[quote=S485122;149636]Which OS are the computers experiencing that problem using ?[/quote]
I have 3 machines, and all 3 were affected. Two of them are P4's running XPSP3 (32 bit). The other, my quad-core machine, is running XP64 + SP2. In all 3 machines Prime95 was installed in C:\Program Files\Prime95. (The quad-core machine is running the 64-bit version of Prime95.)


-FES

[QUOTE=fes016;149623]However, on the CPU page I no longer have the option to drop the CPU -- there is no checkbox next to the name. (I don't want to drop the CPU anyway, but there used to be a checkbox there.) Also, I can't click on the name to see its properties, like I used to.[/QUOTE]

I changed this yesterday. The CPU description and the CPU properties page were meaningless for v4_computers. v4_computers do not send their properties to the v5 server and even if they did how could I display the many conflicting v4_computers' properties on one web page.

[quote=S485122;149636]Which OS are the computers experiencing that problem using ?[/quote]

Ubuntu 8.10/32

[QUOTE=Prime95;149567]By forcing clients to factor further, I'm reducing the HTTP workload on the v5 server.[/QUOTE]

But on the other hand, factoring to low limits was a work type very useful for old machines (e.g. AMD Thunderbird and/or PIII type, that were very good at TFing numbers to 2^62). Would it be too hard to allow this lower limits to be assigned to machines identified as being below a certain standard?

[QUOTE=lycorn;149726]But on the other hand, factoring to low limits was a work type very useful for old machines (e.g. AMD Thunderbird and/or PIII type, that were very good at TFing numbers to 2^62). Would it be too hard to allow this lower limits to be assigned to machines identified as being below a certain standard?[/QUOTE]

Even a 486 should be able to rip through trial factoring an exponent around 300 million to 2^64.

You do bring up a good point. LMH is not a good place for a fancy Core2 or Phenom machine.

[QUOTE=lycorn;149726]But on the other hand, factoring to low limits was a work type very useful for old machines (e.g. AMD Thunderbird and/or PIII type, that were very good at TFing numbers to 2^62). Would it be too hard to allow this lower limits to be assigned to machines identified as being below a certain standard?[/QUOTE]

I had a PIII 866 Mhz that since v5 was getting assigned TF from 58-61 bits.
It was finishing each assignment in 2 minutes ... over 700 a day.
While it was cool to see my lowly PIII finishing 2,000 completions after 3 days I had to admit the assignments were too small.

A couple days ago that was changed to TF from 58-64 bits.
It is now finishing in just under 30 minutes with results reported at 58-62, 63 and 64 bits.
To me that is a more reasonable assignment.
I wouldn't have a problem going another bit or two. It should still finish in a few hours.
I'm guessing that even a 100 Mhz machine wouldn't take more than a day to 64 bits.

I suspect there are not many machines below that level on GIMPS, mind you, there was another thread where someone asked if Prime95 would run on an Intel 486.

Considering LL tests are now even taking the newest hardware weeks or months I don't think spending hours or a day or two factoring is excessive.

[QUOTE=Prime95;149689]Right now I'm reprocessing all the data that has gone through the v4 bridge. This will tell me if any data was not processed.
[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the update.

Not sure if this test case will help but as I suggested in another post according to my ciphering several results completed between Oct 20-27 are NOT accounted for:

If I cut off this list at the right place it should account for the difference of about 100 points between the total on the summary report and the total off all my v5 results listed.

[CODE]v4_computers 50699557 NF 2008-10-27 19:51 0.0 [UNASSIGNED] 2.2846
v4_computers 50700259 NF 2008-10-27 12:51 0.0 no factor to 2^69 2.2846
v4_computers 50700233 NF 2008-10-27 12:51 0.0 no factor to 2^69 2.2846
v4_computers 50700229 NF 2008-10-27 12:51 0.0 no factor to 2^69 2.2846
v4_computers 50700217 NF 2008-10-27 12:51 0.0 no factor to 2^69 2.2846
v4_computers 50092069 NF 2008-10-27 08:46 0.0 no factor to 2^69 2.3123
v4_computers 50700197 NF 2008-10-27 05:51 0.0 no factor to 2^69 2.2846
v4_computers 50643877 NF 2008-10-27 05:51 0.0 no factor to 2^69 2.2133
v4_computers 50699533 NF 2008-10-27 04:41 0.0 no factor to 2^69 2.2846
v4_computers 50699501 NF 2008-10-27 04:41 0.0 no factor to 2^69 2.2846
v4_computers 50699483 NF 2008-10-27 04:41 0.0 no factor to 2^69 2.2846
v4_computers 50699443 NF 2008-10-27 04:41 0.0 no factor to 2^69 2.2846
v4_computers 42286817 C 2008-10-27 04:41 0.0 380B3599FA8513__ 73.4146[/CODE]

What happened to my V4 LL assignment?
 

[quote=fes016;149623]
{snip}

My User Summary page shows the correct number of assignments (36), but the Assignment Details page does not (only 31). The assignments under v4_computers (4) are accounted for; it's on my quad-core system where the discrepancy occurs. If I go to the Computer Properties page for my quad-core system, it shows 32 work units assigned. My worktodo.txt file also shows 32 exponents. The assignment details page only shows 27. I haven't yet determined which exponents are missing.

{snip}

I realize that TPTB on GIMPS are working hard and doing their best during the V5 transition, but I'm frustrated with all of the glitches that are going on. And I only have three computers to manage; I can't imagine how some of you with scores of computers are coping.


-FES[/quote]

In a similar vein, I am a little worried. My V4 computer, running v24, which I don't have much access to (about once every 6 months, it's my Dad's who is in his 70s), was nicely working away, but now the Assignment Details page no longer has the next assignment it would have/will work on next. The Exponent Status page reports it has been assigned to someone else, see attachment on posting that follows. But it still shows as me having it included in the Account Summary page, see attachment on posting that follows.

The question is, Does my remote V4 client know the exponent has been re-assigned, or is it going to try the LL only to find someone else has done it/is doing it?

The exponent is the 1st in the red box on the attached old screen grab.

Can someone help me?
T.I.A.

Attachment for posting above
 

Attachment for posting above

2nd Attachment for posting above
 

2nd Attachment for posting above

Looking much better....

Before you read on ... I'm not trying to be picky or trivial but I hope that by identifying what I notice I am helping give symptoms that can help pinpoint problems that likely most of you are having.

On the plus side:
- My "Stats for the Last 365 Days" looks right now
- My lost v4 Assignments have returned
- The Top Producers reports now include the V4 results
- My team results now include "most" of my results including v4, v5 and the transition week (see next section)

Still not quite there:
- The completed v4 assignments are still listed
- My "Lifetime Completed by Result-Type" is still missing the completions listed in post #114
- My completions for the period between when the userid blanked (a couple days ago) and was fixed by me are NOT showing up and I assume NOT credited.
- My team total is about 200 credits below my account total (and 100 below my Lifetime completed) ... not sure I can be sure what is missing and/or possibly double counted because the #of results and #of credits are different in more than 1 row.

Thanks for the progress