Why is it that there are over 8000 users but in the producers list (which goes all the way down to 0.000 GHz-days) I'm ranked out of just 2845 people? Does this mean that 5155 people haven't yet switched to the v5 server? Why is it taking them so long to upgrade? I know some people have many computers (aka curtisc) but this seems like a lot. Don't they ever check their machines!? Also, why is "anonymous" listed repeatedly in the producers list? I thought the #1 ranked "anonymous" accounted for all those that had yet to switch. Yes, I'm just bored.

[quote=stars10250;159440]Also, why is "anonymous" listed repeatedly in the producers list? I thought the #1 ranked "anonymous" accounted for all those that had yet to switch.[/quote]
Those who haven't updated their v4 accounts to v5 are lumped together as one big anonymous entry. Those who have neither v4 nor v5 accounts get their own unique anonymous entry.

[QUOTE=stars10250;159440]Why is it that there are over 8000 users but in the producers list (which goes all the way down to 0.000 GHz-days) I'm ranked out of just 2845 people? Does this mean that 5155 people haven't yet switched to the v5 server? Why is it taking them so long to upgrade? I know some people have many computers (aka curtisc) but this seems like a lot. Don't they ever check their machines!? Also, why is "anonymous" listed repeatedly in the producers list? I thought the #1 ranked "anonymous" accounted for all those that had yet to switch. Yes, I'm just bored.[/QUOTE]

I can answer your last question first because I asked the same one a while back: The "ANONYMOUS" at the top of the list is the unclaimed v4 credit. It will disappear from the report Oct 20, 2009 (1 years after the big crash - not the Stock Market Crash). The rest of them are people who chose to NOT put a name when they registered so they are truly "anonymous".

I believe the 8000 users are all V5 users. As to why there are only 2845 in the standings, I wondered the same thing today actually. My guess is that the other 5155 have not submitted a result yet...though that seems like a high percentage. On the page: [B][url]http://www.mersenne.org/primenet/[/url][/B]
on the top right is the chart: Recently Active and Work Done. For 30 days it has the count 3437. I interpret this as meaning that some of these 3437 only reported as active but did NOT submit a result yet so 2845 results may be reasonable.

As to how many v4 users have yet to convert (or finish converting):
- some never will: i.e. they quit long before, or in some cases right after Oct 20.
- The "ANONYMOUS" points is almost 40% of ALL points; but it is dropping which means they are still being converted. Enough that the points converted out is more than the points still being contributed by those not yet converted.
- I found a post from shortly before the crash that indicated there were about 70,000 computers registered. Again, some will never be converted. We now have over 52,000 and the number is still rising; however the daily thruput is almost constant. This suggests to me that most of "new" computers are V4 computers still being converted; thereby migrating the thruput from ANONYMOUS to a v5 computer.

And if you truly are bored you can still get at the Team_Prime_Rib standings report from Oct 20; determine from the 90 day results how many "probably" quit before then; determine what their v5 points total would be and therefore get a rough idea how much of ANONYMOUS will never convert.

[QUOTE=petrw1;159426]Thanks ... and more precisely so as not to upset the server would I:

a. Add the assignments to the destination CPU.
b. Do a manual communication, expecting the server to show them assigned to the destination CPU. Or will they show up as assigned to both until step d?
c. Delete them from the source CPU
d. Do a manual communication.[/QUOTE]

It would appear this works AND the answer to the last question in b. is NO: The man.comm. on the destination CPU makes the assignments show as the moved exponent belonging to the destination only.

[QUOTE=petrw1;158782][QUOTE=petrw1;154815][CODE]
Today's Numbers (That was on Dec 23)
Teams 121
Users 5791
CPUs 40240
TFLOP/s 38.349
GHz-Days 19174.259 [/CODE]

[CODE]Today's Numbers - Jan 15,2009.
Teams 132
Users 7667
CPUs 50001
TFLOP/s 37.974
GHz-Days 18986.851 [/CODE]

Interesting 3 weeks later; 10,000 more CPUs but the thruput numbers are slightly lower.[/QUOTE]

[CODE]Today's Numbers - Feb 4, 2009
Teams 152
Users 9410
CPUs 60018
TFLOP/s 42.110
GHz-Days 21054.916 [/CODE]

3 more weeks; 10,000 more CPUs...HOWEVER...thruput is now up by over 10%. :fusion:
This is not a one-time. In fact TFLOP/s has been in the 42-44 range every time I looked over the last week. IMHO this means we are now seeing NEW members and not just V4-V5 conversions.

Major exprirations??? or Drop-out??? or error???
 

Hundreds of lower DC and Thousands of lower LL, TF and PM assignments suddenly available?

[quote=petrw1;161616]Hundreds of lower DC and Thousands of lower LL, TF and PM assignments suddenly available?[/quote]

[quote=Prime95;152303]All exponents assigned by the v4 server prior to Oct. 20 that were not currently assigned and have not had an LL result reported since Oct 20 have now been reserved by anonymous. I doubt many of these will be completed by the v4 client, however they now 90 days to contact the server and avoid expiration.

All manual reserved exponents (by email) have now been reserved by anonymous for one year.

The problem with the v5 server not unreserving some v4 exponents when an LL result is reported is not fixed. Frankly, the transferred v4 assignments are a mess. It is easier for me to just let the dust settle and have the normal expiration policies clean up the mess. If your assignments web report shows some active v4 assignments that you know you have completed, then feel free to manually unreserve them (or not - they'll expire eventually).

The good news? The server is now handing out much smaller exponents for testing, double-checking![/quote]

The 90 days are over today...

Actually it's been 60 days since December 4th (or thereabouts), when all of the legacy v4 reservations were put back under the expiration system. Is there any reason we thought it would be 90 days instead of 60?

[quote=Kevin;161636]Actually it's been 60 days since December 4th (or thereabouts), when all of the legacy v4 reservations were put back under the expiration system. Is there any reason we thought it would be 90 days instead of 60?[/quote]

George said 90 days in his post quoted above but looks like he implemented 60 days.

A related problem I have with the server reports is that they do not show days to expiry on your current exponent list.

[quote=garo;161652]A related problem I have with the server reports is that they do not show days to expiry on your current exponent list.[/quote]

I would like that feature back as well.

[QUOTE=garo;161652]A related problem I have with the server reports is that they do not show days to expiry on your current exponent list.[/QUOTE]

I don't mean to sound like a smart aleck but isn't it just a matter of checking if the "Last Update" date is more than 60 days ago?