Look here: Split Tape List

Why isn't this table being updated? Manpower or technology shift?

Looking at Richard Haselgrove's work on the earthquake thread, it seems that the user now has to create this data. Oh, well.

I don't no any more where the information could be found, but the site is based on old code. Matt tried to run it again on the new system but failed. Someone has to create a new site. As priorities had to be set, I guess the data distribution history was one of the things that are now at the bottom of the list.

---

Om mani padme hum.

I've realised I was making things harder for myself than were strictly necessary, and I've streamlined the process. Would there be any interest in a sticky thread I could update each month with the progress so far?

If so, I'll ask the mods.

Go on, ask us and glue may be applied ;-)

---

Bob Smith
Member of Seti PIPPS (Pluto is a Planet Protest Society)
Somewhere in the (un)known Universe?

Go on, ask us and glue may be applied ;-)

OK, you're on. Please heat up the glue-pot - here we go.

I'd ask that nobody else post in the thread I'm about to create, and that the thread be locked except when I have new data to add - let's have a clean data record, and keep the commentary separate (here is as good as anywhere to start with).

Wot, no comments after all that work - even on my typos? :P

SETI data distribution history

Wot, no comments after all that work - even on my typos? :P

SETI data distribution history

Here's a comment for you:

Can you please explain the contents and meaning of those charts in the sticky thread, or point me to such?

Thanks!

---

Wot, no comments after all that work - even on my typos? :P

SETI data distribution history

Here's a comment for you:

Can you please explain the contents and meaning of those charts in the sticky thread, or point me to such?

Thanks!

I tried to do that with the very first post in the thread, before the first chart. Does that explain it enough, or are there any specific other points you think I should have covered?

(That very first post has a small graphic to explain the colour coding: it took a long time to display when I tested just now. If you can't see the colour-coding legend, try refreshing the thread until it displays)

Richard, nice work!

Waiting for the March 2014 release.

From your work, I see the years 2008 to 2012 are preaty much complete (from a processing point of view).


Assuming arecibo doesn't record data every single day.

From your February 2014 report, for the year 2013, what are your conclusions about the work left processing for the year 2013?

---

Richard, nice work!

Waiting for the March 2014 release.

From your work, I see the years 2008 to 2012 are preaty much complete (from a processing point of view).


Assuming arecibo doesn't record data every single day.

From your February 2014 report, for the year 2013, what are your conclusions about the work left processing for the year 2013?

Haven't really thought about that. Judging by the server status page, we're still working hard at 2013, and not finished yet.

One of the problems is that we don't know in advance how many 'tapes' are recorded each day. Some days they can't record much (if Arecibo is being used for radar work, with a high-power transmitter blanketing the dish): other days, they can record pretty much all day, and just keep generating a new name every 50 GB.

I could have a look at the data, and try to compare 'highest tape letter' with 'number of tapes seen' - that would give a pointer to one source of gaps.

I could have a look at the data, and try to compare 'highest tape letter' with 'number of tapes seen' - that would give a pointer to one source of gaps.

Nice Richard.

We are now crunching 2013 data at full speed, as Astropulse is offline

---

I could have a look at the data, and try to compare 'highest tape letter' with 'number of tapes seen' - that would give a pointer to one source of gaps.

That exercise suggested that there were at least a hundred tapes from 2013 that I (personally) hadn't seen by Saturday morning (1st. March) - from 65 different 'recording days'. I'm a cuda-only cruncher, so I wouldn't normally see a tape with a very high proportion of VLARs - if there are any like that, I might miss them.

Richard can you do an update at mid-month? 15 March?

---

Richard can you do an update at mid-month? 15 March?

Beware the Ides of March?

It would be technically possible, but do you have any particular reason for asking?

I don't want this to turn into a competitive race, or in any way to turn into pressure on the staff to fill particular gaps in the record, explain why we haven't processed tapes for a particular day/week/month, or anything like that. Just a gentle reassurance that we're working on real, first-time data - and to give you all some idea of just how much data we're processing now. I hope the staff might just feel a little pride in what they're achieving with our help, despite the struggles of the last few weeks. No more than that.

I'm just curious about the progress we made.

I've seen on the SS page that we have gone through a lot of tapes lately.

---

I'm just curious about the progress we made.

I've seen on the SS page that we have gone through a lot of tapes lately.

Several per day. I've seen:

109 new tapes in January 2014
119 new tapes in February 2014 (damn shorties!)

I'll add that information to the reports, but I'm not convinced that it's a good idea to report more often than once a month. This was started as a simple historical record, and since it draws on only one user's records, it's probably not complete anyway. If I agree to twice a month, then the request will be weekly, and then 'why did you miss tape xyz?'.

I'll probably ask the mods to hide the monthly reports after a while anyway, and replace them with a 6-month or annual summary, to prevent the thread displaying too many graphics and being too slow to load.

I'll probably ask the mods to hide the monthly reports after a while anyway, and replace them with a 6-month or annual summary, to prevent the thread displaying too many graphics and being too slow to load.

Good ideia!

You could do the same, hidding the mid-month report, and replace it with the monthly one.

---

I'll probably ask the mods to hide the monthly reports after a while anyway, and replace them with a 6-month or annual summary, to prevent the thread displaying too many graphics and being too slow to load.

Good ideia!

You could do the same, hidding the mid-month report, and replace it with the monthly one.

Sure he could, but that is not the point. These charts started out as something Richard was doing on his own machines, for his own interest, not as a service of the project. That he is sharing them with the rest of us, and willing to update them periodically, shows what a nice guy he is, and we should applaud him for it (and buy him a beer if you are ever in his neighborhood).

But he has said he doesn't want to update more often than once a month. Let's not push him for more work than he wants to do. If enough people pester him about more frequent updates, he may decide he has better things to do, and stop sharing his data with the rest of us.

---

Donald
Infernal Optimist / Submariner, retired

This was started as a simple historical record, and since it draws on only one user's records, it's probably not complete anyway.

Since, based on RAC at least, it appears that I'm probably running through about 6 times as many WUs in a month as you are, I got curious as to whether that greater volume might produce a more "complete" list. It turns out that it doesn't seem to add much, if anything, to what you found. With only two exceptions, none of the tape counts for WUs I've received that were created in February (the only month I've run through so far) exceed those shown in your chart. Those two exceptions are 23 May 2013, for which I found 1 tape (23my13ab) where none is shown in your chart, and 31 Mar 2013, for which I found 4 tapes (31mr13aa, 31mr13ad, 31mr13ag, 31mr13ah) where your chart shows 3.

Of course, I'm just comparing numbers of tapes for each month, since I can't do a one-for-one comparison of actual tape names. Perhaps there are a few other minor deviations. Then, too, these small differences might simply be due to methodology. I'm parsing the info from WU detail pages in my archive, which means the month I'm assigning to a tape comes from WU creation date, rather than the date I actually received a task.

Here's a link to my February 2014 tape list, if you'd like to do a tape-by-tape comparison with your own list. My archives only go back through May 2013 (and the latter part of April), but I'd be happy to produce lists for what I have, if you think it might be useful. (Now that I have a parser set up, I think it'll only take about 5 minutes or so to generate each monthly list.)