most certainly showed incorrect numbers. I'll be around for the update tonight to see if I can put a finger on exactly what's going on.
Also, check out the stats for team shifted. It consists entirely of me, and it's exhibiting the exact same anomalies as the user stats were. I suspect it's a common bug.
Having just watched tonight's update, I think I know what was happening (but not why):
On a whim, a few minutes before the update I removed a script from the scheduled maintenance list. It was a simple script designed to go and recompute the cEM amounts for each test (just to be sure the server didn't 'forget' to calculate cEMs or calculate them wrong or something). Really that script shouldn't be necessary, but it's been in the nightly maintenance since the new system went online just to guard against any programming errors in the new server code.
Anyway, although I can't prove it (and a quick glance at the script in question didn't reveal any glaring errors), I'm betting this script was to blame. It runs 2 minutes before the ranking updates, and is the *only* difference I could find between the automated ranking updates and my manual ones that would explain why my manual ones worked fine and the automatic ones generated incorrect results.
So, check your rankings now. Let me know if they're more correct.
LOOKS GOOD !!!
Thanks for taking the time to get into it for us.
Closer examination of the script reveals that I was right. There was a (very sneaky) math error in the way it calculated cEMs. (Not to worry; the error only affected unfinished tests, and thus the server [correctly] recalculated all the bad cEM values.)
How ironic, that a script designed to guard against server math errors instead has math errors itself while the server is fine. *Sigh.*
That's the same reason why we have multiple levels of government?in case one level fails to screw up, the next will!Originally posted by kugano
How ironic, that a script designed to guard against server math errors instead has math errors itself while the server is fine. *Sigh.*
Very cool catch. Thanks for the fix!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote