[QUOTE=CADavis;179575]I have quite a few.. with end dates somewhere around 60-90 days on some.[/QUOTE]

Well 90 days still gets you done before the anniversary.

Oh and by the end of July I will have completed my 100th LL in the <10M range since Oct 30 of last year with a couple dozen left after that.

I've got about 60 days of sub-33M assignments left on 5 cores, but I'm done once those finish. The new assignment system seems to be working pretty well, so I personally no longer feel the need to be especially proactive.

[QUOTE=Kevin;179601](...) but I'm done once those finish. [/QUOTE]

What type of work will you be switching to?

[QUOTE=lycorn;179644]What type of work will you be switching to?[/QUOTE]

I had two quad-cores that were 4 sub-33M LL for a while, switched to 2 P-1 and 2 sub-33M LL a few months ago, and I want them to eventually be 3 P-1 and 1 LL-D. There's also a Pentium 4 that's getting switched from sub-33M LL to LL-D. We need more P-1 workers to feed the LL-NF option (also it's easy to gain ground in the stats). And since I can't put everything on P-1, LL-D is a good second option. Smaller work units, I'm trailing in the stats there, and I don't really like how far double-checking has fallen behind first-time testing. My new goals are to make top 30 in individual P-1, and push TPR ahead of ahmerali in team P-1.

[quote=Kevin;179601]I've got about 60 days of sub-33M assignments left on 5 cores, but I'm done once those finish. The new assignment system seems to be working pretty well, so I personally no longer feel the need to be especially proactive.[/quote]

Exactly. I feel it not worth my while to waste time trying to catch small exponents any more.

PS: I'm giving a hand pushing TPR in P-1 too. One core dedicated to P-1 with two more that will be feeding in stage 1 completed exponents to it.

I'm hoping that having three workers on P-1 with highmemworkers=2 will balance Stage 1 and Stage 2 enough so that I won't have to manually interfere too often.

I might start keeping track of some P-1 stats to see how long until we overtake ahmerali, and also try to get a feel for if it would be possible to catch MCAS if we made a concerted effort. Just using the current stats and the google cache, in the past 3ish days ahmerali gained about 17 GHZ-days, and TPR/MCAS both gained about 53 GHZ-days. I think that has us passing ahmerali in about 2 weeks.

I too switched from LL to LL-D with candidates as low as possible. I'm able with my dual-core to complete one Double Check a week. But what gets me is the really low ones (18,000,000-21,000,000) not getting DC'd in a timely matter. The current GIMPS Milestone report shows:

All exponents below 18,000,989 have been tested and double-checked.
Countdown to proving M(20996011) is the 40th Mersenne Prime: 600.

The first of those has been the case for at least the past several months (I think Feb. 23rd)!
Yet my current LL-D candidates are in the 22,350,000 range.

[quote=Glenn Leider;180352] All exponents below 18,000,989 have been tested and double-checked.
Countdown to proving M(20996011) is the 40th Mersenne Prime: 600.

The first of those has been the case for at least the past several months (I think Feb. 23rd)!
Yet my current LL-D candidates are in the 22,350,000 range.[/quote]
[URL]http://www.mersenne.org/report_exponent/?exp_lo=18000989&exp_hi=&B1=Get+status[/URL]
18000989 was assigned to double check by starrynte on 2008-12-05. I'm not sure if there's a way to view the status of it. You could PM him (he visits these forums) if you want to see if he can speed it up or turn over a save point for you or someone else to finish. :smile: Actually, I'll do that, and include a link to this thread. If nothing else, we can at least know why the lowest Mersenne number to not have a double check is taking so long! :razz:
If nobody else will step up with a better offer and/or save file, and assuming starrynte doesn't want to finish it, I can run it from start to finish in about 9 days on one of my two cores (using both cores would only shorten it to 6 or 7 days, not really worth it to me). I'd like to see that bottom range move up, too.

