Lost assignment?
 

I am still working on a Mersenne with exponent in the 332,000,000 range. I tried to update the server with my work, and it said the assignments are no longer assigned to me. Luckily I had an old worktodo file that had SOME of the info still stored in it.

I just checked my mersenne.org profile, and I don't see the assignment.

How can I verify whether the exponent is still assigned to me? What do I do to get the exponents reassigned to me if they are not?

[quote=dominicanpapi82;220087]
How can I verify whether the exponent is still assigned to me?[/quote]

Go to Results queries -> Exponent status.

[quote=lycorn;220090]Go to Results queries -> Exponent status.[/quote]
It says "no factor from 2^76 to 2^77 by "(MY NAME)" on 2009-05-16", but it doesn't say the exponent is assigned to me.

[QUOTE=dominicanpapi82;220092]It says "no factor from 2^76 to 2^77 by "(MY NAME)" on 2009-05-16", but it doesn't say the exponent is assigned to me.[/QUOTE]

Then it's not assigned to you.
You should be able to get it assigned to you so you can report the results one of these ways: (preferably the first)
Go to [url]http://www.mersenne.org/manual_assignment/[/url], log in, and request the sort of work you're doing (TF, I suppose) on the exponent(s) you need to re-reserve (using the exponent range boxes). Use the worktodo.txt lines and assignment IDs it gives you. When you're done, make sure the clients communicated that directly to the server, or paste/upload the results in to [url]http://www.mersenne.org/manual_result/[/url]
Put the worktodo.txt lines in clients without the assignment IDs and let it communicate it all to PrimeNet. If PrimeNet says there's a problem with the assignment (evidenced by Prime95 writing N/A in the file instead of an assignment ID), you should see what's up and go from there.

Wow, I just noticed the line:

AssignedLL testing to "S########n" on 2010-04-25
I'm actually 25% of the way through this assignment. I'm almost surely going to finish before this person. Is it possible to contact the person and let them know?

[quote=Mini-Geek;220094]You should be able to get it assigned to you so you can report the results[/quote]You mean, "... so you can get credit for the result", I think.

dominicanpapi82 can always report the result, regardless of assignment.

[quote=dominicanpapi82;220096]AssignedLL testing to "S########n" on 2010-04-25
I'm actually 25% of the way through this assignment. I'm almost surely going to finish before this person.[/quote]... setting up a classic GIMPS tragedy (* sigh *) where the holder of a re-assignment has the prospective first-time LL "demoted", while in progress, to a double-check when the original assignee checks in first.

(The mirror-image version has the actual assignee "scooped" by a poacher with a faster system.

Which ancient Greek playwright first explored these dramatic possibilities?)

[QUOTE=dominicanpapi82;220096]Wow, I just noticed the line:

AssignedLL testing to "S########n" on 2010-04-25
I'm actually 25% of the way through this assignment. I'm almost surely going to finish before this person. Is it possible to contact the person and let them know?[/QUOTE]

I think you should abort this run and start a new one. It's not yours any more.

[quote=lfm;220105]I think you should abort this run and start a new one. It's not yours any more.[/quote]
Well, if he's already 25% of the way through, why throw all that out? Even though there will be overlap between his test and the current assignee's, whichever one is reported second will simply count as the doublecheck--so nothing goes to waste. Sure, the OP won't get credit for his test, but IMHO it's more important to maximize overall efficiency of operation than to maximize personal credit (which is just a number, after all).

[QUOTE=mdettweiler;220106]Well, if he's already 25% of the way through, why throw all that out? Even though there will be overlap between his test and the current assignee's, whichever one is reported second will simply count as the doublecheck--so nothing goes to waste. Sure, the OP won't get credit for his test, but IMHO it's more important to maximize overall efficiency of operation than to maximize personal credit (which is just a number, after all).[/QUOTE]

Because he would be forceing the other person to waste even more time. I am assuming they are mainly interested in the prize (kinda silly maybe but its the way things are).m If by some weird chance it is prime he will have stolen the prize from the oother guy.

If he really wants to run a doubole check he should wait till the first time result is in and get it assigned to him properly as a double check.

