![]() |
|
Home | Help | Status | Forums | Glossary | Account
|
log in |
Message boards : Help! : Counting active users
Author | Message |
---|---|
Each time when I take a look at the Database server status, it seems to me stable. But now the Project Summary is interesting me. AFAIK last results were submitted/returned on approx. 3.2.2007 (except the batch of 64-bit tasks on 17.2.2007). If everything goes well, in next 5 days the number of active hosts (now 2423) and users (now 813) (and thus also teams? (now 446)) ("user or host has returned work within the past 30 days") should go, per definition, very fast down towards zero. | |
ID: 5018 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Pepo wrote: I'd like to see whether it will really happen. Is the the repeating run of "RAC decay calculation" batch process necessary to rise/lower these numbers according to the definition? We are here to investigate, and I like good suggestions like this from the crew, so I think we should try it. I'm working on a new app, but I don't think it will be ready for general deployment that quickly anyway. I've had a quick look at the way these numbers are calculated, and right now I suspect that it will in fact not drop as you would expect, because it does use the timestamp from the last RAC decay calculation, and that is being reset every night when we recompute RAC. So while we are waiting to see if it will drop, I will be thinking of a better algorithm for computing these numbers. ____________ -- Eric Myers "Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire." -- William Butler Yeats | |
ID: 5021 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Wormholio wrote:
I was not expecting the RAC to rapidly drop down (BTW the stats sites people does (or did) not agree with BOINC's RAC calculation for inactive hosts AFAIK), but the number of active hosts, where the only known formula is "30 days". ____________ Peter .-) ![]() | |
ID: 5025 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Wormholio wrote: while we are waiting to see if it will drop, I will be thinking of a better algorithm for computing these numbers. I think I can already see these new numbers... So, now is looks like: active hosts (2423/1594), users (813/652) teams (446) ____________ Peter .-) ![]() | |
ID: 5035 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Pepo wrote: I think I can already see these new numbers... The new numbers for hosts and users (marked 'results') are obtained directly by counting distinct host or user id's from Results returned in the past N days (where N=30 for now). I think this more closely matches the description of "Active" under the table. The way we have been doing it previously (marked 'expavg') was to count the number of hosts or users who had their RAC updated in the past N days. Since the RAC calculation is performed when a new Result is returned this should produce the same result. Except... since this project is not always giving out work, I have been running a job every night to update (ie decay) RAC for users who have not had RAC adjusted in the previous 7 days. This changes the timestamp, which makes the number of "active" hosts or users too large. (I would guess that it ends up calculating the number of hosts or users with non-zero RAC, but I've not checked that.) Getting the direct count for the teams is a little more difficult to do. It will be interesting to see how these two methods compare when we have more work, as opposed to sitting idle in port. In the long run we'll probably move to the new method. ____________ -- Eric Myers "Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire." -- William Butler Yeats | |
ID: 5036 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
RACtive :-) I like the nick, sounds like radioactive :-D | |
ID: 5043 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
| |
ID: 5054 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
RAC/tive hosts (2423/1594), users (813/652) teams (446) | |
ID: 5055 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
RAC/tive hosts (2423/1594), users (813/652) teams (446) | |
ID: 5058 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
RAC/tive hosts (2423/1594), users (813/652) teams (446) | |
ID: 5063 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Wormholio wrote: It will be interesting to see how these two methods compare when we have more work, as opposed to sitting idle in port. In the long run we'll probably move to the new method. Maybe that will be true in the very long run, but I'm finding it interesting to see how "Active" and "RACtive" differ, so we'll keep both for a while yet. ____________ -- Eric Myers "Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire." -- William Butler Yeats | |
ID: 5070 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
RAC/tive hosts (2423/1594), users (813/652) teams (446) | |
ID: 5074 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
RAC/tive hosts (2423/1594), users (813/652) teams (446) | |
ID: 5090 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
RAC/tive hosts (2423/1594), users (813/652) teams (446) | |
ID: 5101 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Pepo wrote: ( I see, there was some work I missed :-( ) Work is being spit out real slow. Results waiting for deletion is climbing. Pirates' apps page shows new Hello, but I've only snagged a few here. ____________ ![]() Click and enter your name for your BOINC Statistics | |
ID: 5102 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Now that there has been some steady work (albeit not much), I think it's interesting to note that the numbers of active and RACtive users and hosts are very close. | |
ID: 5391 | Rating: 0 | rate:
![]() ![]() ![]() | |
Message boards : Help! : Counting active users
Home | Help | Status | Forums | Glossary | Account
|