Not sure if anyone else thinks this is a good idea, but can we replace those 10 & 15 gap metrics with something else?
I am using primes/s and candidates/s eg:
[2014-11-15 10:59:11] pps: 14669 / 14287 candidates/s 63998895
[2014-11-15 10:59:41] pps: 13121 / 14136 candidates/s 63321793
[2014-11-15 11:00:11] pps: 13572 / 14100 candidates/s 63159069
This is just the number of "numbers" scanned, in effect how fast numbers are skipped/tested. I just accumulate sievesize for every call of run_sieve.
It is the only way I can see of measuring performance across different miners and different parameters (tuning parameters is why I added it to mine).
Regards,
--
bsunau7