[QUOTE=mdettweiler;220106]Well, if he's already 25% of the way through, why throw all that out? Even though there will be overlap between his test and the current assignee's, whichever one is reported second will simply count as the doublecheck--so nothing goes to waste. Sure, the OP won't get credit for his test, but IMHO it's more important to maximize overall efficiency of operation than to maximize personal credit (which is just a number, after all).[/QUOTE]

As for wasting his old 25%, he did that when he quit for 6 months or more and allowed it to be reassigned. We can't just wait forever for these guys to get back around to us. When you quit you should accept the consequences. If the project as a whole has to accept a little wasted capacity, that's nothing special either.

Actually I expect the point will be mute, if he dropped out once before he probably will again without completing any result.

[quote=lfm;220107]Because he would be forceing the other person to waste even more time. I am assuming they are mainly interested in the prize (kinda silly maybe but its the way things are).m If by some weird chance it is prime he will have stolen the prize from the oother guy.

If he really wants to run a doubole check he should wait till the first time result is in and get it assigned to him properly as a double check.[/quote]
Right, I see what you mean. I guess it depends on what one considers a "waste": someone mainly interested in the prize money probably would see a doublecheck as mostly a waste for him personally. I wonder if it's possible to reserve the exponent specifically as a doublecheck with the manual assignment page without having to wait for the currently assigned test to complete first? It's been done before, such as with StarQwest's 100M test on which doublechecking began while the first test was still in progress, IIRC. (Then again, that was before Primenet v5, so that may be entirely moot now.)

[quote=lfm;220109]As for wasting his old 25%, he did that when he quit for 6 months or more and allowed it to be reassigned. We can't just wait forever for these guys to get back around to us. When you quit you should accept the consequences. If the project as a whole has to accept a little wasted capacity, that's nothing special either.

Actually I expect the point will be mute, if he dropped out once before he probably will again without completing any result.[/quote]
I don't believe that was the case: given that the exponent is in the 100M digit range, it would seem more likely that the exponent just ran into the 1-year limit rather than the OP having actually "quit".

[QUOTE=mdettweiler;220111]I don't believe that was the case: given that the exponent is in the 100M digit range, it would seem more likely that the exponent just ran into the 1-year limit rather than the OP having actually "quit".[/QUOTE]

It would have to run for 6 months without a progress report even? Is it offline and still running? It can't be that old a machine if it really did get to 25%, its hard to immagine its not on the internet at all but I guess anything is possible.

lfm, I appreciate your sentiment, but I don't plan to waste a year of work because my copy of prime95 didn't communicate with the server.

[QUOTE=dominicanpapi82;220115]lfm, I appreciate your sentiment, but I don't plan to waste a year of work because my copy of prime95 didn't communicate with the server.[/QUOTE]

Why didn't it send in regular updates? was its connection to the internet bad or disabled? If you don't fix it, it will probably happen again. And why did it take so long for you to notice?

So says George in another thread
 

[url]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=145498&postcount=9[/url]

[QUOTE]The v5 server reserves the right to reassign exponents that take longer than a year to complete. [B][U]This won't happen for 100M exponents.[/U][/B] The warning is for users that reserve small exponents that will take years to complete. In the past, we've been very, very tolerant of reservations that take several years to complete. The new policy tries to strike a better balance. [/QUOTE]

[quote=petrw1;220122][URL]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showpost.php?p=145498&postcount=9[/URL][/quote]
In this case, that seems to be a moot point since the 1-year deadline only kicks in when the client is reporting progress to the server often enough to keep extending the "normal" reassignment dates. In this case, server communication didn't occur, so it would have been reassigned after 60 days IIRC (long before the 1-year deadline).

[QUOTE=mdettweiler;220126]In this case, that seems to be a moot point since the 1-year deadline only kicks in when the client is reporting progress to the server often enough to keep extending the "normal" reassignment dates. In this case, server communication didn't occur, so it would have been reassigned after 60 days IIRC (long before the 1-year deadline).[/QUOTE]

60 days -> 6 months actually

It seems the current assignment for the number was made more than a year after the initial assignment so there might have been yet another assignee and timeout in the interim.

dominicanpapi82 you should in Prime95 choose Options - Preferences and set "Days between sending new end dates" to 30 or lower, or in prime.txt add the line:
DaysBetweenCheckins=30
or lower than 30.

