How about all the exponents accidentally assigned to "anonymous" during the transition to v25? Can they all be unassigned and "anonymous" be barred from being assigned any exponents?

[QUOTE=NBtarheel_33;147913]Right, and I'm inclined to believe the milestone report, as even on the v4 server, we've been beyond 18M for a long time now. I wonder if this is a case of a "stuck" exponent, or if there is just an error in the database.[/QUOTE]

The v4 milestone report reported an exponent as tested once even if the LL test returned a suspect error code. In the v5 report, tested once means "tested once with a clean error code". Thus, the discrepancy.

How feasible would it for the Prime95 "Status..." dialog to show ETAs for subtasks? For example, when assigned a first-time LL test, TF and/or P-1 may still need to be done -- could the ETAs for these subtasks be shown seperately from the final LL ETA?

Is there any good reason why TF isn't multithreadable? I don't pretend to really understand the math or programming behind it, but my simple mind sees it as a simple series of divisions... is there any reason why it can't split out into [i]x[/i] threads and perform [i]x[/i] trial divisions simultaneously?

Hmm! TF should be multi-threadable much more easily than LL I would think.

ECM stage2 doesn't show the amount of RAM being used in the worker window titlebar the way P-1 stage2 does.

On a related issue, which was previously reported privately, but reposting it here so that there's a record of it:

On the mouseover status in the system tray icon, the string seems to be limited to 127 bytes -- my tooltip looks like this:[quote]47.99% of M1833551 ECM curve 1 stage 2
80.33% of M1834069 ECM curve 1 stage 1
62.36% of M1833457 ECM curve 1 stage 1
30.98% of[/quote]I assume this is probably a Windows limitation that you can't do much about; if so then you should probably use descriptors conservatively, especially with 8-threaded processing is coming to mainstream in the next month... even in a style like this you can barely make do for 6 workers fitting in <127chars:[quote]47% M91833551 ECM1.2
80% M91834069 ECM1.1
62% M91833457 ECM1.1
80% M91834069 ECM1.1
62% M91833457 ECM1.1
30% M91833677 ECM2.1[/quote]For 8 workers you'd only have room for[quote]47% M91833551
80% M91834069
62% M91833457
30% M91833677
47% M91833551
80% M91834069
62% M91833457
30% M91833677[/quote]

Got this error while doing ECM on small mersenne number.

[CODE]
Sending result to server: UID: diamonddave, F19 has a factor: 70525124609, AID: 2751DEC8CB5FDB26640BF95AC78DB665

URL: http://v5.mersenne.org/v5server/?v=0.95&px=GIMPS&t=ar&g=f69a5848a0053231f3ba2348afe4a3bb&k=2751DEC8CB5FDB26640BF95AC78DB665&m=UID:+diamonddave,+F19+has+a+factor:+70525124609,+AID:+2751DEC8CB5FDB26640BF95AC78DB665%0A&r=3&d=1&A=1&b=2&n=524288&c=1&CR=1&B1=3000000&stage=1&B2=300000000&f=70525124609&fftlen=32768&ss=41&sh=97E646553C764CBD6729826D914DCA1A
RESPONSE:
DEBUG SQL: insert_row_array(): INSERT t_stats_work_credit ( user_id, cpu_id, team_id, stats_type, attempts, successes, dt_received, source, CPU_GHz_days ) VALUES( '67', '3542', NULL, 1006, 1, 0, GETDATE(), 2, 0.86608333333333 )<br>DEBUG SQL: table t_stats_work_credit inserted 1 row(s)<br>pnErrorResult=0
pnErrorDetail=Already have ECM factor 70525124609 for 2^524288+1
CPU credit is 0.86608333333333 GHz-days.
==END==

PrimeNet success code with additional info:
Already have ECM factor 70525124609 for 2^524288+1
Getting assignment from server
URL: http://v5.mersenne.org/v5server/?v=0.95&px=GIMPS&t=ga&g=f69a5848a0053231f3ba2348afe4a3bb&c=2&ss=18467&sh=ED93BDAA1F4730893BABB6E6DD119B37
RESPONSE:
pnErrorResult=0
pnErrorDetail=Server assigned ECM work.
g=f69a5848a0053231f3ba2348afe4a3bb
k=59A06E3A5368F36D40E0BEA044CA22BD
A=1
b=2
n=524288
c=1
w=5
B1=3000000
B2=300000000
CR=3
==END==
[/CODE]

I am pretty sure I selected ECM on mersenne and not on fermat number, looks like my preference got switched. :confused:

Also, why do I get ECM assignment on a number that as a known factor?

Factor5 multi-threads TF. Luigi, do you care to comment...

The Prime95 benchmark writes to [i]results.txt[/i][quote]Compare your results to other computers at [url]http://www.mersenne.org/bench.htm[/url][/quote]which no longer exists. That page should redirect to [url]http://v5www.mersenne.org/report_benchmarks/[/url] and/or Prime95 should put the correct URL in future benchmarks.

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;147773]
Stop and restart prime95 (it will suck the .add into the .txt)
Force a manual communitcation.
Repeat a manual com, checking the box to update the expected completeion dates.

You have now had the v5 server assign you the work that you want.
[/QUOTE]

I just tried creating a .txt file called worktodo.add and typed in

[Worker #1]
Test=100000039,75,1

But nothing happened, even after exiting Prime95, restarting, and doing a manual communication... worktodo.add.txt has not been absorbed into worktodo.txt; it just seems to be ignoring the new file.

[QUOTE=jinydu;148532]worktodo.add.txt has not been absorbed into worktodo.txt; it just seems to be ignoring the new file.[/QUOTE]Because it is a ".txt" file not a ".add" file.

Jacob