34% done. I'll temporarily set that worker to two threads, and pause worker #2 just so it finishes faster :D

[quote=Glenn Leider;180352]But what gets me is the really low ones (18,000,000-21,000,000) not getting DC'd in a timely matter.[/quote]Are you saying that 10 completions per day of DC assignments in that range aren't "timely"?

If you were following the "New milestone" thread ( [URL]http://mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=7082[/URL] ) in the Data subforum, you'd see that ckdo and Mini-Geek have been regularly posting a countdown of the remaining DCs under M(20996011). The count was

900 on June 10,

800 on June 19,

700 on June 28,

and 600 today.

Regular progress. Quit griping.

[quote]The current GIMPS Milestone report shows:

All exponents below 18,000,989 have been tested and double-checked.
Countdown to proving M(20996011) is the 40th Mersenne Prime: 600.

The first of those has been the case for at least the past several months (I think Feb. 23rd)!
Yet my current LL-D candidates are in the 22,350,000 range.[/quote]Just because one particular L-L at 18,000,989 is still incomplete doesn't mean that there isn't any progress in the ranges below M40. There is no rule requiring that DC completions be reported in numerical order, [U]so the ongoing DC at 18,000,989 is NOT HOLDING UP PROGRESS ON ANY OTHER DC OF HIGHER EXPONENTS![/U]

When it finishes, there will probably be a sudden jump in the number within "All exponents below nn,nnn,nnn have been tested and double-checked" sentence. Apparently, you'd feel better if you saw a steady sequence of small increases in that number, but the eventual long-term result will be the same either way ...

... unless impatient participants hound the owners of "slow" systems so much that they stop contributing to GIMPS -- which will SLOW DOWN GIMPS, not SPEED IT UP! Every assignment a "slow" system works on is one that no "fast" system has to do, so that the "fast" systems can work on [I]other[/I] assignments -- [I]assignments that would not be making any progress at all if the "fast" systems were diverted to poaching the assignments of "slow" systems.[/I]

As I've explained several times, the "slow" systems are performing their fair share of GIMPS work.

Let them do it, while other "fast" systems do their fair share instead of trying to do [I]both[/I] their fair share [I]and[/I] the "slow" systems' fair share.

101 MPH is faster than 100 MPH.

[quote=Mini-Geek;180355]18000989 was assigned to double check by starrynte on 2008-12-05. I'm not sure if there's a way to view the status of it. You could PM him (he visits these forums) if you want to see if he can speed it up or turn over a save point for you or someone else to finish. :smile: Actually, I'll do that, and include a link to this thread. If nothing else, we can at least know why the lowest Mersenne number to not have a double check is taking so long! :razz:[/quote]Why do you want to hound starrynte? Do you want starrynte to drop out of GIMPS, so that some "fast" system has to be diverted from some other assignment?

GIMPS has plenty of mechanisms to take care of assignments that are not making regular progress!

[quote]If nobody else will step up with a better offer and/or save file, and assuming starrynte doesn't want to finish it[/quote]Why would you want to assume that? Because you're so eager and impatient to see a number change that you just can't stand it?

[quote]I can run it from start to finish in about 9 days on one of my two cores (using both cores would only shorten it to 6 or 7 days, not really worth it to me). I'd like to see that bottom range move up, too.[/quote]Sure -- LET'S DRIVE ALL THE "SLOW" SYSTEMS OUT OF GIMPS, SO THAT GIMPS'S PROGRESS WILL BE [B][U]REDUCED[/U][/B] BY THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT THE "SLOW" SYSTEMS WOULD HAVE DONE WHILE THE "FAST" SYSTEMS DID SOMETHING ELSE!

I'm sick of seeing this impatient tunnel-vision attitude that would hurt GIMPS.

Have some respect for the contributions of others.

Stick to your own assignments ... or is there some reason why you'd want to slow GIMPS down by taking one of your systems off the assignment you already have for it?

.