[quote=ATH;220159]dominicanpapi82 you should in Prime95 choose Options - Preferences and set "Days between sending new end dates" to 30 or lower, or in prime.txt add the line:
DaysBetweenCheckins=30
or lower than 30.[/quote]

I can't set that option anymore. It will delete my worktodo.txt file. I will have to submit my work manually when it finishes (in 2013!) The only other option I see is contacting the guy who got reassigned my exponent and letting him know, but from what I have seen that's not part of policy.

[quote=dominicanpapi82;220176]I can't set that option anymore. It will delete my worktodo.txt file. I will have to submit my work manually when it finishes (in 2013!) The only other option I see is contacting the guy who got reassigned my exponent and letting him know, but from what I have seen that's not part of policy.[/quote]
What if you took the exponent and reformatted its worktodo.txt line like this:
Doublecheck=[i]exponent[/i],[i]TF bits[/i],1
i.e., as a doublecheck without any assignment key. If I understand correctly, that should register the exponent as a doublecheck and then pick up exactly where the save file left off before.

I've never tried this myself; can someone confirm whether it's possible to register a doublecheck for an exponent while the first-pass test is still in progress?

[QUOTE=mdettweiler;220177]What if you took the exponent and reformatted its worktodo.txt line like this:
Doublecheck=[i]exponent[/i],[i]TF bits[/i],1
i.e., as a doublecheck without any assignment key. If I understand correctly, that should register the exponent as a doublecheck and then pick up exactly where the save file left off before.

I've never tried this myself; can someone confirm whether it's possible to register a doublecheck for an exponent while the first-pass test is still in progress?[/QUOTE]

As was discussed in this thread: [URL="http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=13472"]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=13472[/URL] all LL tests have random shifted S0 start value, so the test will count as a doublecheck even if its left at Test= in worktodo.txt

[quote=ATH;220182]As was discussed in this thread: [URL]http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?t=13472[/URL] all LL tests have random shifted S0 start value, so the test will count as a doublecheck even if its left at Test= in worktodo.txt[/quote]
Yes, but what I was thinking is that by changing it to Doublecheck=, Primenet could register the test as a doublecheck to "officially" be run alongside the first-pass test. That way, the OP can set his client to send end dates at a reasonable interval without the client talking to Primenet and thinking "hey, this isn't assigned to me, I'll delete it now".

[quote=mdettweiler;220183]Yes, but what I was thinking is that by changing it to Doublecheck=, Primenet could register the test as a doublecheck to "officially" be run alongside the first-pass test. That way, the OP can set his client to send end dates at a reasonable interval without the client talking to Primenet and thinking "hey, this isn't assigned to me, I'll delete it now".[/quote]

I tried this just yesterday actually, with one of the remaining couple of numbers below 30402451. It doesn't work, that is, even though I used a DoubleCheck= line, the assignment key still came up as N/A.

I might add that I technically wasn't trying to maliciously poach, as the assignment of the number in question is something like 17 months old, beyond the 1-year assignment expiration threshold.

I still think dominicanpapi82 should give up on this exponent. He lost it when he didn't set up his machine and monitor it properly. He should start a new one.

The server will not support two outstanding assignments on the same exponent even if they might not overlap such as a LL and a DC. Normally there is plenty of work for everyone and there is no need to double up.

[quote=lfm;220230]I still think dominicanpapi82 should give up on this exponent. He lost it when he didn't set up his machine and monitor it properly. He should start a new one.

The server will not support two outstanding assignments on the same exponent even if they might not overlap such as a LL and a DC. Normally there is plenty of work for everyone and there is no need to double up.[/quote]
Normally I would agree, but in this case the 25% already completed represents one [i]year[/i] of CPU time. A CPU-year is a whole heck of a lot of time--consider, for instance, just how many 50M exponents could have been crunched in that amount of time. We wouldn't throw away the equivalent number of completed 50M exponents, so why do so with this?

[quote=mdettweiler;220231]Normally I would agree, but in this case the 25% already completed represents one [I]year[/I] of CPU time. A CPU-year is a whole heck of a lot of time--consider, for instance, just how many 50M exponents could have been crunched in that amount of time. We wouldn't throw away the equivalent number of completed 50M exponents, so why do so with this?[/quote]

Took the text right off my keyboard, LOL. This is exactly how I feel about it. Given that the exponent wasn't reassigned until April 25, which is only two months ago, and he is 25% of the way done - by xorbe's experience, dominicanpapi is *at the very least* 2-3 months ahead of this new assignee. If you're troubled by the ethics of possibility of stepping on the new assignee's toes, dominicanpapi could simply finish the result and wait to submit it as a double-check. By and large, chances are it isn't prime, anyway. Chances also are high that the re-assignee (I notice it's an S-series ID, which is one automatically generated by PrimeNet - indicating that the assignee may have even signed up for GIMPS accidentally as part of a stress test!) might abandon the test long before its completion (remember that many newbies are going for the gusto on the EFF prize, unaware of just what is involved in testing a number of that size!).

If we were talking about 25% of a run-of-the-mill 50M exponent, I'd maybe say go ahead and toss it (and even then, it seems silly not to finish it as a double-check). I've lost large chunks of 40M and 50M assignments on borged machines, and it's quite annoying. But given the time involved in, as well as the chance of the reassignee never finishing, a 332M assignment, I'd say throwing away a quarter of that work is definitely doing GIMPS more harm than good.

Hells bells, *I'll* gladly take your save file, and let it finish at a slow enough pace to be a double-check (or at least give the re-assignee his year to finish, which by the way, is now only 10 months).

IMO the likelyhood that a third test will be required anyway is quite high considering how long these tests are taking. The shifted doublecheck will probably be done with a much faster machine much later that will be much more likely to be correct. Hopefully then one of the currently running tests will match. I personally doubt both will. Can anyone say how likely it is that this test will be errorfree?

[quote=henryzz;220297]IMO the likelyhood that a third test will be required anyway is quite high considering how long these tests are taking. The shifted doublecheck will probably be done with a much faster machine much later that will be much more likely to be correct. Hopefully then one of the currently running tests will match. I personally doubt both will. Can anyone say how likely it is that this test will be errorfree?[/quote]
All the double checks on my previously done exponents on this computerhave matched, so probably higher than a random sample. I don't know the complete answer to your question, though.

//EDIT: And I agree with you that, given the number of 10M LL tests and double checks that don't match, there is definite value in not discontinuing a test that will complete circa 2013/2014.

Given the amount of time it takes to complete a first time test, which is the same order of magnitude as the life of a computer and one order of magnitude below the average HUMAN lifetime, I would even go as far as saying that we should start two tests of an exponent at the same time and modify the prize money allotment accordingly. I hate to take this decidedly morbid and extremely tangential route, but heck, the probability of DYING between when you start a test and when it's double checked, assuming it's double checked checked immediately, is hovering around 3% on average!

[quote=dominicanpapi82;220298]I hate to take this decidedly morbid and extremely tangential route, but heck, the probability of DYING between when you start a test and when it's double checked, assuming it's double checked checked immediately, is hovering around 3% on average![/quote]Let's simply turn this into a reminder to all of us to ask ourselves how long it's been since we last updated our last will and testament.

[quote=cheesehead;220308]Let's simply turn this into a reminder to all of us to ask ourselves how long it's been since we last updated our last will and testament.[/quote]
Or whether we have one! Hah!

There's no better time than now to start.

Start by listing what will be required in your will.

The following sites are about how to write your own will, but what I'm saying is just read about the various data items (such as, but not limited to, how you want your stuff divvied up), and start listing them.

[url]http://www.mahalo.com/how-to-write-a-will[/url]

[url]http://www.wikihow.com/Write-Your-Own-Last-Will-and-Testament[/url]

Don't actually write the will; just write a list of what will go into the will. You'll need that list when you go to a lawyer to have the will written for you, anyway.